I do remember seeing something about that which stated movie theatres do a much better job. But then I often wonder if a big part of that is that there aren't very many separate companies showing movies. When its down to just a few chains, all you have to do is make it a well-entrenched company policy in those chains to make it work. So if you RTFA you find the big retail chains (equivalent to the big movie chains) do a much better job of "policing" themselves when it comes to selling M rated video games. Its when you get into the smaller chains and independent stores that you see a larger variation in company policies and enforcement.
IOW it may be that the movie industry does better simply because its easier for them.
Just curious, how do you know it was for the 9 year old? Could have been for her, her husband, an older child who didn't want to be seen shopping with mom (or in a different part of the store), or a gift for someone completely different.
For example, after trawling the cheap bins after Christmas, my 9 year old and I walked up to the register with 3 games for the Playstation. One (for me) was rated M. The cashier did mention to me the game was rated "M for mature", which at first surprised me, but on further reflection, I'm glad she did, even though I already knew it.
Then when someone calls for tech support, say "Let me get my calendar and see when I can come over and help you out. BTW, can you babysit for me on...."
No more tech support. But then there's "child support".
On second thought, just help them out and be happy!
The point is that Google has this information on you, and will hand it over upon request.
Wasn't Google just in the Congressional Hot Seat for turning private information over to the government, resulting in someone being thrown in jail?
Oh wait! That was a bad government, this is a good one. Just hope Google can keep it all straight.
Seriously, I wonder what the response would be if Google refused to comply on the grounds that someone may be wrongfully incarcerated and asked those who were grilling them on the China issue what they are supposed to do now.
One of those grey areas. Or is that a gray area? That's always been a bit murky to me.
I wouldn't say that itunes works very well with ALL formats, but it DOES work with mp3 - which is the open "standard".
And beyond that, I really have to question the sanity behind doing this. Is the French Parliament going to require Apple to support every music format and every DRM scheme any online company dreams up? Or just the ones from their biggest competitors?
I could see them forcing Apple to licensce its FairPlay DRM to other music player vendors, but forcing one company to support another company's proprietary formats and protections???
OTOH, reading the NYTimes article, I get the feeling the writer is mixing up making Apple license FairPlay and making the iPod play other DRM'd music. They seem to interchange the role of the iPod and the music store a lot. Can anyone verify the specifics of what the Times is reporting?
Apple will always look bad in my eyes as long as they seek to lock people in via proprietry formats that they strictly enforce to prevent competition.
OK, lets look at the current streaming formats .
1) WMV using proprietary codec controlled by MS. 2) Real media using a proprietary codec controlled by Real 3) MP4 media is an industry standard controlled by the MPEG and used by Apple and anyone else who cares to license it.
All these formats support the optional use of DRM. As for the.mov files you're having trouble with, what codec was used for those? Also, I'm not very familiar with what's available for Windows, but on the Mac there are all kinds of full screen players that play.mov files, including VLC. So you don't have to pay.
So you'd be against spending $40 less each month with that being offset by government spending?
You left off where the government is getting the money to offset that spending. So I pay $40 less each month to the ISP, but pay $60 a month more it taxes to cover my use, part of the bill for the guy down the block, and the extra overhead involved?
What has happened is certain legislators have realized that broadband has become a necessary and basic right.
And that, IMO, is why this is sooo wrong. Broadband is not remotely a necessity. If we're talking heat, electricity, stuff like that, I have no problem with it. But broadband???
But isn't this a case where what they're looking for can clearly "fit" on the drive? They specifically took the "container" which most likely contained the evidence. They're not searching a desk drawer for a footlocker, they're searching a file cabinet for a piece of paper.
They took what the warrant specified in order to search it for evidence related to a specific crime. If they find anything else, its no different than if they found evidence of an unrelated activity while conducting a search through a file cabinet.
