However, there haven't been any arguments from KISS other than "We didnt' do it, we swear, and by the way, if we did it anyways, GPL sucks"
Well, he didn't even say that completely. From his [translated] interview:
I would say that the is no truth to the accusations.
Denial - IOW - MPlayer developers are lying. Then later on in the interview:
We are currently investigating exactly that specific part, how that can be and if it's really true what they say. Currently we have not investigated it enough to be sure whether or not they are right or wrong in their accusations.
Eh? Didn't you just say that their claim had "no truth" to it? If you haven't "investigated" and come up with your conclusions don't call the other guys liars just yet.
Then about GPL:
We have confirmed what we already knew, that when using code licensed under the GPL then we have to publish any derivative work. This means that the legal foundation is very thin and there is no place in the world that I know of where the GPL has been tested in court. So from a business perspective I would say that the license is relatively weak.
Strictly as a suggestion to KISS, if that's exactly what you believe, then don't use software that's licensed under "weak" and "untested" licenses, like your product's OS (Linux). From "business perspective" does it make sense to subject your business to that much risk? Because if GPL is so "weak" and is ruled illegal or unenforceable by a court, then you'd have no way to distribute software with your product - all that software would be covered by authors' copyrights, and you'd have no rights to distribute the system at all. Maybe, it would make more business sense for you to use "tested" and "stronger" licenses that MS Windows XP Embedded or CE come with. Just an idea.
This is just expanding iTunes into a product who's viability isn't tied solely to the iPod's success. Ogg and mp3 are out because they don't have DRM, but WMA is in because it does. Simple as that.
It is iPod getting WMA support, as others already stated.
But beyond that, I thought this was discussed several times already in response to previous related stories. First of all, iPods fully support MP3 format, so MP3 is in no way "out" and WMA "in." That's pure nonsense. Second, you can add encryption and DRM to any compression method with relatively same level of effort. There is nothing inherent in AAC or WMA that they "support" DRM and Vorbis and MP3 don't. Any of those streams can be encrypted and wrapped around with their respective containers. No DRM for Vorbis? Bullshit! A simple googling would show you otherwise.
So, moderators, stop moderating this trolling as insightful. If you don't know what you are moderating, then either go find out, or move on to the next post.
As for the taskbar, I'm sure you can make it work in a number of ways. Personally I like an individual tab for evry window. Irrespective of the way you use it, it is still a poor substitute for an app which has UI shortcomings.
I see it the other way around. Taskbar, as well as some other DE features, are tools designed to help you manage your tasks/open windows/applications/etc.. Application specific MDI is a poor substitute for DE shortcomings.
That said, I wouldn't really care if MDI was an option or not. I would never use it, but I guess some others would, so it should be a cost-benefit calculation for whoever would think about implementing it. Surely, any developer who disagrees with the current implementation can produce their own patch to allow for an MDI option?
The 'workaround' is start it up on its own desktop, but this is essentially just allowing you to do what MDI would have let you do in the first place.
I'm not a professional artist or anything, but that's what I do when I use GIMP. I can use a separate desktop, or spread the work over multiple desktops. Any kind of forced MDI would ruin the current flexibility.
As far as taskbar, that's a different topic altogether. You can make your taskbar show only items on active desktop, all desktops, group by tasks, by applications, or let the taskbar decide when to start grouping (i.e. when you have too many windows open) to reduce clutter.
If you have flexible desktop and taskbar, MDI (in this case) is useless and limiting. On the other hand, if you only have one desktop and a primitive taskbar only then would MDI be of any value.
The provision granting increased power was little more than a single line of legislation. But Dempsey said it was written in such a cryptic manner that no one noticed its significance until it was too late.
Isn't democracy grand? I wonder how many more infringements upon freedom and privacy intelligence agencies can sneak past our apathetic, uninformed legislators.
I read the article yesterday and was thinking:
Wait until they start doing md5($USA_PATRIOT_ACT_III_FULLTEXT) and passing it as a law. It could be classified as a "national security" issue if the text of the law was open to everyone, inlcuding terrorists. Then, all terrorists would need to do is to avoid whatever was written in the law.
With one-way MD5 hashing, however, the text of the law remains secret and classified, until the terrorists are arrested and tried in the closed military tribunal, where everyone has a security clearance, everything is classified, and only then judge can see the full text of the law.
Trust me, it's better this way; to protect our freedoms from evildoers and terrorists!
It seems to me like earlier versions of ReiserFS were more stable than recent ones. By earlier I mean ones that came with SuSE 7.x to 8.0. I've pulled the plug on those while running Oracle, Java apps, browsers, editors, anything I could think of, just to test it - never had to run reiserfsck even once. Current versions are a bit more prone to inconsistencies - I've had to run reiserfsck couple of times, but definitely haven't lost any data.
However, I have had Reiser toast my bookmarks and Firebird config when the system crashed while they were being updated.
