So? I've had a crash (with reiserfs 3.x), system boots up and reiserfs-root fails to mount, after reiserfsck the filesystem is empty. I shall declare this single datapoint proves reiserfs broken.
I don't know why you took what I said that way. Nobody's personal experience is a proof of a general theory of whether ReiserFS is "good" or "bad."
I don't know what version of ReiserFS/kernel/distro/etc. you were using, but you may get "bad" ReiserFS installations with distros that don't care about it too much and default to ext3 or something else. I've seen Hans trying to correct and give suggestions to some distros to be dismissed as arrogant or whatever else. This is, of course, no reason to conclude that ReiserFS does not work. For example, Mandrake, RedHat, and others do not pay close attention to properly configuring and patching for ReiserFS, so using those combinations "out of the box" may not be safe.
Later on most systems I've switched to ext3 and xfs. Atleast they have some history and they have a _working_ fsck instead of something that just rebuilds the tree, which may or may not bring back the fs.
I don't know about XFS and ext3, but ReiserFS does not require fsck. Again, I am not trying to prove a general theory, but the only times I have personally needed reiserfsck was when the HD was dying. And even then no data was lost.
Reiserfs is still suitable for me to use on data that needs to be accessed fast but isn't particularly important;). Especially as a file name hash collision may bring unexpected trouble..
But for things like drive failures and the likes that tend to actually corrupt the data, then yes; EXT3 is the better choice.
And how do you say this? I personally have used ReiserFS on a bad HD (Deathstar) that trashed my filesystem more than few times (before I found out the cause). I have had to reiserfsck every time and did not lose any data.
Those of us immersed in the information technology world often have little or no exposure to the disciples of pure science. And undergraduate physics students don't count. Traditional scientists don't think the way IT people or even computer scientists do. We see a system, and the goal is to optimize that system to perform correctly and efficiently. Traditional scientists have no interest in applied technology. Their goal is to gather knowledge, and to hell with everything that gets in the way. Typing in a tough password, applying patches, and following "best practices" gets in the way....
But most slashdotters would have the same attitude towards other things they don't have experience with.
I am not a car mechanic or an electrician, but if my car alarm and door locks stop working, I take it to a mechanic who can fix it. I don't park the car on public street at night where it may get stolen. The excuse that since they know and care little about security, they can skip it altogether, is - as others pointed out - lame. A computer network containing sensitive or important data connected to the Internet requires security, whether you are a 3-time Nobel prize laureate or a warehouse janitor.
And as far as things that "get in the way" - security practices, or lack thereof - could easily get in the way of collecting and keeping valuable scientific data.
I'm not sure this is directly related to the SCO/IBM case, but I'd be interested in how courts see GPL in light of derivative works and linking. I'd like to know with regards to these to what extent the GPL uses the copyright law and to what extent it relies on the contract law. And in the case of the latter, how reasonable it is and far it can be legally enforced.
So when is surveillance acceptable? What level of surveillance is acceptable? Under what conditions? Why is any attempt at surveillance for the clear purpose of the protection of peoples' lives and safety always variously called a violation human rights (!) or an invasion of privacy, while there would inevitably be shrill cries of "not enough was done" if something did happen?
You ask the question the wrong way. Instead try asking yourself this: If governments had an ability and resources to track and record every move every human being ever made (chips, cameras, implants, what have you), everything they said, every action, thought they had, everything they bought, consumed, saw, heard, dreamt, etc., etc., where would you draw the line? Would you allow your whole life to be recorded and tracked in such a manner by your government without boundaries? If not, what would you think would be an acceptable level of surveillance by your government and what would be out of bounds?
How do you define these boundaries and how do you enforce them to make sure they are not abused, their powers expanded and overstepped? Instead of complaining about people who express their concerns about this issue, why don't you answer that question?
doesn't matter if it's a ridiculous claim, yahoo still made it.
Where? Yahoo TOS is, as expected, very one-sided - i.e. you, the user, have to do obey their terms as they tell you, but if you don't they are not responsible in any way, and they reserve the right to remove anything they please, but they are not obligated to. Here's one part from the Yahoo TOS:
You acknowledge that Yahoo! may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or move any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by Yahoo! or submitted to Yahoo, including without limitation information in Yahoo Message Boards, and in all other parts of the Service.
