..sometimes places with the same postal (ZIP) code have different taxes.
A zip+4 should give enough accuracy to determine by that level.
In my state (Ohio), I live right on a main street that runs through the center of the city.
On the side of the street I live on, there is one tax rate. Across the street is a different tax rate from being in a township, and down maybe 4 blocks or so from where I live on that same street is the same base tax as on my side of the street, PLUS the county tax.
All three of those areas are in the same zip+4.
Another few blocks past there is another zip+4 (BUT note it is the same 5 digit zip still!) that has the first and last taxes in the above description, yet the side of the street is reversed.
If the state, city, and county governments refuse to use ZIP codes or borders on a map, how do you expect us to do it?
Surprise -- so far there have been no such comments... except yours.
There most likely are plenty of them, but they are all sitting down at -1 Troll and will remain that way.
Slashdot has been anti-technology for quite a few years now (Note how the first 1-3 posts on every new technology story is along the lines of "Pfft this is teh dumz0rs!" or "Why bother? That won't make money"
My personal observation is that less than 1/10th of slashdots current and active community are in any way interested in new technology for the sake of technology (aka Computer geek)
The other 9/10ths either have zero curiosity about how things function, and quite a few are actively against new technology.
Apple, being one of the more public facing R&D companies around in the computer biz, of course deals with creating lots of new technology. This is the main reason they are hated on by most current slashdotters, and why those of us that DO like technology for the sake of technology get modded off as trolls and off-topic.
Wrong. A word is architecture specific. A byte is ALWAYS 8 bits.
A byte can't possibly "always" be 8 bits, when a byte means a single character. This is the definition of 'byte' from 1959. People only started getting confused recently (Recently being the past 20 years) since the IBM 360 systems which first introduced the 8 bit byte and then became a defacto standard in the 80s. Then as new computer users moved into the front, such as yourself, you assume a byte must be 8 bits because that is all you have seen a byte to mean.
There are systems that encode a single byte with 7, 8, 9, and 10 bits still today.
The only time a byte is 8 bits is when the system is structured around 8 bit units. Hop on a PDP or Cray system and you will see a byte is 7 or 9 bits respectively.
I'll never use raid. I swore off it a couple of years ago, after 4 drives failed in one week. My former boss thought it was great, and then HE had 2 drives fail on a 6-drive box. Near-simultaneous multiple-drive failures are a fact of life.
That is an unfortunate lesson to learn that way, but an easy mistake to make when first learning RAID.
There is no easy set rule, but one nearly never creates an array that can only tolerate one drive failure. I'm thinking systems like laptops, where two drives is a physical max, thus you don't have any choice but a simple mirror.
If you have 4 controller cards and 4 disks hanging off each controller for 16 total drives, in that case one should plan for 4 drives failing at the same time. One also will tend to assume the failure will be more likely to happen over single points of failure (The controller cards) so you can also plan ahead what groups of drives are likely to die together.
How the drives in the array are connected and their failure zones should be most all you will need to plan an array that can survive that type of failure.
For example, if your controllers are A B C and D, and each has hard drives 1 2 3 and 4, then you can assume the more likely failure is all 4 numbered drives together on a single lettered controller. This means if A-1 is dead, if a multiple drive failure happens most likely drives A-2,3, and A-4 will also disappear at the same time.
One simple (and poor) way to do this is make 4 seperate raid-5 arrays. Each array will contain drives of the same number, one from each controller. Then one can stripe those four arrays together into one big volume (Be it raid-0, LVM, evms, etc).
One should also always try to have floating hot spares, and enough to cover a multiple drive failure as well. In the above example, since each controller has 4 drives, there should be 4 hot spare drives floating. Of course this raises the number of controllers, drives per controller, and failure points as well. The math can get nasty quick.
No, in the US T1 system, each B channel is 56 kbps, due to the entire T1 using inband signalling through bit-robbing (see above referenced article), and not out-of-band signalling as in the E1 system used elsewhere. At least that was the case back when ISDN became popular in the early-to-mid 90s. The 16 kbps data channel for each B pair is independent of this
Actually a PRI could be configured either way. The raw DS0 line gives you 24 'B channels' that are 64k each.