I am betting this is more of a problem with how Mozilla updates bookmarks. I've seen similar occurrences with people running Mozilla on Windows - no matter what filesystem. If Mozilla (or system) crashes the right time, the bookmark file will be corrupt. Even though filesystem data may be recovered, Mozilla will not be able to open it because it may have left it in an inconsistent state or with inconsistent data; more like a bug in Mozilla. It's been a while since I've seen this though - a year or two.
Is it just me or is this design just a copy of the KDE file selector? Which is annoyingly overloaded.
I don't know if you know this but you can actually turn off all the extra stuff in KDE file selector - the navigation panel, preview panel - and then it will look like a simple location/filename selector that it seems like you prefer. Just try clicking on the "configure" icon on it.
One of the things that I like about KDE file selector, besides that it's easily customizable, is that any entry (icons, lists, however you view them) in the quick navigation panel can be either available systemwide or only for a specific application. This feature keeps clutter down and makes file lookups fast in my experience.
Left-side shortcuts on common file open/save dialog boxes can be easily configurable by using
a) group policy editor b) tweakui from microsoft. (both of these assume you are running Windows2000/XP/2003)
It's actually easiest in KDE/QT "open file" dialog: - right-click anywhere in that area on the left - add/remove/modify any links, you can easily set custom icons as well
An extremely useful feature - each entry can be present for all apps, or only for that particular app you are using; for example, for office suite, you don't need your music or video library link, and vice versa. No extra software and knowledge required.
Why should recording in a movie theater be illegal? This is a private matter between movie producers, movie theater operators, and paying customers. Why does the government need to intervene? There are already laws that deal with copyright infringement but that's a separate crime by law.
Would it be OK if gov't made recording at all concerts illegal? And passed a law to jail anybody with a camera or a microphone recording a performance? Some venues and artists allow such recording, and it's none of government's business if I will allow such a thing on my property or not. Again, copyright infringement is a different matter altogether - copyright laws deal with those issues.
With regards to stealing and theft comparison - get a clue! Recording a performance is in no way comparable to stealing property. We are not even talking about copyright infringement here, just recording. Yes, you will say, those recordings may be used for copyright infringements, so will most cars sold be used to break speed laws. Should we sentence everybody who buys a car to 1 year jail term to compensate?
Interesting read, but ultimately this would be a horror story, it could never work perfectly, and whatever broke would make people hate linux forever.
You are right - it will never work, at least never work right in every situation. Even Apple can't get the Windows-to-Mac switch process right completely.
The hardest part looks like making the file viewer show files from the windows partition and the linux partition in the same window -- at the very least, that would require Jitux to have it's own repository of packages somewhere, and that would be discoverable. It couldn't just install Lindows and then let people deal with lindows.
I'm not sure what you mean completely here, but yes, one way to see the file viewer would be to create a "My Documents" directory as a link to the same directory under Windows. As far as packages, yes, it would require changes to the "open file" and "save file" dialogs, i.e. in KDE/GNOME (whichever used), OO.o, etc. So what if modified packages are available publically?
Another problem I see here is that Windows doesn't have anything similar to a/home directory like Linux has, which means that a person's files will tend to be scattered all over the harddrive. How will you find them all?
It's called "Documents and Settings" on XP. I don't really claim to have all the details and all the solutions but you could simply create links to C:\ (D:\, etc.) drive(s) from/home/user directory.
How do you tell the difference between an important user file and an unimportant system file?
You don't. If user opens, edits and re-saves a file, you would simply save it on Linux partition.
How would you figure out what Outlook's settings are so that you could configure mozilla similarly?
Outlook used to store its settings in the registry. I don't know where it stores them with the most recent MS Office release, but there's a handy utility that exports all office app configuration in a single file. Whichever the case in the particular version of software, I don't think they are that hard to locate.
Etc etc etc. In other words, what you describe is a pipe dream at best, and that's ignoring the negative stigma that will be attached to linux when it fails miserably (even moreso than the negative stigma that windows zealots already have for linux).
Undoubtedly. I am not even remotely suggesting that someone do this, or that it will be anywhere near successful. It would be illegal, for one if it was a worm. As another poster said, it would also give a perfect opportunity to MS to declare Linux a virus. I guess I just had few ideas and spit them out.
If there actually was a Linux distribution that could do that, I would probably even take it, even without a worm to install it.
And what's keeping you from trying out one? Install SuSE 9 from FTP if you have broadband - it will do most things as described - minus moving your Windows settings over.
I dunno how much I'll be able to trust this filesystem in the future.
Yeah, probably a little more than an AC post on/., only if ReiserFS users like mp3.com (when it operated) and SourceForge.net don't say anything.
Personally, I've used ReiserFS exclusively since it first became available (and supported) with SuSE, which was few years ago, and I haven't experienced any problems with it. In fact, I was able to successfully save my data even when my IBM DeskStar (aka "Deathstar") HD started going bad - didn't lose anything.
