I suspect this is tactical. If it's a lot better than XP on the same resources, and has a decent selection of apps, and is no more expensive it may well gain a following. That could allow Google entry into the desktop/full size laptop market/
The analog control is in the form of the multi-touch thumb bar, which appears to have two nubs to help position your thumbs. Might work alright (i hope).
Not a sort of control I'd like. This sort of thing detects movement adequately but not brilliantly and is no good for precision control. The position is the centre of your thumb. That's a large area so very coarse.
Classifying information that's in the public domain is just daft. It makes the diplomats look like even bigger fools desperately trying to cover up something they can't.
Case in point, should every seller of dvd drives be required to be sure that their customers will not burn pirated media with it? Just seems like common sense that the manufacturer's should have no liability whatsoever if their customers perform illegal actions. Or, if you prefer a closer analogy, if I install that DVD drive into someones computer for them, can you charge me with contributory actions for performing that service if they burn pirated media and sell it? Of course not.
No. But the case was dropped for pretty much this reason. He provided a service that may or may not be intended for a legitimate purpose. If it was tested with a disc that he knew was pirated then I'd say there was intent, similarly, if I explicitly asked you for DVD drives to set up my pirate DVD operation then you'd be a contributor to the infringement. Whether he knew or should have known the disc was pirated would be up to the prosecution to show. Since the prosecution has failed to even show there was a disc it's kind of academic.
If someone came to me saying how they were setting my console up to play backed up games and then produced a DVD-R with game's name written on it to test that the modification worked, the obvious assumption is that it is a game he has backed up and uses for testing purposes.
Yes. If he says it's a backup and not pirated I agree that it's perfectly acceptable to take his word for it. If he's just presented with the disc, is it really reasonable that it never even crossed his mind to ask? And should the prosecution not at least have the chance to ask him why he didn't even ask?
It would make sense to ask for some sort of proof just to reduce the risk of legal complications.
Is someone came to me with a DVD-R and the name of a game written on it in permanent marker, my immediate assumption would be that it's likely to be pirated. If they guy assured me it was a legitimate backup then I'd still be a little suspicious unless he could also show me the original. I can't help thinking that anyone who didn't even suspect that it might be pirated is hopelessly naive and that "I really am that stupid" is rarely a good legal defence.
I just think that if you're providing a service with obviously illegal applications you should at least make a cursory attempt to be sure that your customers aren't breaking the law. Just seems like common sense for anyone who doesn't want to charged with contributory actions.
Just about every other country in the world has some form of loser pays system. Just about every other country in the world has a system that still gives reasonable ability of poor people to sue rich people.
The flipside is that in the US, poor people can't afford to sue because the big company can just spend a lot of money wasting the time and money of the other side.
Others have mentioned wiring it to another country.
Alternatively BBC's "The Real Hustle" did something like this. They simply give the victim 30 minutes to find the cash, put it in an envelope and give it to a "courier". The courier is part of the scam team so once it's in his hands, the money's gone.
I have to say I find it kind of funny. As though we're going to read the comment and think "Gosh - that's an insightful comment and not spam at all. Now I must buy a Chanel bag because that would be the perfect accessory for my think geek T-shirt"
Why do you doubt it? It's very possible he had his own legitimate backup, or even homebrew? Why would someone intentionally incriminate themselves when there is plenty of legal alternatives? It's not like these mod chips are solely for pirated games, even if they are a big part of it. Just because your friends don't avoid it in a more casual manner doesn't mean someone making a business out of this would incriminate themselves like that.
I'd say at that point it's up to the defendant to explain that he thought it was a legitimte copy and explain why he made absolutely no effort to check the legitimacy of the disc when it should be very obvious that it's highly likely that it is pirated.
Of course, even if he was selling exclusively to pirates it would make sense to insist that it only be tested on a copy that was most likely a backup.
It's not so much that it could. A PC allows you to run pirated games and a DVD player allows you to play pirated DVDs, both without modification, and these are legal. The question is one of primary purpose. It's up to the prosecution to prove that he modded XBoxes with the intent to let them play pirated games rather than that he believed most would be used for XBMC or whatever but if they can prove this beyond reasonable doubt then he's guilty.
One witness did claim that the modder had shown that it would work with pirated games, although this wasdestroyed in cross examination. Had he actually had this evidence on video then it would show he performed the service knowingly in order to allow piracy.
Now, you may want to bring up DeCSS here. DeCSS was indeed a pretty abstract piece of software. It should not have been declared illegal but it seems that the defence didn't have a good understanding of what the software did and ended up defending the case pretty poorly.
I modded mine for pirated games. So did a lot of other people I know. You'd be surprised how many people will pirate games. I'd suggest that I'm not in the minority in this respect.
Most people who mod their XBoxes do so in order to play pirate games.
If this was the primary purpose of the mods then he's committed a crime. It's up to the goverent to prove this was the primary purpose but they have sufficient cause to prosecute.
But it will work, immediately, with a decent chunk of the hardware out there. Some will fail. Much will work. Another chunk will need a simple patch - very likely a config file. This has always been a possibility with the class E address range. It's always been quite likely that whatever the "future expansion" is, for routing the packet should be treated like any other. Class A/B/C were replaced by subnets without breaking the internet. I can't see how this is a substantially bigger change.
