Well this is still news, not really surprising or important but still news. Sometimes stories like this generate interesting discussions (along with troll and flamebait shitstorms), so I'm ok with it.
IP laws (in general, not all of them do) currently DO hold innovation. But those guys knowingly violated GPL licensed software because they were too lazy to write their own. I don't support him the same way I wouldn't support someone stealing code from a closed project to use in their product.
The S in SD means "Secure" which is an acronym for DRM... and how that DRM exactly works is not public....
That is why SD cards are scary... Once I tried to do a low-level formatting on my SD card, but the program I used to do do it went crazy and I guess it sent random comands to my card and killed it. Using another SD-specific low-level formatter on my pda it was back, nothing else could fix it.
The article says he is the one that discovered the exploit, but he did not create the script that made 'tweets of a former British PM's wife linking to hardcore porn'. Just to clarify.
I'm talking about companies selling stuff to customers. For example, if an item costs $100 to manufacture (include researching, etc) and they sell it for $1000 it is wrong, even if lots of people want it, if it costs $100 people should pay $100 and no more. Paying more than it costs is only giving money to the company owners, and IMO that is just wrong.
Well, that and the ~40 million people that were exterminated by Communist regimes during the 20th century.
I'm not talking about specific regimes, I'm talking about the communist theory. Also, how many people were exterminated by capitalist regimes during wars that only beneficiated the small elite?
Well, IMO it should, anyone trying to sell anything above its real value is wrong, is damaging the whole society and should be illegal, but that is a matter of opinion really.
Well, I do. Being a communist means that you're either stupid or evil. Either you haven't paid attention to the past 100 years of human history or you have and actually want to bring about the kind of things that communism encourages.
OMG, hope you are kidding... Guess that the cold war and all the USA propagana against communism made you think like this.
If you dont want to argue just dont and stop saying this like you just said.
If you know so much about semiconductor manufacturing ok, I dont. For me the 1GHz processor is cheaper to manufacture than the 3Ghz processor.
And yes, I do know that businesses do not sell things based on the price of manufacture and I do understand enough of how business work. I said that I disagree with how economy works currently, have you read my comment?
No, selling low-end products should not be illegal, selling the same product that has the same cost to manufacture as high-end or low-end and charging different prices for it should. Yes yes, it was advertised on the box and etc, but we shoudnt pay more just because a company wants more money...
"I thought we lived in a capitalist society, not some kind of totalitarian Stockholm state". I'm a communist, do you have any problems with that?
I'm not talking about control in this sense, I'm talking about control as you knowing exactly how it works, waht you can do with it, etc.
If the 3GHz processor that has 512K cache costs $50 to manufacture, the upgradeable version will not cost $50 too. So if today you pay $99 for that 3GHz processor that has 512K cache tomorrow you will pay $150 for it +$50 if you want the upgrade.
Also, my main point is that it is ethically wrong. Yes, I do know that 'they charge you what the market will bear based on competition and availability', and I'm saying that this is wrong (capitalism is wrong), you should pay what it costs not more or less (actually only more ) depending on the market demand.
Look at is this way: you buy an $200 CPU and get what you pay for, instead of having to pay another $50 to unlock what you already paid for just because the company that sells it to you is too greedy.
Yeah, unfortunately you are right. Good old times when we had complete control of our PC hardware. I still cant understand what a company earns closing everything (I'm looking at you apple), I feel that if a company projected a brand new PC architecture, very optimized and stuff, completly open, linux support, etc they would be very successful. Not only geeks would fall in love with it, but also small (and big) companies that need a new architecture but dont have the money to develop it would. Sadly I dont see this happening =/
Lately tech-related news is making me afraid of our future, seriously. Count how many good and how many bad news were on slashdot this year and you will see that things are not good.
This is so ridiculous (and should be illegal)... And I tought we had control of our PC hardware, I guess in future PC hardware and architecture will be closed like game consoles are now. Also, I have read that they only unlock extra cache that was already there but showed some problem. So they are selling 'unlock cards' to unlock defective cache? Sounds good.
And Engadget seems to support it, at least their post make sound they do, corporate drones...
Oh, also does Chrome and its forks work nicely with linux? I plan moving to linux soon and want to avoid future problems. And how customizable is it without messing with the source? Does it have decent extensions? And I heard somewhere that now Chrome has native flash support... Is this right? Can it be completly disabled?
Will google some Chrome forks (I should stop using google...) and see how good they are. IE 9 is not an option, closed source, no linux support, no portable version, etc.
From your experience, what is the best Chorme fork? They work with Chrome extensions without problems?
I have been thinking about using Chrome for some time, it seems faster and already has a respectable community around it. But I also would like to avoid google stuff and I'm already used to Firefox, not sure if it is worth the trouble.... Any opinions?
The title is: "Australia To Fight iPod Use By Pedestrians" and it is tagged in "Apple". Why does every slashdot post now contains something related to apple when there is absolutely no need to?
This law looks like a great win, but "It requires ISPs to provide parental control services" and "Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security"
Having parental controls means that they are able to filter what you see, even if illegally. "Virus protection", that means that they will filter out viruses? That does not sound good.
The samething with this story. If it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone it is legal to jailbreak any phone, if it is legal to record with an iPhone it is be legal to record with any device as well.
I disagree that net neutrality is bad, if either ISP's or FCC regulates internet in a "no-neutral" manner it is still not net neutrality. IMO net neutrality IS good for people (but it may not be so good for government or companies...)
Slashdot Mirror
Well this is still news, not really surprising or important but still news. Sometimes stories like this generate interesting discussions (along with troll and flamebait shitstorms), so I'm ok with it.