One configuration is to use one whole B channel for signaling, leaving you with 23 channels of 64k ISDN dialup typically used this configuration to get the full 64/128k ISDN customers expected.
For analog dialup however, the PRI can be configured as 24 channels of 56k each. This is the bit robbing you are speaking of. For analog 56k dialups, this is a better option because the extra bandwidth will not be used, and you get a full extra channel out of it.
But if you wanted to support 64k or full 128k BRI, you just get one less channel and can only hold 23 calls over the DS0 instead of 24.
At the ISP I worked for back then, we had two banks of modems. Two PRIs as 23x 64k channels (46 total) for ISDN customers, and four PRIs as 24x 56k for our modem dialups (96 total then) Each bank had its own phone number, but pooled within the bank.
The only thing that makes a DS0 into a T1 is when the DS0 is provisioned as 24x 64k channels with NO signaling. This is called a T1 now, and as it is point to point it does not need any signaling, so you don't lose any channels and get your full 1.44mbit.
I could walk on my knees out of a bar, get into my car and drive away all over the road. But unless some medical est has been done, They could not charge me with DUI. Dangerous driving? Sure and even contempt of the police if it was that I was sober and did it to play with them, but not drunk driving.
You can be charged with any crime an officer believes you have committed.
You are then taken to jail (depending on bond) to await your trial.
At the trial, one of two things happens. Either the charge is found to be baseless (IE the medical test proved you were not drunk, as the officer believed you were) and dismissed (You 'remain innocent', or in the real world, you are proven innocent) Or, the medical tests shows you are drunk, and the charge is moved to a conviction.
Once one is convicted, then the punishment is started. Usually jail time, fines, loss of car and license, etc.
Only after you are convicted does this information get published in the paper.
Sadly, your information will be posted via twitter in this town long before the trial step.
So you Mr. Can't be Convicted for DUI, will find that you are wrong. The officer will believe you to be drunk when you are not. You are charged and taken down to jail to await trial. THEN your info is posted to twitter for all to see. FINALLY the court sees the blood test results, sees you were not drunk, has the charge overturned as baseless, and you now 'remain innocent' with your name plastered over the DUI twitter list which everyone will believe only lists true drunk drivers.
Welcome to the drunk driver club, even after not even drinking!
I'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) standardized by the ISO in 1986.
To answer your curiosity, it is because existing prior art is not involved with the granting of a patent. In other words, it doesn't matter if prior art exists or not, in order to get a patent approved.
Prior art is only used as a defense when being challenged by a patent holder.
So if it truly does count as prior art, it is fully up to Microsoft to present it at the patent case to get the patent thrown out. That can't happen until after Microsoft is sued for patent violation, which in turn can't happen until someone files for a patent on it.
Since both of those items have come to pass, the question now is, why didn't Microsoft use that as prior art to halt the trial?
The two options that come to mind are a) They didn't know about it, or b) they did and tried, but the judge said it was not valid as prior art.
On one hand, being Microsoft I would be shocked if A was the case. However, on the other hand, being Microsoft it is not too shocking.
It's pretty obvious really. The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society
Hmm
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That must be why the constitution uses the words 'benefit commercially' and 'income', or words meaning anything remotely similar, exactly zero times:P
That's pretty troubling, I wouldn't think the device should accept a service book from anywhere but it's authorized BES server. That means that *any* BB can probably be silently "upgraded" with a SB that compromises encryption (as an example) by the ISP.
Nonsense. Google as a lot of lockin. I'm often curious about other search engines, but it's always too much trouble to give them a proper trial.
So, Verizon is not bad because they force you to use Bing and do not allow any competing search engines to be manually entered or selected by the user... Yet Google IS bad because they make you happy and you are too lazy to change away from them to the many options that exist?
There is nothing wrong with being lazy, but being lazy is NOT being locked in.
I am curious why the submitter of this article did not include a link to his own search engine, that works as well as Google does but does not abide by any laws and actively breaks them as he suggests search engines should do.
I'd definitely use it for the few hours it was in operation before the owner was hauled through court and the servers confiscated...
Surely he is afraid that if the news appear on internet he'll have a hard day finding a job when he gets out.
That's assuming he does get out.