I would guess that this is the trial run, to validate the theory behind a virus spreading in this manner. Once they know it works, the next one will have a payload.
I've got one idea on what that payload could be. Disclaimer: I am not involved in and do not condone writing and distributing virii/worms, invading and abusing others' property, or any other illegal activities; it's just a thought that occurred to me while reading this thread.
Jitux, sounding a lot like "JIT (just-in-time) Linux" could carry a windows program that would accomplish following on each host:
0. Propagate; 1. Check whether host's hardware (modem, network card, etc.) and ISP connectivity are compatible and can be used in Linux; 2. Check for broadband connection; 3. If either (1) or (2) are false, propagate and do nothing else (exit); 4. Find an extra space on the hard drive and create one small and one or more larger new partitions; if no extra space is found (as is likely), quietly defragment and resize FAT32 or NTFS to free up space; 5. Place a small Linux bootable image on the small partition, and format other partitions; 6. Gradually, over the course of next few hours (or days) download and place common packages available for Linux on larger partition(s); 7. Once all required data has been downloaded, modify MBR to boot from the smaller Linux partition that was created.
On the following boot this should happen:
1. Display bootup screen similar to Windows; maybe display - "Windows is updating settings" while Linux is being set up on hardware and packages are being installed; 2. Copy settings from Windows partition - e.g., start menu items, background, O/OE settings, etc.; make sure to install comparable packages like OpenOffice.org, KMPlayer/Xine/etc., IMs with Linux; run whatever you can with WINE from Windows partition; 3. Boot into Linux with the WM/DE that looks as much like Windows as possible - adjusted KDE or GNOME - make sure the button says "Start" on it - that part is of utmost importance; 4. When they do "open -> my documents/pictures/music/etc." always display items from both Windows and Linux partitions; when they save, only save on Linux partitions; when duplicates occur only display files from Linux partition.
Voila! JIT Linux, or Jitux! Easier said than done (and I realize there could be problems), but if successful I am guessing 90% of home desktop users will not even notice any difference.
Disclaimer (again): I do not condone distributing virii/worms, etc. or illegally messing with others' property without permission. This was just an idea that occurred to me while reading this thread.
You may be right. Court's papers mention BMW and Cadillac (and not Mercedes), but that may be intentional.
I also noticed an interesting logic in the ruling (if you read the opinion); that the company was found to be the "provider" of the communications services, and, thereby, compelled to provide access to its surveillance capabilities to the FBI. But yet, the actual interceptions made by the FBI were not considered to be "wire communications" (including wireless), but rather oral. So, the restrictions for intercepting "wire communications" and related privacy laws did not apply to them in this case.
If you look at it, within this scope, there could be 3 distinct types of cases:
1. FBI intercepts calls between 2 callers using landline or wireless telephones; in this case, they would be considered "wire communcations."
2. FBI bugs a private or public place to intercept conversations occuring at that place; in this case, it's oral communcation.
3. The last case is where FBI intercepts others' oral communications via the common "wire communication" service offered by a "provider;" the court ruled that while the company is considered a provider for the service, the actual communication intercepted was oral, and not wire. And that the method that they used for interception was mostly irrelevant.
IANAL, but if there's no law specifically covering the case (3) there should be one. It seems like gov't can avoid tougher requirements for case (1) by exploiting that route. What's to prevent companies in the future to remotely enable cell phone microphones, for example? Whether cell phone is on or off? They could be tapping into wire communications under the guise of oral communications.
OnStar is a good system, and can even save your life in the event of an accident.
OnStar commercials remind me of the crime prevention system commercial in the Minority Report. The idea that FBI can tap in and listen to the conversation in your or any car without anybody realizing anything is idiotic.
Now, from the article:
A three-judge panel in San Francisco rejected the request, but not on privacy grounds; the panel said the wiretap would interfere with the operation of the safety services.
Yes, this is true.
OnStar has said that its equipment was not involved in that case.
I don't think so. I got an impression that it was exactly OnStar technology that was involved in that case from this CNet article, saying the following:
The court did not reveal which brand of remote-assistance product was being used but did say it involved "luxury cars" and, in a footnote, mentioned Cadillac, which sells General Motors' OnStar technology in all current models. After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for "bugging" a vehicle, Judges Marsha Berzon and John Noonan said.
When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.
Now back to NYT article:
As for law enforcement, the company said it released location data about customers only under a court order. "We have no choice but to be responsive to court orders," Ms. Lama said.
Then do not track more information, and not for any longer than it is necessary for you to provide emergency and related services. Also, do not under any circumstances let FBI listen in to people's conversations in their cars via your remotely activated microphone. But that's probably not in your business plan, or PR statement.
Hmm... when I saw "3 laws safe" at the bottom of the screen that's when I associated it with Asimov. If you have read his stories, how can you forget 3 laws of robotics - most of his work is playing around with those laws.