Is there a different one that says otherwise for Yahoo newsgroups? Where does Yahoo promise anything?
No, I don't - I want everyone to decide for themselves whether they want a recording device in the car or not.
but you need legal hurdles to prevent the police from downloading the data without your permission.
Yes, but legal "hurdles" are easy to amend. If you make black boxes required for everyone, next year you can pass an amendment that says police are required to download the data every time they stop you. Few years after, the data will be part of your driving record, and may be used against you anytime. The reasoning used during these times is - "oh, but we've been doing this for so many years already, it's common practice and nobody has complained! All we are doing now is requiring better black boxes to record even more data and more convenient access to the data" - and people buy that.
Well, I am saying now before they tell me later on they have been doing it for years that I am against requiring black boxes NOW. If I can add a black box to my car on my own terms and be in complete control of its data, then I may even consider adding it to my car.
I'd like to reveal the data relevant to the pileup in order to secure my innocence and insurance claim.
And I want to reseve the right to release my data after I talk to my attorney first. I reserve the right not to release or even record the data at all.
You are right, I think they are called Maximum speed law (or whatever). You cannot exceed "maximum speed" under any circumstances. However, posted suggested speed limits are not always maximum speeds - they are often less and are set arbitrarily by the DoT, I believe.
See my other comment for off-highway basic speed law section as well.
The privacy issues need to be worked out, but black boxes are the next real step towards fully autonomous vehicles.
The most reasonable way to "work out" the privacy issues is to make the black boxes an option. If you want to have a black box record your driving data in case you are in an accident, or to supply it to your insurance company for a lower payment, go ahead. But don't force everyone to be on the record every time they drive - how long until they would require black box records for insurance companies, motor vehicle departments, when police pulls you over, car dealers, etc. It is a privacy issue in my mind.
But if these were worked out in a reasonable manner, I would consider putting one in my car as well.
Replying to myself, but to make it clear, an addition to the CA basic speed law also says:
38305. No person shall drive an off-highway motor vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of other persons or property.
The version that I gave in the parent post was about highways, this one is off-highway. Both are similar in content.
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
IANAL, but as far as I know, at least in California, the posted speed limit signs are "suggested" speed limits for drivers; meaning it's not a hard legal maximum speed at which you can drive in that area. You should always consider circumstances, conditions and the surroundings when you determine what is safe speed. i.e. when it's foggy, dark, or crowded, it may be unsafe even if you drive below the posted speed limit (so you may be breaking the law); or if it's sunny and clear it may be safe to drive over the posted limit.
So, saying that there should be a single hard limit on every stretch of the road does not take into account the road/weather conditions and surroundings with which you are dealing when you drive through it. e.g., if it's foggy and dark, you may be unsafe at 30 MPH, but when it's sunny and clear you may be perfectly safe at 50 MPH. So, what should be the "hard" legal limit? If it's 50, then you are allowing legal unsafe driving during bad conditions; if it's 30, then you are unreasonably slowing down traffic. My understanding is they would usually set it at 45 and take into account road/weather conditions.
After all, if you think you have been wrongly accused you can always present your case in front of a judge and explain why you believe you were being safe, not to say that you will always win, or are even likely to win.
I think California basic speed law makes sense as it is, and mandatory black boxes or not, is no reason to change it.
Is Darl McBride under the elusion that up to now, SCO has had an army of volunteer slave programmers?
Of course. SCO includes a lot of open source software with their product - Apache, Samba, MySQL, many tools and libraries, etc., etc.; even Linux Kernel Personality which is likely a copyright/GPL violation (IANAL).
Pro-Apple or not, the fact remains - Real did something they themselves did not want done to their software.
I looked up some press coverage about Real's lawsuit - it seems like they used DMCA to sue StreamBox too. And you are right - it may have been a previous or a different version of Real's streaming protocol.
But as I said before, the real issue is not Real vs. Apple - I could care less about either of them, or whose software sucks less, or who has been less "evil" in the past. The real issue here is DMCA vs. reverse-engineering in a potentially precedent-setting case (if Apple indeed chooses to sue under DMCA) - and turning this into company A vs. company B is missing the bigger picture altogether. IOW, arguing that reverse-engineering should be outlawed by the DMCA for everyone because Real Corp. has been/is a "bad boy" does not make sense.