Of course it heavily depends on the prison he is in, but even among prisoners molesting children does not go over well at all. A rapist is not the best thing to be when locked in a cell with people that would willingly (and most likely would) beat him to death where the officers will do less than nothing to help (Typically when they hear screaming, they purposely delay in intervening.)
Protesters are STUPID. We are protesting against AT&T response that their infrastructure can't handle the load By DDOSing them. Isn't that like beating the crap out of person who says you are too violent.
I think you are on to something here. I like your idea much more!
We should instead just beat the crap out of the people at AT&T!
If the end game results in ATT charging people for what they use, who exactly suffers?
Ironically, only AT&T suffers.
The 3-5% of their customers with smart phones who use bandwidth heavy will now have to pay a bit more, or cut back usage.
The other 95-97% of their customers that previously were paying a lump sum for data they did not use, will now all be paying next to nothing.
If you are charging 100% of your data plan customers say $20/mo, and now are changing things so you only charge 3-5% of them say $40 (The $20 plus extra usage), and the remaining 95-97% who USED to pay $20/mo will now be paying for what they use, so only a dollar or two a month.
Multiplied out, AT&T will be losing millions of dollars a month, in exchange for a couple thousand dollars a month.
AFAICT (can't RTFA, slashdotted), the comments this guy is protesting are not for canceling contracts immediately, but more like "in the future, we'll probably stop offering that, and then sunset the existing contracts when they come up for renewal".
Of course. But as the GP you replied to stated, one side effect of AT&T violating their contract with customers by canceling the unlimited data plan, is that the contract is no longer valid.
If you sign up and get a new phone for $10 which cost them $200, with the expectation of having the phone paid off over the 2 year contract (Standard operating procedure), then once AT&T violates the contract it is canceled for both ends.
At that point you can cancel services and there will be no termination fees. You also literally got a $10 phone, as AT&T will need to eat the extra cost.
Now multiply that by the number of customers with unlimited data plans who will be out of contract early, and that is a significant sum AT&T will owe to the phone makers that they won't be getting from ex-customers now.
Please to note that this is ON TOP OF anything caused by the protest.
In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.
And I haven't seen many products that still use that method of activation. Certainly no products from any companies in their list, except IBM.
These days you get the entire car with a lock on your steering wheel, and the activation code removes the lock for the feature that was already there. No need to obtain a steering wheel during activation like this patent covers, so (other than maybe IBM) none of those companies are violating it.
And IBM even was doing this with mainframes decades before 1990.
Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?
They already do, just not exactly as you stated.
It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC. In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.
It is a sad state of things and probably shouldn't be this way, but it has been law for long before Apple (or even Microsoft) started doing this.
Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?
Being at fault and being responsible for are two different things.
For example, if one of my employees did something illegal at the company, it would be their fault for doing something illegal, yet I would be and would have to take responsibility for my employees actions.
I'm not saying that example is the case here (I don't know either way), but it is very possible to be responsible for something that is not your fault.
Yes you can. Smith&Wesson released their first debugging tool for it over a century ago. The application remains illegal for some odd reason I don't really understand.
Ah yes, the original 'point and click' interface for remotely managing stupid.
And it is illegal now you say? My apologies but from the place I hide to avoid stupid, we don't get many updates on all these new fangled laws.
You realize almost every new concept exists as technology showcases before they make there appearance in the general public right?
Ok, I can understand why you didn't read the article, and why you didn't read the summary, but how did you manage to read the end of my post and not see the beginning?
I'll requote for you adding the important bits:
'We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources.
Slashdot Mirror
..sometimes places with the same postal (ZIP) code have different taxes.
A zip+4 should give enough accuracy to determine by that level.
In my state (Ohio), I live right on a main street that runs through the center of the city.
On the side of the street I live on, there is one tax rate. Across the street is a different tax rate from being in a township, and down maybe 4 blocks or so from where I live on that same street is the same base tax as on my side of the street, PLUS the county tax.
All three of those areas are in the same zip+4.
Another few blocks past there is another zip+4 (BUT note it is the same 5 digit zip still!) that has the first and last taxes in the above description, yet the side of the street is reversed.
If the state, city, and county governments refuse to use ZIP codes or borders on a map, how do you expect us to do it?