Have any of you used RealPlayer lately? While WMP 9 has been getting more and more functional in terms of quality and features (surround-sound media formats, HD-quality video, built-in ripping and encoding, a usable Media Library), RealPlayer has become progressively bloated, ad-ridden, and full of spy-ware.
Isn't that the point? That Microsoft doesn't make any money out of WMP, while Real's business is selling their player software and subscription? Microsoft can jack up price for Windows because they are a monopoly, they can literally enforce that OEMs don't negotiate with Real and forbid them to distribute RealPlayer while theirs comes preinstalled. Those facts are very close to Netscape's case.
The fact that I have to search through the registry to disable the stupid "Real Message Center" background app is infuriating to me, and is the major reason why I avoid it and tell others to do the same.
How is this relevant? You are saying "I don't like RealPlayer, therefore, laws should not apply." It's irrelevant whether you think RealPlayer is good software or not, or whether you recommend others to use it. That doesn't prevent Real from defending its rights when others abuse it.
... how can there really be "lock-out" when there is so much competition in the Media Player market? Aside from iTunes for Windows, there is also Winamp 2/3/5, QuickTime, Sonique, Media Player Classic, and several other lesser-known ones. They all work great on Windows, and co-exist just fine with Media Player.
Also exactly the case with Netscape which could easily be installed next to IE. That's not the issue. I am guessing one of the main issues would be whether MS is locking out RealPlayer by forcing OEMs not to negotiate with Real.
The only argument I see here is Real whining that Microsoft should have to distribute RealPlayer for them.
You are getting this all wrong. Not Microsoft. They are likely complaining that they can't enter into contracts and arrangements with OEMs because MS forcefully forbids OEMs to do so. That would be a misapplication of MS' monopoly power with their Windows OS.
It looks like the card has to be held within about an inch or two of the reader. Kinda hard to steal other peoples' card info without their knowledge.
For a thief that's a piece of cake in crowded public areas such as malls, markets, airports, public transportation, etc. except now he doesn't have to gain possession of the physical property, like a wallet, but simply stand in line or pass by closely next to another person. Encryption... that's a different topic.
Speaking of airports, they could install these scanners be used at security checkpoints in conjunction with now infamous CAPPS II. If a person is identified by such a scanner and "cleared" by the system then he/she can pass with relative ease; if not, then be subjected to comprehensive security checks and searches.
Yes it is. The term 'palmtop' was commonly used before Palm Pilot hit the market. However, it's not as clear cut as NG tried to make it.
Yes, that's not very clear-cut at all. I'm not sure of how commonly "palmtop" was used before Palm started using its trademark but that aside, they are different words. Even though "palmtop" has the word "palm" in it, it was probably derived from "laptop" or something similar. Again, IANAL, but the words "palm" and "lap" could be trademarked in that case for some limited use. Even if some conditions exist that put those trademarks in doubt, it would be a stretch for someone to argue that "palm" is invalid because of "palmtop." It's possible that someone could argue that, but my guess is it would be a lot more difficult than Lindows case.
Personally, I think there is some case here, but I wouldn't put as much faith into it as you appear to be. There's huge ignored area of this debate that goes along the lines of "What did Microsoft do to evolve today's definition of a window?" 'Windows' were around before Microsoft came along with Windows, but since MS is on the scene, people's idea of what a window is today is a lot more sophisticated than it was in the olden days. Will that make a difference in court? Potentially. But IANAL.
OK, I IANAL you back, but I think of more importance is whether "window[s]" was a generic term in software when Microsoft started using it as a trademark (or could be when they registered it? not sure). If it was a generic term to begin with, then even if Microsoft evolved its properties, functionality, looks, etc. it doesn't matter. For [a stupid] example, if I took an apple and injected it with "steroids", genetically re-engineered it, made them bigger, juicier, etc.; then I became a monopoly with over 90% market share, would that give me legal grounds to registering "apple" or "apple[s]" trademark to use for my business? I don't think so.
I know that was a very stupid example, but that would be basically giving monopolies even more power to trademark common terms used in their line of business, as long as they "evolve" that product to some degree. Being a monopoly, there's a very good chance that that's already happening anyway. Take another example, could DeBeers have trademarked the word "diamond" since it was technically them who defined and evolved the meaning of a diamond in most of today's society? Again, IANAL, but I don't believe so.
And yet you haven't found the correct part. The site documentation about donations explains how much will be deducted from each transaction:
PayPal deducts from each transaction a service fee in accordance with their policies; this fee may vary depending on currency conversion and other factors. SourceForge.net also assesses a separate service fee. As of 2003-12-01, the SourceForge.net fee is 5% of the donation, with a $1 minimum.
So, SF fee is separate from PayPal's fee and is charged on top of that; and has a minimum of $1. With bunch of small donations $5 to $10 from each contributor, the SF fee alone will be in the whopping 10%-20% range.
they intentionally broke the law and are using this as a weak defense.