I'm really trying to understand why people are so opposed to computers being searched if they're related to a criminal investigation. There seems to be an automatic assumption there was some breach in protocol or oversight. If there is/was, what was it? This case was even put before the state Supreme Court, who declined to take the case -so now the actual search of the drives can take place. In the mean time, any intentional or accidental destruction (normal drive use) of the evidence was prevented -that's good. In fact, from TFA
Feudale ruled Feb. 23 that the state could seize the computers but view only Internet data relevant to the case. The judge also ordered the agent who withdraws the data to show them to him first - before passing them to prosecutors - to ensure that the journalists' other confidential files are not compromised. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the State Supreme Court.
True, but they do seize all records. And, depending on the circumstances, they do "seize" the house if a crime was committed there.
If they suspect there is a evidence in the form of a paper record in an office, they have a choice. Either shut down the office until someone can search through all the papers to try to find it, or box it all up and haul it away until someone can search through all the papers. If the evidence is on a hard drive, they can either close the office until the drive can be searched, or seize the drive and do the search off the premises. In this case, I'd guess that removing the drives is preferable to shutting down the office.
The only other alternative is to give up and say, if evidence is stored on a computer, its immune from search because we might see someone's "dirty laundry". How would you suggest they gather the evidence?
Wrong - the computers will contain all sorts of information, and there's no guarantee whatsoever that any sort of control over the information retrieved will be implemented.
And that's no different than any search when a house or office is involved. The same "sort of control over the informatnion retrieved" is the same in all cases.
Really. Its not like there's something mystical on computers that hasn't been dealt with in "paper" searches. How are records any different just because they're on a computer?
And to add to that, if a crime is committed, all possible evidence may be seized. Your property was used in committing a crime? It sucks, but it will be taken away from you -doesn't matter if its your gun, your car or your computer (or 4 hard dirves as in this case). I'd like to know how people think law enforcement should be handled if this was not the case. Every time computers are seized as evidence in computer crime, the/. crowd starts crying foul. Do you want computer crime prosecuted or not?
A felony crime is alleged to have been committed. Evidence is seized. Been happening for decades/centuries.
I don't think its any more relevant for a computer than for a home, complete with all kinds of records, etc. Nobody makes sure only relevant rooms or boxes of records are searched. For it to qualify as a "search", you actually need to search and see everything.
I like the last line of the writup, "What's the verdict? Real or Fake?"
The answer: Nobody can know until the real evidence is made available.
I just read someone from my home town was arrested for shoplifing. Maybe I should submit the story to/. and we can debate wether or not he's guilty. Who needs evidence when someone can probably Google the guy and we can determine by uninformed debate what the verdict should be.
So maybe the posts waaay above here are right. Hire Lt. Worf to play the part of the Maytag repairman, sitting in a corner waiting for an actual security threat. Show him getting all excited when a "virus alert" goes out, only to find out it only affects Windows, or requires a Mac user to intentionally infect their computer -back to the corner.
Shows Apple is ready for a threat, if it ever happens.
The whole "controversy" over wether Google should or should not being doing what it's shareholders want is kind of funny.
To partake in the amusement remember that Google is doing what its current shareholders want. Including their two biggest shareholders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
Slashdot Mirror
I do remember seeing something about that which stated movie theatres do a much better job. But then I often wonder if a big part of that is that there aren't very many separate companies showing movies. When its down to just a few chains, all you have to do is make it a well-entrenched company policy in those chains to make it work. So if you RTFA you find the big retail chains (equivalent to the big movie chains) do a much better job of "policing" themselves when it comes to selling M rated video games. Its when you get into the smaller chains and independent stores that you see a larger variation in company policies and enforcement.
IOW it may be that the movie industry does better simply because its easier for them.
Just curious, how do you know it was for the 9 year old? Could have been for her, her husband, an older child who didn't want to be seen shopping with mom (or in a different part of the store), or a gift for someone completely different.
For example, after trawling the cheap bins after Christmas, my 9 year old and I walked up to the register with 3 games for the Playstation. One (for me) was rated M. The cashier did mention to me the game was rated "M for mature", which at first surprised me, but on further reflection, I'm glad she did, even though I already knew it.