Surprise -- so far there have been no such comments... except yours.
There most likely are plenty of them, but they are all sitting down at -1 Troll and will remain that way.
Slashdot has been anti-technology for quite a few years now (Note how the first 1-3 posts on every new technology story is along the lines of "Pfft this is teh dumz0rs!" or "Why bother? That won't make money"
My personal observation is that less than 1/10th of slashdots current and active community are in any way interested in new technology for the sake of technology (aka Computer geek)
The other 9/10ths either have zero curiosity about how things function, and quite a few are actively against new technology.
Apple, being one of the more public facing R&D companies around in the computer biz, of course deals with creating lots of new technology. This is the main reason they are hated on by most current slashdotters, and why those of us that DO like technology for the sake of technology get modded off as trolls and off-topic.
Wrong.
A word is architecture specific.
A byte is ALWAYS 8 bits.
A byte can't possibly "always" be 8 bits, when a byte means a single character.
This is the definition of 'byte' from 1959. People only started getting confused recently (Recently being the past 20 years) since the IBM 360 systems which first introduced the 8 bit byte and then became a defacto standard in the 80s. Then as new computer users moved into the front, such as yourself, you assume a byte must be 8 bits because that is all you have seen a byte to mean.
There are systems that encode a single byte with 7, 8, 9, and 10 bits still today.
The only time a byte is 8 bits is when the system is structured around 8 bit units.
Hop on a PDP or Cray system and you will see a byte is 7 or 9 bits respectively.
Origins of the word 'byte':
http://www.trailing-edge.com/~bobbemer/BYTE.HTM
I'll never use raid. I swore off it a couple of years ago, after 4 drives failed in one week. My former boss thought it was great, and then HE had 2 drives fail on a 6-drive box. Near-simultaneous multiple-drive failures are a fact of life.
That is an unfortunate lesson to learn that way, but an easy mistake to make when first learning RAID.
There is no easy set rule, but one nearly never creates an array that can only tolerate one drive failure. I'm thinking systems like laptops, where two drives is a physical max, thus you don't have any choice but a simple mirror.
If you have 4 controller cards and 4 disks hanging off each controller for 16 total drives, in that case one should plan for 4 drives failing at the same time. One also will tend to assume the failure will be more likely to happen over single points of failure (The controller cards) so you can also plan ahead what groups of drives are likely to die together.
How the drives in the array are connected and their failure zones should be most all you will need to plan an array that can survive that type of failure.
For example, if your controllers are A B C and D, and each has hard drives 1 2 3 and 4, then you can assume the more likely failure is all 4 numbered drives together on a single lettered controller.
This means if A-1 is dead, if a multiple drive failure happens most likely drives A-2,3, and A-4 will also disappear at the same time.
One simple (and poor) way to do this is make 4 seperate raid-5 arrays. Each array will contain drives of the same number, one from each controller.
Then one can stripe those four arrays together into one big volume (Be it raid-0, LVM, evms, etc).
One should also always try to have floating hot spares, and enough to cover a multiple drive failure as well.
In the above example, since each controller has 4 drives, there should be 4 hot spare drives floating.
Of course this raises the number of controllers, drives per controller, and failure points as well. The math can get nasty quick.
No, in the US T1 system, each B channel is 56 kbps, due to the entire T1 using inband signalling through bit-robbing (see above referenced article), and not out-of-band signalling as in the E1 system used elsewhere. At least that was the case back when ISDN became popular in the early-to-mid 90s.
The 16 kbps data channel for each B pair is independent of this
Actually a PRI could be configured either way.
The raw DS0 line gives you 24 'B channels' that are 64k each.
One configuration is to use one whole B channel for signaling, leaving you with 23 channels of 64k
ISDN dialup typically used this configuration to get the full 64/128k ISDN customers expected.
For analog dialup however, the PRI can be configured as 24 channels of 56k each. This is the bit robbing you are speaking of. For analog 56k dialups, this is a better option because the extra bandwidth will not be used, and you get a full extra channel out of it.
But if you wanted to support 64k or full 128k BRI, you just get one less channel and can only hold 23 calls over the DS0 instead of 24.