And the Streambox guys did it by reverse-engineering the protocol.
You mean reverse-engineering a publicRFC standardRTSPprotocol? Anybody from Programming 101 can write a small app that catches a stream and writes data to a file, especially when the protocol to request the stream from the server is a public standard. Now, that does not mean the codec is a public standard, nor does it have to be, for you to simply capture the stream to a file.
It's sad how everything pro-Apple gets modded up +5 insightful; I am pretty sure if the story was about Microsoft/HP/Lexmark/[insert standard "evil" corporation] products or DRM, the +5/+4 range comments would all be "OMG, how could they do this to us... DMCA/evil corp must be stopped... write to your reps... etc. etc."
And no, the (alleged) fact that Real is "evil" with their software, or that their software sucks, has little or nothing to do with the principle of this matter. Real is not defended here, but a principle of reverse-engineering is a bigger issue. I could care less about Real! If it was not Real but it was some "angel" corporation that descended from heaven last week, what difference would it make in what Apple is doing (well, they technically haven't done anything yet, but what pro-Apple posts keep justifying anyway)? Nothing, the principle of the matter would be exactly the same - either you can reverse-engineer, or you cannot.
if Real starts advertising as "iPod compatible" you run into the problem of this being an unsupported hack, which most of the consumers won't understand.
I don't think Real can start advertising that they are "iPod compatible" - I am pretty sure that iPod is Apple's trademark and they could stop Real easily. However, I think it would be OK to list the devices that their service is compatible with, including iPod in that list and properly disclosing the trademark.
I don't know how if it would be an "unsupported hack" if the software is supported by Real. And I don't know if Real modifies any firmware on iPod, then Apple could void the warranty, I guess. IANAL.
The tool? Just the real link location, rather than just the link text. Checking the link for a dotted quad or the wrong domain entirely is a fast way to identify a phish.
I almost never open HTML e-mail, but if you do, you also have to be aware that even if you hover over a link and check the status bar for a location that may not be show the actual destination once it's clicked.
You can always use the onmouseover and onmouseout events in javascript to change the status bar text to override the default behavior (unless javascript is disabled in mail). To be completely sure, you have to check the HTML source, which isn't hard to do; but I think it's easier to verify headers.
Even if you click a link or even load some images, your e-mail address may be marked as "good" for further spamming purposes. Bottom line - don't open HTML e-mails - if you do, load them with javascript and images turned off and always verify headers if it looks at least a little suspicious. KMail handles it like this by default, and I think it's a good security practice.
Just because some web site said so? How do you know you can trust THEM, eh?:-)
No, it was legit in the "test" that was given, there's no way to tell if it would have been legit in real life since there's no additional information available. If I have any doubt, I always check headers to make sure; but this doesn't happen a lot - it's almost always very clear what is spam/fraud and what is an e-mail from a friend or a contact of mine.
I only got the first one wrong - MS Hotmail e-mail was actually legitimate and I marked it as fraud. But I don't have Hotmail, and I don't plan on ever having it - so for me it would be illegitimate.
Besides, you are right about HTML mail. If I subscribe to e-mail notifications from websites, I always choose plain text e-mails. If I do get HTML mail, I look at its headers first (without opening content and certainly not loading any images) - most of it is spam/fraud/whatever. So, maybe there should have been a way to display headers in the test.
I find this is true not only with users, but also with clueless web "developers" and web "masters".
Too often I have heard from a web "developer" I had to work with:
- what program is this? Mo... what? Is that an IE skin? Netscape, really? Is that an old version? I thought they shut down, oh well...
I contacted a webmaster of a popular public site not long ago, and a gist of the support he/she offered was:
- Hi, I accessed your site and got this javascript error in my browser; I tried Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror - they all report the same error. - We only support IE and Netscape. - Netscape uses Gecko - the same engine as Firefox. - Sorry, we only support IE and Netscape! - OK, I tried with Netscape, I am getting the same error, as I told you. - Did you upgrade your Netscape? Upgrade and then tell me. - Yes, I installed Netscape 7.1 - the most recent version available. - OK, what was the problem again? - Whatever, forget it...
I think "we support IE and Netscape" is a cliche that a lot of web sites and "developers" still actively use. I guess it's good for marketing and it also keeps Netscape brand name in front of site visitors once in a while.