The part "broke the law" is jumping a gun a little bit. Yes, Lindows used the mark deliberately and not by accident - whether to imitate Microsoft's "Windows" or generic "windows" does not matter - they are the same word and they are generic to software. Yes the courts ruled in MS' favor in Sweden and Finland as far as preliminary injunction; but that hasn't been the case in the U.S. where courts ruled in Lindows' favor and, I believe, it's still on appeal.
Moreover, in all likelihood, Lindows probably didn't even challenge MS in all these countries that MS filed complaints and requests for preliminary injunction: Sweden, Finland, France, Netherlands, and probably more on the way. I am not international (or domestic) law expert but in many countries, if you fail to show up and actively defend yourself, there's a virtual guarantee that the plaintiff will prevail (under reasonable circumstances).
Lindows.com spokeswoman Cheryl Schwarzman said the company was unaware of the Finnish preliminary injunction or the filing of a complaint in France. Lindows did know of the Microsoft action in the Netherlands, she said.
I am guessing that's what happened.
And yes, generic terms can be trademarked. It's not a new grotesque phenomenon. Ask Palm.
Yes, but "Palm" is not a generic word with regard to software like "window[s]." Again, IANAL, but you can trademark generic words in certain circumstances for limited use, when the generic meaning is unrelated to those circumstances. Like "Palm" in your example, or "Apple" the computer. I'm sure if you are actually selling apples, trademarking the word "apple" will not be possible.
Oh please. If Microsoft released their next server OS as "Winux", you wouldn't be cracking jokes like that.
That just doesn't make sense. One of the main points of contention is that "Windows" is a generic term and "Linux" is not. You cannot generally trademark generic words on their own [1]. You cannot violate a claimed trademark that's a generic word. If you are trying to point out the hypocrisy, this does not qualify.
[1] Trademark laws and language constraints in different countries probably vary.
Actually, they are using Linux. Most likely, they are using UnitedLinux based on SUSE. All SUSE distros have syn flood protection enabled by default. Plus, many people report their FTP server was fine all this time on the same subnet. SCO's story doesn't add up. It looks like they shut off their webserver to have another excuse at a press release to try to drive their stock price back up in order to dump more shares to buy shiny Christmas presents.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he didn't even say that completely. From his [translated] interview:
I would say that the is no truth to the accusations.
Denial - IOW - MPlayer developers are lying. Then later on in the interview:
We are currently investigating exactly that specific part, how that can be and if it's really true what they say. Currently we have not investigated it enough to be sure whether or not they are right or wrong in their accusations.
Eh? Didn't you just say that their claim had "no truth" to it? If you haven't "investigated" and come up with your conclusions don't call the other guys liars just yet.
Then about GPL:
We have confirmed what we already knew, that when using code licensed under the GPL then we have to publish any derivative work. This means that the legal foundation is very thin and there is no place in the world that I know of where the GPL has been tested in court. So from a business perspective I would say that the license is relatively weak.
Strictly as a suggestion to KISS, if that's exactly what you believe, then don't use software that's licensed under "weak" and "untested" licenses, like your product's OS (Linux). From "business perspective" does it make sense to subject your business to that much risk? Because if GPL is so "weak" and is ruled illegal or unenforceable by a court, then you'd have no way to distribute software with your product - all that software would be covered by authors' copyrights, and you'd have no rights to distribute the system at all. Maybe, it would make more business sense for you to use "tested" and "stronger" licenses that MS Windows XP Embedded or CE come with. Just an idea.
It is iPod getting WMA support, as others already stated.
But beyond that, I thought this was discussed several times already in response to previous related stories. First of all, iPods fully support MP3 format, so MP3 is in no way "out" and WMA "in." That's pure nonsense. Second, you can add encryption and DRM to any compression method with relatively same level of effort. There is nothing inherent in AAC or WMA that they "support" DRM and Vorbis and MP3 don't. Any of those streams can be encrypted and wrapped around with their respective containers. No DRM for Vorbis? Bullshit! A simple googling would show you otherwise.
So, moderators, stop moderating this trolling as insightful. If you don't know what you are moderating, then either go find out, or move on to the next post.
I see it the other way around. Taskbar, as well as some other DE features, are tools designed to help you manage your tasks/open windows/applications/etc.. Application specific MDI is a poor substitute for DE shortcomings.
That said, I wouldn't really care if MDI was an option or not. I would never use it, but I guess some others would, so it should be a cost-benefit calculation for whoever would think about implementing it. Surely, any developer who disagrees with the current implementation can produce their own patch to allow for an MDI option?
I'm not a professional artist or anything, but that's what I do when I use GIMP. I can use a separate desktop, or spread the work over multiple desktops. Any kind of forced MDI would ruin the current flexibility.
As far as taskbar, that's a different topic altogether. You can make your taskbar show only items on active desktop, all desktops, group by tasks, by applications, or let the taskbar decide when to start grouping (i.e. when you have too many windows open) to reduce clutter.