Cisco proposed this in the past. I suspect they have away of dealing with it. Maybe this was just a way to make sure their support contracts are extended, but most Cisco customers are paying for that support anyway.
So to upgrade to an IP4 variant, *some* hardware needs to be upgraded. To upgrade to IPv6, *all* hardware will.
Wikileaks was a site that just published leaked documents. It still does this. It seems now though that it wants to be considered a major entity in its own right rather than just as an anonymous dumping ground for data. So now we have Julian Assange publicly engaged in self promotion, by revealing himself and Wikileaks pre-announcing its leaks.
It concerns me a little. It does seem to change the nature of what Wikileaks is. Is it a news site that has an explicit agenda, or an anonymous service that releases everything without taking a moral stance?
if you don't like it, block the cookie. Every modern browser I know of supports it, so go do it and you're done.
Most people aren't even aware that it's there. Those that are aren't aware that blocking the cookie will have any effect (at least I wasn't until now).
I actually find it hard to see the EU being internally organised in the right way to have a consistent opinion on the matter. individual countries - certainly. A businessman has lunch with a high ranking MP who promises to mention it to the justice minister. The groups in the EU aren't quite so close knit.
Doesn't mean there's any intention of going into production. It just means they've researched the possibility. If you've spent the money on research, patenting is relatively inexpensive, and the patent is potentially valuable either for licensing out or as a protective countermeasure.
The only thing I'm really aware of being a problem with google is the collection of personal information. But there's a simple solution to that: don't use google/use it wisely.
Google analytics is on just anout every web page. The cookie is kept forever. Most users aren't even aware of this sort of thing so "use it wisely" isn't useful advice. They keep information *forever*. They decided to completely ignore copyright and disrespect the authors opinions by indexing every book, then going behind the authors' backs and presenting Google Book search as a fait accompli in order to improve their bargaining position. Google is in a position to punish websites without giving a reason. They have been known to do this.
And Microsoft has a better privacy policy that Google!!!
Not sure if that all makes Google evil but it does make it worth watching them.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect this is tactical. If it's a lot better than XP on the same resources, and has a decent selection of apps, and is no more expensive it may well gain a following. That could allow Google entry into the desktop/full size laptop market/
Quickly checking something online does actually cover most of the functionality of my netbook.
The analog control is in the form of the multi-touch thumb bar, which appears to have two nubs to help position your thumbs. Might work alright (i hope).
Not a sort of control I'd like. This sort of thing detects movement adequately but not brilliantly and is no good for precision control. The position is the centre of your thumb. That's a large area so very coarse.
It's all over just about every news website.
Classifying information that's in the public domain is just daft. It makes the diplomats look like even bigger fools desperately trying to cover up something they can't.
Case in point, should every seller of dvd drives be required to be sure that their customers will not burn pirated media with it? Just seems like common sense that the manufacturer's should have no liability whatsoever if their customers perform illegal actions. Or, if you prefer a closer analogy, if I install that DVD drive into someones computer for them, can you charge me with contributory actions for performing that service if they burn pirated media and sell it? Of course not.
No. But the case was dropped for pretty much this reason. He provided a service that may or may not be intended for a legitimate purpose. If it was tested with a disc that he knew was pirated then I'd say there was intent, similarly, if I explicitly asked you for DVD drives to set up my pirate DVD operation then you'd be a contributor to the infringement. Whether he knew or should have known the disc was pirated would be up to the prosecution to show. Since the prosecution has failed to even show there was a disc it's kind of academic.
If someone came to me saying how they were setting my console up to play backed up games and then produced a DVD-R with game's name written on it to test that the modification worked, the obvious assumption is that it is a game he has backed up and uses for testing purposes.
Yes. If he says it's a backup and not pirated I agree that it's perfectly acceptable to take his word for it. If he's just presented with the disc, is it really reasonable that it never even crossed his mind to ask? And should the prosecution not at least have the chance to ask him why he didn't even ask?
It would make sense to ask for some sort of proof just to reduce the risk of legal complications.
Is someone came to me with a DVD-R and the name of a game written on it in permanent marker, my immediate assumption would be that it's likely to be pirated. If they guy assured me it was a legitimate backup then I'd still be a little suspicious unless he could also show me the original. I can't help thinking that anyone who didn't even suspect that it might be pirated is hopelessly naive and that "I really am that stupid" is rarely a good legal defence.
I just think that if you're providing a service with obviously illegal applications you should at least make a cursory attempt to be sure that your customers aren't breaking the law. Just seems like common sense for anyone who doesn't want to charged with contributory actions.
Just about every other country in the world has some form of loser pays system. Just about every other country in the world has a system that still gives reasonable ability of poor people to sue rich people.
The flipside is that in the US, poor people can't afford to sue because the big company can just spend a lot of money wasting the time and money of the other side.
Others have mentioned wiring it to another country.