Yeah, it was Finland. The story is here. I personally don't know how this "commercial" establishment licensing makes any sense whatsoever. So, what if I run a small business out of my home and invite a neighbor over, do I have to pay because I am "commercial?" Insane is the right word.
how do so many of you know so many senators and congressmen that told you they dont read the bills they vote on?
They didn't tell me specifically - they admit it publicly! Listen to C-SPAN raw coverage, or anything else other than mainstream media (political PR outlets).
I don't watch C-SPAN myself a lot but I do tune in once in a while. On one occasion a senator introduced a bill on a "quick-pass-scheme" (I don't know what the real term is); basically, there were about 30 senators sitting, nobody seemed to have read the bill. Many of them commented to the extent of: "I haven't read the bill but... it seems like... we ought to..." and then went ahead and placed their vote anyway. On many other occasions I have heard them say to the tune of "... as this bill has been conveyed to me..." meaning they haven't actually read it, but heard it second-hand, probably from industry group (read: cartel) reps or their own interns - who supposedly, we have to trust, have read it and passed it on accurately without bias and errors.
This is not a special behavior - as far as I know, it's standard. Unless it's a partisan issue that is likely to come up during next elections, there's no need to bother yourself with it, that's the idea I get.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why you took what I said that way. Nobody's personal experience is a proof of a general theory of whether ReiserFS is "good" or "bad."
I don't know what version of ReiserFS/kernel/distro/etc. you were using, but you may get "bad" ReiserFS installations with distros that don't care about it too much and default to ext3 or something else. I've seen Hans trying to correct and give suggestions to some distros to be dismissed as arrogant or whatever else. This is, of course, no reason to conclude that ReiserFS does not work. For example, Mandrake, RedHat, and others do not pay close attention to properly configuring and patching for ReiserFS, so using those combinations "out of the box" may not be safe.
I don't know about XFS and ext3, but ReiserFS does not require fsck. Again, I am not trying to prove a general theory, but the only times I have personally needed reiserfsck was when the HD was dying. And even then no data was lost.
FUD!
And how do you say this? I personally have used ReiserFS on a bad HD (Deathstar) that trashed my filesystem more than few times (before I found out the cause). I have had to reiserfsck every time and did not lose any data.
I am not a car mechanic or an electrician, but if my car alarm and door locks stop working, I take it to a mechanic who can fix it. I don't park the car on public street at night where it may get stolen. The excuse that since they know and care little about security, they can skip it altogether, is - as others pointed out - lame. A computer network containing sensitive or important data connected to the Internet requires security, whether you are a 3-time Nobel prize laureate or a warehouse janitor.
And as far as things that "get in the way" - security practices, or lack thereof - could easily get in the way of collecting and keeping valuable scientific data.
I'm not sure this is directly related to the SCO/IBM case, but I'd be interested in how courts see GPL in light of derivative works and linking. I'd like to know with regards to these to what extent the GPL uses the copyright law and to what extent it relies on the contract law. And in the case of the latter, how reasonable it is and far it can be legally enforced.
You can do the same with KDE/Kontact as well.
You ask the question the wrong way. Instead try asking yourself this: If governments had an ability and resources to track and record every move every human being ever made (chips, cameras, implants, what have you), everything they said, every action, thought they had, everything they bought, consumed, saw, heard, dreamt, etc., etc., where would you draw the line? Would you allow your whole life to be recorded and tracked in such a manner by your government without boundaries? If not, what would you think would be an acceptable level of surveillance by your government and what would be out of bounds?
How do you define these boundaries and how do you enforce them to make sure they are not abused, their powers expanded and overstepped? Instead of complaining about people who express their concerns about this issue, why don't you answer that question?
Where? Yahoo TOS is, as expected, very one-sided - i.e. you, the user, have to do obey their terms as they tell you, but if you don't they are not responsible in any way, and they reserve the right to remove anything they please, but they are not obligated to. Here's one part from the Yahoo TOS:
Is there a different one that says otherwise for Yahoo newsgroups? Where does Yahoo promise anything?
Lawyers are above your 1st amendment - dictionary.com confirms it.
No, I don't - I want everyone to decide for themselves whether they want a recording device in the car or not.