If you have flexible desktop and taskbar, MDI (in this case) is useless and limiting. On the other hand, if you only have one desktop and a primitive taskbar only then would MDI be of any value.
I read the article yesterday and was thinking:
Wait until they start doing md5($USA_PATRIOT_ACT_III_FULLTEXT) and passing it as a law. It could be classified as a "national security" issue if the text of the law was open to everyone, inlcuding terrorists. Then, all terrorists would need to do is to avoid whatever was written in the law.
With one-way MD5 hashing, however, the text of the law remains secret and classified, until the terrorists are arrested and tried in the closed military tribunal, where everyone has a security clearance, everything is classified, and only then judge can see the full text of the law.
Trust me, it's better this way; to protect our freedoms from evildoers and terrorists!
I am betting this is more of a problem with how Mozilla updates bookmarks. I've seen similar occurrences with people running Mozilla on Windows - no matter what filesystem. If Mozilla (or system) crashes the right time, the bookmark file will be corrupt. Even though filesystem data may be recovered, Mozilla will not be able to open it because it may have left it in an inconsistent state or with inconsistent data; more like a bug in Mozilla. It's been a while since I've seen this though - a year or two.
I don't know if you know this but you can actually turn off all the extra stuff in KDE file selector - the navigation panel, preview panel - and then it will look like a simple location/filename selector that it seems like you prefer. Just try clicking on the "configure" icon on it.
One of the things that I like about KDE file selector, besides that it's easily customizable, is that any entry (icons, lists, however you view them) in the quick navigation panel can be either available systemwide or only for a specific application. This feature keeps clutter down and makes file lookups fast in my experience.
It's actually easiest in KDE/QT "open file" dialog:
- right-click anywhere in that area on the left
- add/remove/modify any links, you can easily set custom icons as well
An extremely useful feature - each entry can be present for all apps, or only for that particular app you are using; for example, for office suite, you don't need your music or video library link, and vice versa. No extra software and knowledge required.
I've always wondered why GTK didn't have this.
Michael Foale to Alexander Kaleri: I don't know about you, Alexei, but I'm taking that pull-out couch on Soyuz tonight.
Why should recording in a movie theater be illegal? This is a private matter between movie producers, movie theater operators, and paying customers. Why does the government need to intervene? There are already laws that deal with copyright infringement but that's a separate crime by law.
Would it be OK if gov't made recording at all concerts illegal? And passed a law to jail anybody with a camera or a microphone recording a performance? Some venues and artists allow such recording, and it's none of government's business if I will allow such a thing on my property or not. Again, copyright infringement is a different matter altogether - copyright laws deal with those issues.
With regards to stealing and theft comparison - get a clue! Recording a performance is in no way comparable to stealing property. We are not even talking about copyright infringement here, just recording. Yes, you will say, those recordings may be used for copyright infringements, so will most cars sold be used to break speed laws. Should we sentence everybody who buys a car to 1 year jail term to compensate?
You are right - it will never work, at least never work right in every situation. Even Apple can't get the Windows-to-Mac switch process right completely.
I'm not sure what you mean completely here, but yes, one way to see the file viewer would be to create a "My Documents" directory as a link to the same directory under Windows. As far as packages, yes, it would require changes to the "open file" and "save file" dialogs, i.e. in KDE/GNOME (whichever used), OO.o, etc. So what if modified packages are available publically?
It's called "Documents and Settings" on XP. I don't really claim to have all the details and all the solutions but you could simply create links to C:\ (D:\, etc.) drive(s) from
You don't. If user opens, edits and re-saves a file, you would simply save it on Linux partition.
Outlook used to store its settings in the registry. I don't know where it stores them with the most recent MS Office release, but there's a handy utility that exports all office app configuration in a single file. Whichever the case in the particular version of software, I don't think they are that hard to locate.
Undoubtedly. I am not even remotely suggesting that someone do this, or that it will be anywhere near successful. It would be illegal, for one if it was a worm. As another poster said, it would also give a perfect opportunity to MS to declare Linux a virus. I guess I just had few ideas and spit them out.
And what's keeping you from trying out one? Install SuSE 9 from FTP if you have broadband - it will do most things as described - minus moving your Windows settings over.
Yeah, probably a little more than an AC post on
Personally, I've used ReiserFS exclusively since it first became available (and supported) with SuSE, which was few years ago, and I haven't experienced any problems with it. In fact, I was able to successfully save my data even when my IBM DeskStar (aka "Deathstar") HD started going bad - didn't lose anything.
I've got one idea on what that payload could be. Disclaimer: I am not involved in and do not condone writing and distributing virii/worms, invading and abusing others' property, or any other illegal activities; it's just a thought that occurred to me while reading this thread.