At the ISP I worked for back then, we had two banks of modems. Two PRIs as 23x 64k channels (46 total) for ISDN customers, and four PRIs as 24x 56k for our modem dialups (96 total then)
Each bank had its own phone number, but pooled within the bank.
The only thing that makes a DS0 into a T1 is when the DS0 is provisioned as 24x 64k channels with NO signaling. This is called a T1 now, and as it is point to point it does not need any signaling, so you don't lose any channels and get your full 1.44mbit.
I could walk on my knees out of a bar, get into my car and drive away all over the road. But unless some medical est has been done, They could not charge me with DUI. Dangerous driving? Sure and even contempt of the police if it was that I was sober and did it to play with them, but not drunk driving.
You can be charged with any crime an officer believes you have committed.
You are then taken to jail (depending on bond) to await your trial.
At the trial, one of two things happens.
Either the charge is found to be baseless (IE the medical test proved you were not drunk, as the officer believed you were) and dismissed (You 'remain innocent', or in the real world, you are proven innocent)
Or, the medical tests shows you are drunk, and the charge is moved to a conviction.
Once one is convicted, then the punishment is started. Usually jail time, fines, loss of car and license, etc.
Only after you are convicted does this information get published in the paper.
Sadly, your information will be posted via twitter in this town long before the trial step.
So you Mr. Can't be Convicted for DUI, will find that you are wrong. The officer will believe you to be drunk when you are not. You are charged and taken down to jail to await trial. THEN your info is posted to twitter for all to see. FINALLY the court sees the blood test results, sees you were not drunk, has the charge overturned as baseless, and you now 'remain innocent' with your name plastered over the DUI twitter list which everyone will believe only lists true drunk drivers.
Welcome to the drunk driver club, even after not even drinking!
I'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) standardized by the ISO in 1986.
To answer your curiosity, it is because existing prior art is not involved with the granting of a patent.
In other words, it doesn't matter if prior art exists or not, in order to get a patent approved.
Prior art is only used as a defense when being challenged by a patent holder.
So if it truly does count as prior art, it is fully up to Microsoft to present it at the patent case to get the patent thrown out.
That can't happen until after Microsoft is sued for patent violation, which in turn can't happen until someone files for a patent on it.
Since both of those items have come to pass, the question now is, why didn't Microsoft use that as prior art to halt the trial?
The two options that come to mind are
a) They didn't know about it, or
b) they did and tried, but the judge said it was not valid as prior art.
On one hand, being Microsoft I would be shocked if A was the case.
However, on the other hand, being Microsoft it is not too shocking.
Now a days I would not put it past a crafty virus maker to exploit flaws in notepad...
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2008/Jan/339
Yes it is a joke, but a funny one!
It's pretty obvious really. The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society
Hmm
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That must be why the constitution uses the words 'benefit commercially' and 'income', or words meaning anything remotely similar, exactly zero times :P
That's pretty troubling, I wouldn't think the device should accept a service book from anywhere but it's authorized BES server. That means that *any* BB can probably be silently "upgraded" with a SB that compromises encryption (as an example) by the ISP.
It's already been done elsewhere by ss8.
http://www.veracode.com/blog/2009/07/blackberry-spyware-dissected/
It is believed this is the same method the US government intercepts a blackberry with a warrant as well.
but the phone default for /its/ search app is Bing.
Doesn't "default" imply the option it chooses if you do not select an option?
Doesn't that require "options"? Like more than one?
Nonsense. Google as a lot of lockin. I'm often curious about other search engines, but it's always too much trouble to give them a proper trial.
So, Verizon is not bad because they force you to use Bing and do not allow any competing search engines to be manually entered or selected by the user...
Yet Google IS bad because they make you happy and you are too lazy to change away from them to the many options that exist?
There is nothing wrong with being lazy, but being lazy is NOT being locked in.
And did you also read the 11 "addendums" to your contract that you agreed to when you logged in to your account to pay your bill?
Uhh yes?
Are you trying to say you DON'T read things before making them legally binding to you?? And that is your argument?!?
No wonder you are so bitter, after letting the world take advantage of you so brutally...
I am curious why the submitter of this article did not include a link to his own search engine, that works as well as Google does but does not abide by any laws and actively breaks them as he suggests search engines should do.