Yes, but legal "hurdles" are easy to amend. If you make black boxes required for everyone, next year you can pass an amendment that says police are required to download the data every time they stop you. Few years after, the data will be part of your driving record, and may be used against you anytime. The reasoning used during these times is - "oh, but we've been doing this for so many years already, it's common practice and nobody has complained! All we are doing now is requiring better black boxes to record even more data and more convenient access to the data" - and people buy that.
Well, I am saying now before they tell me later on they have been doing it for years that I am against requiring black boxes NOW. If I can add a black box to my car on my own terms and be in complete control of its data, then I may even consider adding it to my car.
And I want to reseve the right to release my data after I talk to my attorney first. I reserve the right not to release or even record the data at all.
You are right, I think they are called Maximum speed law (or whatever). You cannot exceed "maximum speed" under any circumstances. However, posted suggested speed limits are not always maximum speeds - they are often less and are set arbitrarily by the DoT, I believe.
See my other comment for off-highway basic speed law section as well.
The most reasonable way to "work out" the privacy issues is to make the black boxes an option. If you want to have a black box record your driving data in case you are in an accident, or to supply it to your insurance company for a lower payment, go ahead. But don't force everyone to be on the record every time they drive - how long until they would require black box records for insurance companies, motor vehicle departments, when police pulls you over, car dealers, etc. It is a privacy issue in my mind.
But if these were worked out in a reasonable manner, I would consider putting one in my car as well.
Replying to myself, but to make it clear, an addition to the CA basic speed law also says:
38305. No person shall drive an off-highway motor vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of other persons or property.
The version that I gave in the parent post was about highways, this one is off-highway. Both are similar in content.
I like California basic speed law:
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
IANAL, but as far as I know, at least in California, the posted speed limit signs are "suggested" speed limits for drivers; meaning it's not a hard legal maximum speed at which you can drive in that area. You should always consider circumstances, conditions and the surroundings when you determine what is safe speed. i.e. when it's foggy, dark, or crowded, it may be unsafe even if you drive below the posted speed limit (so you may be breaking the law); or if it's sunny and clear it may be safe to drive over the posted limit.
So, saying that there should be a single hard limit on every stretch of the road does not take into account the road/weather conditions and surroundings with which you are dealing when you drive through it. e.g., if it's foggy and dark, you may be unsafe at 30 MPH, but when it's sunny and clear you may be perfectly safe at 50 MPH. So, what should be the "hard" legal limit? If it's 50, then you are allowing legal unsafe driving during bad conditions; if it's 30, then you are unreasonably slowing down traffic. My understanding is they would usually set it at 45 and take into account road/weather conditions.
After all, if you think you have been wrongly accused you can always present your case in front of a judge and explain why you believe you were being safe, not to say that you will always win, or are even likely to win.
I think California basic speed law makes sense as it is, and mandatory black boxes or not, is no reason to change it.
Of course. SCO includes a lot of open source software with their product - Apache, Samba, MySQL, many tools and libraries, etc., etc.; even Linux Kernel Personality which is likely a copyright/GPL violation (IANAL).
It's a relative term, but I'd say "pretty quickly" instead.
And I'm not sure what they plan with SCO Marketplace either. I'd love to see an NDA on that contract.
I looked up some press coverage about Real's lawsuit - it seems like they used DMCA to sue StreamBox too. And you are right - it may have been a previous or a different version of Real's streaming protocol.
But as I said before, the real issue is not Real vs. Apple - I could care less about either of them, or whose software sucks less, or who has been less "evil" in the past. The real issue here is DMCA vs. reverse-engineering in a potentially precedent-setting case (if Apple indeed chooses to sue under DMCA) - and turning this into company A vs. company B is missing the bigger picture altogether. IOW, arguing that reverse-engineering should be outlawed by the DMCA for everyone because Real Corp. has been/is a "bad boy" does not make sense.
You mean reverse-engineering a public RFC standard RTSP protocol? Anybody from Programming 101 can write a small app that catches a stream and writes data to a file, especially when the protocol to request the stream from the server is a public standard. Now, that does not mean the codec is a public standard, nor does it have to be, for you to simply capture the stream to a file.
It's sad how everything pro-Apple gets modded up +5 insightful; I am pretty sure if the story was about Microsoft/HP/Lexmark/[insert standard "evil" corporation] products or DRM, the +5/+4 range comments would all be "OMG, how could they do this to us... DMCA/evil corp must be stopped... write to your reps... etc. etc."