IP laws (in general, not all of them do) currently DO hold innovation. But those guys knowingly violated GPL licensed software because they were too lazy to write their own. I don't support him the same way I wouldn't support someone stealing code from a closed project to use in their product.
The S in SD means "Secure" which is an acronym for DRM ... and how that DRM exactly works is not public....
That is why SD cards are scary... Once I tried to do a low-level formatting on my SD card, but the program I used to do do it went crazy and I guess it sent random comands to my card and killed it. Using another SD-specific low-level formatter on my pda it was back, nothing else could fix it.
Scary.
A bit off topic but... anyone knows if there is a way to download all wikileaks documents? I would really like to save that locally
The article says he is the one that discovered the exploit, but he did not create the script that made 'tweets of a former British PM's wife linking to hardcore porn'. Just to clarify.
I'm talking about companies selling stuff to customers. For example, if an item costs $100 to manufacture (include researching, etc) and they sell it for $1000 it is wrong, even if lots of people want it, if it costs $100 people should pay $100 and no more. Paying more than it costs is only giving money to the company owners, and IMO that is just wrong.
Well, that and the ~40 million people that were exterminated by Communist regimes during the 20th century.
I'm not talking about specific regimes, I'm talking about the communist theory. Also, how many people were exterminated by capitalist regimes during wars that only beneficiated the small elite?
Well, IMO it should, anyone trying to sell anything above its real value is wrong, is damaging the whole society and should be illegal, but that is a matter of opinion really.
Well, I do. Being a communist means that you're either stupid or evil. Either you haven't paid attention to the past 100 years of human history or you have and actually want to bring about the kind of things that communism encourages.
OMG, hope you are kidding... Guess that the cold war and all the USA propagana against communism made you think like this.
If you dont want to argue just dont and stop saying this like you just said.
If you know so much about semiconductor manufacturing ok, I dont. For me the 1GHz processor is cheaper to manufacture than the 3Ghz processor.
And yes, I do know that businesses do not sell things based on the price of manufacture and I do understand enough of how business work. I said that I disagree with how economy works currently, have you read my comment?
No, selling low-end products should not be illegal, selling the same product that has the same cost to manufacture as high-end or low-end and charging different prices for it should. Yes yes, it was advertised on the box and etc, but we shoudnt pay more just because a company wants more money...
"I thought we lived in a capitalist society, not some kind of totalitarian Stockholm state". I'm a communist, do you have any problems with that?
I'm not talking about control in this sense, I'm talking about control as you knowing exactly how it works, waht you can do with it, etc.
"It amazes me that nerds can have such irrational, retarded points of view sometimes." I say the same thing.
Yes, of course they are fucking greedy, they are a company, and that is still wrong.
And yes, that would be terrible, and I already said my reason.
If the 3GHz processor that has 512K cache costs $50 to manufacture, the upgradeable version will not cost $50 too. So if today you pay $99 for that 3GHz processor that has 512K cache tomorrow you will pay $150 for it +$50 if you want the upgrade.
Also, my main point is that it is ethically wrong. Yes, I do know that 'they charge you what the market will bear based on competition and availability', and I'm saying that this is wrong (capitalism is wrong), you should pay what it costs not more or less (actually only more ) depending on the market demand.
Look at is this way: you buy an $200 CPU and get what you pay for, instead of having to pay another $50 to unlock what you already paid for just because the company that sells it to you is too greedy.
Yeah, unfortunately you are right. Good old times when we had complete control of our PC hardware.
I still cant understand what a company earns closing everything (I'm looking at you apple), I feel that if a company projected a brand new PC architecture, very optimized and stuff, completly open, linux support, etc they would be very successful. Not only geeks would fall in love with it, but also small (and big) companies that need a new architecture but dont have the money to develop it would. Sadly I dont see this happening =/
Lately tech-related news is making me afraid of our future, seriously. Count how many good and how many bad news were on slashdot this year and you will see that things are not good.
This is so ridiculous (and should be illegal)... And I tought we had control of our PC hardware, I guess in future PC hardware and architecture will be closed like game consoles are now. Also, I have read that they only unlock extra cache that was already there but showed some problem. So they are selling 'unlock cards' to unlock defective cache? Sounds good.
And Engadget seems to support it, at least their post make sound they do, corporate drones...
Wow, so many people saying that Chrome is so much better that I might use it this week to see how good it is.
Oh, also does Chrome and its forks work nicely with linux? I plan moving to linux soon and want to avoid future problems.
And how customizable is it without messing with the source? Does it have decent extensions? And I heard somewhere that now Chrome has native flash support... Is this right? Can it be completly disabled?
Will google some Chrome forks (I should stop using google...) and see how good they are. IE 9 is not an option, closed source, no linux support, no portable version, etc.
From your experience, what is the best Chorme fork? They work with Chrome extensions without problems?
I have been thinking about using Chrome for some time, it seems faster and already has a respectable community around it. But I also would like to avoid google stuff and I'm already used to Firefox, not sure if it is worth the trouble.... Any opinions?
The title is: "Australia To Fight iPod Use By Pedestrians" and it is tagged in "Apple". Why does every slashdot post now contains something related to apple when there is absolutely no need to?
This law looks like a great win, but "It requires ISPs to provide parental control services" and "Forces to ensure the privacy of users, virus protection and network security"
Having parental controls means that they are able to filter what you see, even if illegally. "Virus protection", that means that they will filter out viruses? That does not sound good.
The samething with this story. If it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone it is legal to jailbreak any phone, if it is legal to record with an iPhone it is be legal to record with any device as well.
I really hate this kind of thing.
I disagree that net neutrality is bad, if either ISP's or FCC regulates internet in a "no-neutral" manner it is still not net neutrality. IMO net neutrality IS good for people (but it may not be so good for government or companies...)