I'd definitely use it for the few hours it was in operation before the owner was hauled through court and the servers confiscated...
Surely he is afraid that if the news appear on internet he'll have a hard day finding a job when he gets out.
That's assuming he does get out.
Of course it heavily depends on the prison he is in, but even among prisoners molesting children does not go over well at all.
A rapist is not the best thing to be when locked in a cell with people that would willingly (and most likely would) beat him to death where the officers will do less than nothing to help (Typically when they hear screaming, they purposely delay in intervening.)
(subtext:because then I can pretend the corpse I'm exsanguinating is the bastard who dumped me)
Oh great, so this entire thing is YOUR fault!
If you would have just shared your ESP with the professor, then all of this could have been prevented!
Protesters are STUPID. We are protesting against AT&T response that their infrastructure can't handle the load By DDOSing them. Isn't that like beating the crap out of person who says you are too violent.
I think you are on to something here. I like your idea much more!
We should instead just beat the crap out of the people at AT&T!
If the end game results in ATT charging people for what they use, who exactly suffers?
Ironically, only AT&T suffers.
The 3-5% of their customers with smart phones who use bandwidth heavy will now have to pay a bit more, or cut back usage.
The other 95-97% of their customers that previously were paying a lump sum for data they did not use, will now all be paying next to nothing.
If you are charging 100% of your data plan customers say $20/mo, and now are changing things so you only charge 3-5% of them say $40 (The $20 plus extra usage), and the remaining 95-97% who USED to pay $20/mo will now be paying for what they use, so only a dollar or two a month.
Multiplied out, AT&T will be losing millions of dollars a month, in exchange for a couple thousand dollars a month.
AFAICT (can't RTFA, slashdotted), the comments this guy is protesting are not for canceling contracts immediately, but more like "in the future, we'll probably stop offering that, and then sunset the existing contracts when they come up for renewal".
Of course. But as the GP you replied to stated, one side effect of AT&T violating their contract with customers by canceling the unlimited data plan, is that the contract is no longer valid.
If you sign up and get a new phone for $10 which cost them $200, with the expectation of having the phone paid off over the 2 year contract (Standard operating procedure), then once AT&T violates the contract it is canceled for both ends.
At that point you can cancel services and there will be no termination fees. You also literally got a $10 phone, as AT&T will need to eat the extra cost.
Now multiply that by the number of customers with unlimited data plans who will be out of contract early, and that is a significant sum AT&T will owe to the phone makers that they won't be getting from ex-customers now.
Please to note that this is ON TOP OF anything caused by the protest.
In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.
And I haven't seen many products that still use that method of activation.
Certainly no products from any companies in their list, except IBM.
These days you get the entire car with a lock on your steering wheel, and the activation code removes the lock for the feature that was already there.
No need to obtain a steering wheel during activation like this patent covers, so (other than maybe IBM) none of those companies are violating it.
And IBM even was doing this with mainframes decades before 1990.
Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?
They already do, just not exactly as you stated.
It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC.
In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.
It is a sad state of things and probably shouldn't be this way, but it has been law for long before Apple (or even Microsoft) started doing this.
Personally, I would be interested in a cutting pattern that guaranteed the most variety of slice sizes.
Wood chipper?
Explosives?
Some one however should send your question and ones like it to the myth busters. Might not be science, but will make for some delicious entertainment!
Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?
Being at fault and being responsible for are two different things.
For example, if one of my employees did something illegal at the company, it would be their fault for doing something illegal, yet I would be and would have to take responsibility for my employees actions.
I'm not saying that example is the case here (I don't know either way), but it is very possible to be responsible for something that is not your fault.
Yes you can. Smith&Wesson released their first debugging tool for it over a century ago. The application remains illegal for some odd reason I don't really understand.
Ah yes, the original 'point and click' interface for remotely managing stupid.
And it is illegal now you say? My apologies but from the place I hide to avoid stupid, we don't get many updates on all these new fangled laws.
You realize almost every new concept exists as technology showcases before they make there appearance in the general public right?
Ok, I can understand why you didn't read the article, and why you didn't read the summary, but how did you manage to read the end of my post and not see the beginning?
I'll requote for you adding the important bits:
'We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources.
Please insert $0.25 to play again!