And no, the (alleged) fact that Real is "evil" with their software, or that their software sucks, has little or nothing to do with the principle of this matter. Real is not defended here, but a principle of reverse-engineering is a bigger issue. I could care less about Real! If it was not Real but it was some "angel" corporation that descended from heaven last week, what difference would it make in what Apple is doing (well, they technically haven't done anything yet, but what pro-Apple posts keep justifying anyway)? Nothing, the principle of the matter would be exactly the same - either you can reverse-engineer, or you cannot.
I don't think Real can start advertising that they are "iPod compatible" - I am pretty sure that iPod is Apple's trademark and they could stop Real easily. However, I think it would be OK to list the devices that their service is compatible with, including iPod in that list and properly disclosing the trademark.
I don't know how if it would be an "unsupported hack" if the software is supported by Real. And I don't know if Real modifies any firmware on iPod, then Apple could void the warranty, I guess. IANAL.
I almost never open HTML e-mail, but if you do, you also have to be aware that even if you hover over a link and check the status bar for a location that may not be show the actual destination once it's clicked.
You can always use the onmouseover and onmouseout events in javascript to change the status bar text to override the default behavior (unless javascript is disabled in mail). To be completely sure, you have to check the HTML source, which isn't hard to do; but I think it's easier to verify headers.
Even if you click a link or even load some images, your e-mail address may be marked as "good" for further spamming purposes. Bottom line - don't open HTML e-mails - if you do, load them with javascript and images turned off and always verify headers if it looks at least a little suspicious. KMail handles it like this by default, and I think it's a good security practice.
No, it was legit in the "test" that was given, there's no way to tell if it would have been legit in real life since there's no additional information available. If I have any doubt, I always check headers to make sure; but this doesn't happen a lot - it's almost always very clear what is spam/fraud and what is an e-mail from a friend or a contact of mine.
I only got the first one wrong - MS Hotmail e-mail was actually legitimate and I marked it as fraud. But I don't have Hotmail, and I don't plan on ever having it - so for me it would be illegitimate.
Besides, you are right about HTML mail. If I subscribe to e-mail notifications from websites, I always choose plain text e-mails. If I do get HTML mail, I look at its headers first (without opening content and certainly not loading any images) - most of it is spam/fraud/whatever. So, maybe there should have been a way to display headers in the test.
I find this is true not only with users, but also with clueless web "developers" and web "masters".
Too often I have heard from a web "developer" I had to work with:
- what program is this? Mo... what? Is that an IE skin? Netscape, really? Is that an old version? I thought they shut down, oh well...
I contacted a webmaster of a popular public site not long ago, and a gist of the support he/she offered was:
- Hi, I accessed your site and got this javascript error in my browser; I tried Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror - they all report the same error.
- We only support IE and Netscape.
- Netscape uses Gecko - the same engine as Firefox.
- Sorry, we only support IE and Netscape!
- OK, I tried with Netscape, I am getting the same error, as I told you.
- Did you upgrade your Netscape? Upgrade and then tell me.
- Yes, I installed Netscape 7.1 - the most recent version available.
- OK, what was the problem again?
- Whatever, forget it...
I think "we support IE and Netscape" is a cliche that a lot of web sites and "developers" still actively use. I guess it's good for marketing and it also keeps Netscape brand name in front of site visitors once in a while.
Yeah, it was Finland. The story is here. I personally don't know how this "commercial" establishment licensing makes any sense whatsoever. So, what if I run a small business out of my home and invite a neighbor over, do I have to pay because I am "commercial?" Insane is the right word.
Umm... Yes.
They didn't tell me specifically - they admit it publicly! Listen to C-SPAN raw coverage, or anything else other than mainstream media (political PR outlets).
I don't watch C-SPAN myself a lot but I do tune in once in a while. On one occasion a senator introduced a bill on a "quick-pass-scheme" (I don't know what the real term is); basically, there were about 30 senators sitting, nobody seemed to have read the bill. Many of them commented to the extent of: "I haven't read the bill but
This is not a special behavior - as far as I know, it's standard. Unless it's a partisan issue that is likely to come up during next elections, there's no need to bother yourself with it, that's the idea I get.