Alternatively BBC's "The Real Hustle" did something like this. They simply give the victim 30 minutes to find the cash, put it in an envelope and give it to a "courier". The courier is part of the scam team so once it's in his hands, the money's gone.
It gets swooped on pretty damn quick.
I have to say I find it kind of funny. As though we're going to read the comment and think "Gosh - that's an insightful comment and not spam at all. Now I must buy a Chanel bag because that would be the perfect accessory for my think geek T-shirt"
Why do you doubt it? It's very possible he had his own legitimate backup, or even homebrew? Why would someone intentionally incriminate themselves when there is plenty of legal alternatives? It's not like these mod chips are solely for pirated games, even if they are a big part of it. Just because your friends don't avoid it in a more casual manner doesn't mean someone making a business out of this would incriminate themselves like that.
I'd say at that point it's up to the defendant to explain that he thought it was a legitimte copy and explain why he made absolutely no effort to check the legitimacy of the disc when it should be very obvious that it's highly likely that it is pirated.
Of course, even if he was selling exclusively to pirates it would make sense to insist that it only be tested on a copy that was most likely a backup.
Would that happen though? Presumably the reason arsenic is poisonous is because it's more reactive than the phosphorous.
It's not so much that it could. A PC allows you to run pirated games and a DVD player allows you to play pirated DVDs, both without modification, and these are legal. The question is one of primary purpose. It's up to the prosecution to prove that he modded XBoxes with the intent to let them play pirated games rather than that he believed most would be used for XBMC or whatever but if they can prove this beyond reasonable doubt then he's guilty.
One witness did claim that the modder had shown that it would work with pirated games, although this wasdestroyed in cross examination. Had he actually had this evidence on video then it would show he performed the service knowingly in order to allow piracy.
Now, you may want to bring up DeCSS here. DeCSS was indeed a pretty abstract piece of software. It should not have been declared illegal but it seems that the defence didn't have a good understanding of what the software did and ended up defending the case pretty poorly.
That's nice.
I modded mine for pirated games. So did a lot of other people I know. You'd be surprised how many people will pirate games. I'd suggest that I'm not in the minority in this respect.
Not really.
Most people who mod their XBoxes do so in order to play pirate games.
If this was the primary purpose of the mods then he's committed a crime. It's up to the goverent to prove this was the primary purpose but they have sufficient cause to prosecute.
Relax. Nobody is threatening to sue you.
Doesn't apply. Barrartry is repeated legal actions purely to harass. A single threat to sue doesn't count.
But it will work, immediately, with a decent chunk of the hardware out there. Some will fail. Much will work. Another chunk will need a simple patch - very likely a config file. This has always been a possibility with the class E address range. It's always been quite likely that whatever the "future expansion" is, for routing the packet should be treated like any other. Class A/B/C were replaced by subnets without breaking the internet. I can't see how this is a substantially bigger change.
Cisco proposed this in the past. I suspect they have away of dealing with it. Maybe this was just a way to make sure their support contracts are extended, but most Cisco customers are paying for that support anyway.
So to upgrade to an IP4 variant, *some* hardware needs to be upgraded. To upgrade to IPv6, *all* hardware will.
Chances are they know your real name.
Blizzard users objected to needing to use their names on the forums.
Okay. Why Not Just Release It!?
Wikileaks was a site that just published leaked documents. It still does this. It seems now though that it wants to be considered a major entity in its own right rather than just as an anonymous dumping ground for data. So now we have Julian Assange publicly engaged in self promotion, by revealing himself and Wikileaks pre-announcing its leaks.
It concerns me a little. It does seem to change the nature of what Wikileaks is. Is it a news site that has an explicit agenda, or an anonymous service that releases everything without taking a moral stance?
if you don't like it, block the cookie. Every modern browser I know of supports it, so go do it and you're done.
Most people aren't even aware that it's there. Those that are aren't aware that blocking the cookie will have any effect (at least I wasn't until now).
Interesting. Is part of the EEA still though.
I actually find it hard to see the EU being internally organised in the right way to have a consistent opinion on the matter. individual countries - certainly. A businessman has lunch with a high ranking MP who promises to mention it to the justice minister. The groups in the EU aren't quite so close knit.
Both can work pretty well. Buttons re very exact but touchpads are nice if we have a cursor.
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to push an opinion here. Just presenting the sort of activitiy that some might object to.
Doesn't mean there's any intention of going into production. It just means they've researched the possibility. If you've spent the money on research, patenting is relatively inexpensive, and the patent is potentially valuable either for licensing out or as a protective countermeasure.
The only thing I'm really aware of being a problem with google is the collection of personal information. But there's a simple solution to that: don't use google/use it wisely.
Google analytics is on just anout every web page. The cookie is kept forever. Most users aren't even aware of this sort of thing so "use it wisely" isn't useful advice. They keep information *forever*. They decided to completely ignore copyright and disrespect the authors opinions by indexing every book, then going behind the authors' backs and presenting Google Book search as a fait accompli in order to improve their bargaining position. Google is in a position to punish websites without giving a reason. They have been known to do this.
And Microsoft has a better privacy policy that Google!!!
Not sure if that all makes Google evil but it does make it worth watching them.