Jitux, sounding a lot like "JIT (just-in-time) Linux" could carry a windows program that would accomplish following on each host:
0. Propagate;
1. Check whether host's hardware (modem, network card, etc.) and ISP connectivity are compatible and can be used in Linux;
2. Check for broadband connection;
3. If either (1) or (2) are false, propagate and do nothing else (exit);
4. Find an extra space on the hard drive and create one small and one or more larger new partitions; if no extra space is found (as is likely), quietly defragment and resize FAT32 or NTFS to free up space;
5. Place a small Linux bootable image on the small partition, and format other partitions;
6. Gradually, over the course of next few hours (or days) download and place common packages available for Linux on larger partition(s);
7. Once all required data has been downloaded, modify MBR to boot from the smaller Linux partition that was created.
On the following boot this should happen:
1. Display bootup screen similar to Windows; maybe display - "Windows is updating settings" while Linux is being set up on hardware and packages are being installed;
2. Copy settings from Windows partition - e.g., start menu items, background, O/OE settings, etc.; make sure to install comparable packages like OpenOffice.org, KMPlayer/Xine/etc., IMs with Linux; run whatever you can with WINE from Windows partition;
3. Boot into Linux with the WM/DE that looks as much like Windows as possible - adjusted KDE or GNOME - make sure the button says "Start" on it - that part is of utmost importance;
4. When they do "open -> my documents/pictures/music/etc." always display items from both Windows and Linux partitions; when they save, only save on Linux partitions; when duplicates occur only display files from Linux partition.
Voila! JIT Linux, or Jitux! Easier said than done (and I realize there could be problems), but if successful I am guessing 90% of home desktop users will not even notice any difference.
Disclaimer (again): I do not condone distributing virii/worms, etc. or illegally messing with others' property without permission. This was just an idea that occurred to me while reading this thread.
You may be right. Court's papers mention BMW and Cadillac (and not Mercedes), but that may be intentional.
I also noticed an interesting logic in the ruling (if you read the opinion); that the company was found to be the "provider" of the communications services, and, thereby, compelled to provide access to its surveillance capabilities to the FBI. But yet, the actual interceptions made by the FBI were not considered to be "wire communications" (including wireless), but rather oral. So, the restrictions for intercepting "wire communications" and related privacy laws did not apply to them in this case.
If you look at it, within this scope, there could be 3 distinct types of cases:
1. FBI intercepts calls between 2 callers using landline or wireless telephones; in this case, they would be considered "wire communcations."
2. FBI bugs a private or public place to intercept conversations occuring at that place; in this case, it's oral communcation.
3. The last case is where FBI intercepts others' oral communications via the common "wire communication" service offered by a "provider;" the court ruled that while the company is considered a provider for the service, the actual communication intercepted was oral, and not wire. And that the method that they used for interception was mostly irrelevant.
IANAL, but if there's no law specifically covering the case (3) there should be one. It seems like gov't can avoid tougher requirements for case (1) by exploiting that route. What's to prevent companies in the future to remotely enable cell phone microphones, for example? Whether cell phone is on or off? They could be tapping into wire communications under the guise of oral communications.
Again, I am not an expert, so I may be way off...
OnStar commercials remind me of the crime prevention system commercial in the Minority Report. The idea that FBI can tap in and listen to the conversation in your or any car without anybody realizing anything is idiotic.
Now, from the article:
A three-judge panel in San Francisco rejected the request, but not on privacy grounds; the panel said the wiretap would interfere with the operation of the safety services.
Yes, this is true.
OnStar has said that its equipment was not involved in that case.
I don't think so. I got an impression that it was exactly OnStar technology that was involved in that case from this CNet article, saying the following:
The court did not reveal which brand of remote-assistance product was being used but did say it involved "luxury cars" and, in a footnote, mentioned Cadillac, which sells General Motors' OnStar technology in all current models. After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for "bugging" a vehicle, Judges Marsha Berzon and John Noonan said.
When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.
Now back to NYT article:
As for law enforcement, the company said it released location data about customers only under a court order. "We have no choice but to be responsive to court orders," Ms. Lama said.
Then do not track more information, and not for any longer than it is necessary for you to provide emergency and related services. Also, do not under any circumstances let FBI listen in to people's conversations in their cars via your remotely activated microphone. But that's probably not in your business plan, or PR statement.
Hmm... when I saw "3 laws safe" at the bottom of the screen that's when I associated it with Asimov. If you have read his stories, how can you forget 3 laws of robotics - most of his work is playing around with those laws.
Isn't that the point? That Microsoft doesn't make any money out of WMP, while Real's business is selling their player software and subscription? Microsoft can jack up price for Windows because they are a monopoly, they can literally enforce that OEMs don't negotiate with Real and forbid them to distribute RealPlayer while theirs comes preinstalled. Those facts are very close to Netscape's case.
How is this relevant? You are saying "I don't like RealPlayer, therefore, laws should not apply." It's irrelevant whether you think RealPlayer is good software or not, or whether you recommend others to use it. That doesn't prevent Real from defending its rights when others abuse it.
Also exactly the case with Netscape which could easily be installed next to IE. That's not the issue. I am guessing one of the main issues would be whether MS is locking out RealPlayer by forcing OEMs not to negotiate with Real.
You are getting this all wrong. Not Microsoft. They are likely complaining that they can't enter into contracts and arrangements with OEMs because MS forcefully forbids OEMs to do so. That would be a misapplication of MS' monopoly power with their Windows OS.
For a thief that's a piece of cake in crowded public areas such as malls, markets, airports, public transportation, etc. except now he doesn't have to gain possession of the physical property, like a wallet, but simply stand in line or pass by closely next to another person. Encryption... that's a different topic.
Speaking of airports, they could install these scanners be used at security checkpoints in conjunction with now infamous CAPPS II. If a person is identified by such a scanner and "cleared" by the system then he/she can pass with relative ease; if not, then be subjected to comprehensive security checks and searches.
Yes, that's not very clear-cut at all. I'm not sure of how commonly "palmtop" was used before Palm started using its trademark but that aside, they are different words. Even though "palmtop" has the word "palm" in it, it was probably derived from "laptop" or something similar. Again, IANAL, but the words "palm" and "lap" could be trademarked in that case for some limited use. Even if some conditions exist that put those trademarks in doubt, it would be a stretch for someone to argue that "palm" is invalid because of "palmtop." It's possible that someone could argue that, but my guess is it would be a lot more difficult than Lindows case.
OK, I IANAL you back, but I think of more importance is whether "window[s]" was a generic term in software when Microsoft started using it as a trademark (or could be when they registered it? not sure). If it was a generic term to begin with, then even if Microsoft evolved its properties, functionality, looks, etc. it doesn't matter. For [a stupid] example, if I took an apple and injected it with "steroids", genetically re-engineered it, made them bigger, juicier, etc.; then I became a monopoly with over 90% market share, would that give me legal grounds to registering "apple" or "apple[s]" trademark to use for my business? I don't think so.
I know that was a very stupid example, but that would be basically giving monopolies even more power to trademark common terms used in their line of business, as long as they "evolve" that product to some degree. Being a monopoly, there's a very good chance that that's already happening anyway. Take another example, could DeBeers have trademarked the word "diamond" since it was technically them who defined and evolved the meaning of a diamond in most of today's society? Again, IANAL, but I don't believe so.
And yet you haven't found the correct part. The site documentation about donations explains how much will be deducted from each transaction:
PayPal deducts from each transaction a service fee in accordance with their policies; this fee may vary depending on currency conversion and other factors. SourceForge.net also assesses a separate service fee. As of 2003-12-01, the SourceForge.net fee is 5% of the donation, with a $1 minimum.
So, SF fee is separate from PayPal's fee and is charged on top of that; and has a minimum of $1. With bunch of small donations $5 to $10 from each contributor, the SF fee alone will be in the whopping 10%-20% range.
The part "broke the law" is jumping a gun a little bit. Yes, Lindows used the mark deliberately and not by accident - whether to imitate Microsoft's "Windows" or generic "windows" does not matter - they are the same word and they are generic to software. Yes the courts ruled in MS' favor in Sweden and Finland as far as preliminary injunction; but that hasn't been the case in the U.S. where courts ruled in Lindows' favor and, I believe, it's still on appeal.
Moreover, in all likelihood, Lindows probably didn't even challenge MS in all these countries that MS filed complaints and requests for preliminary injunction: Sweden, Finland, France, Netherlands, and probably more on the way. I am not international (or domestic) law expert but in many countries, if you fail to show up and actively defend yourself, there's a virtual guarantee that the plaintiff will prevail (under reasonable circumstances).
Lindows.com spokeswoman Cheryl Schwarzman said the company was unaware of the Finnish preliminary injunction or the filing of a complaint in France. Lindows did know of the Microsoft action in the Netherlands, she said.
I am guessing that's what happened.
Yes, but "Palm" is not a generic word with regard to software like "window[s]." Again, IANAL, but you can trademark generic words in certain circumstances for limited use, when the generic meaning is unrelated to those circumstances. Like "Palm" in your example, or "Apple" the computer. I'm sure if you are actually selling apples, trademarking the word "apple" will not be possible.
That just doesn't make sense. One of the main points of contention is that "Windows" is a generic term and "Linux" is not. You cannot generally trademark generic words on their own [1]. You cannot violate a claimed trademark that's a generic word. If you are trying to point out the hypocrisy, this does not qualify.
[1] Trademark laws and language constraints in different countries probably vary.
I don't think Al Gore is in any way associated with
Actually, they are using Linux. Most likely, they are using UnitedLinux based on SUSE. All SUSE distros have syn flood protection enabled by default. Plus, many people report their FTP server was fine all this time on the same subnet. SCO's story doesn't add up. It looks like they shut off their webserver to have another excuse at a press release to try to drive their stock price back up in order to dump more shares to buy shiny Christmas presents.
That's my guess anyway.