Wikipedia quite often gives me enough to then go searching more of Google.
And in some cases had direct links to more authoritative and in-depth info right on the page. No need to even go to Google.
Just have a kid or three.
Then when someone calls for tech support, say "Let me get my calendar and see when I can come over and help you out. BTW, can you babysit for me on...."
No more tech support. But then there's "child support".
On second thought, just help them out and be happy!
Considering the number of malloc and syntax errors I throw every time I read legal documents, I assumed they already were.
Too bad lawyers haven't learned to comment their code (and no, thousands of footnotes don't count!).
This is just showing how unfocused Microsoft is, to release a handheld computer, then work on another handheld computer for a different target market.
Of course this is the company that's bringing us about half a dozen different versions of Vista...
MS has a way of so narrowly defining targets that they actually cease to exist.
Dammit, can't they make a Windows killer?
No need to. On some of my systems, Windows is quite adept at dying all on its own.
The point is that Google has this information on you, and will hand it over upon request.
Wasn't Google just in the Congressional Hot Seat for turning private information over to the government, resulting in someone being thrown in jail?
Oh wait! That was a bad government, this is a good one. Just hope Google can keep it all straight.
Seriously, I wonder what the response would be if Google refused to comply on the grounds that someone may be wrongfully incarcerated and asked those who were grilling them on the China issue what they are supposed to do now.
One of those grey areas. Or is that a gray area? That's always been a bit murky to me.
I wouldn't say that itunes works very well with ALL formats, but it DOES work with mp3 - which is the open "standard".
And beyond that, I really have to question the sanity behind doing this. Is the French Parliament going to require Apple to support every music format and every DRM scheme any online company dreams up? Or just the ones from their biggest competitors?
I could see them forcing Apple to licensce its FairPlay DRM to other music player vendors, but forcing one company to support another company's proprietary formats and protections???
OTOH, reading the NYTimes article, I get the feeling the writer is mixing up making Apple license FairPlay and making the iPod play other DRM'd music. They seem to interchange the role of the iPod and the music store a lot. Can anyone verify the specifics of what the Times is reporting?
Apple will always look bad in my eyes as long as they seek to lock people in via proprietry formats that they strictly enforce to prevent competition.
.mov files you're having trouble with, what codec was used for those? Also, I'm not very familiar with what's available for Windows, but on the Mac there are all kinds of full screen players that play .mov files, including VLC. So you don't have to pay.
OK, lets look at the current streaming formats .
1) WMV using proprietary codec controlled by MS.
2) Real media using a proprietary codec controlled by Real
3) MP4 media is an industry standard controlled by the MPEG and used by Apple and anyone else who cares to license it.
All these formats support the optional use of DRM. As for the
And if a wasp can control a cockroack, why not humans?
The zombie roach crawls where its master leads, which turns out to be the wasp's burrow.
Sure you did! At least according to the records in 13 of the 14 voting districts where you cast your ballots in the last election.
So you'd be against spending $40 less each month with that being offset by government spending?
You left off where the government is getting the money to offset that spending. So I pay $40 less each month to the ISP, but pay $60 a month more it taxes to cover my use, part of the bill for the guy down the block, and the extra overhead involved?
What has happened is certain legislators have realized that broadband has become a necessary and basic right.
And that, IMO, is why this is sooo wrong. Broadband is not remotely a necessity. If we're talking heat, electricity, stuff like that, I have no problem with it. But broadband???
But isn't this a case where what they're looking for can clearly "fit" on the drive? They specifically took the "container" which most likely contained the evidence. They're not searching a desk drawer for a footlocker, they're searching a file cabinet for a piece of paper.
They took what the warrant specified in order to search it for evidence related to a specific crime. If they find anything else, its no different than if they found evidence of an unrelated activity while conducting a search through a file cabinet.
I'm really trying to understand why people are so opposed to computers being searched if they're related to a criminal investigation. There seems to be an automatic assumption there was some breach in protocol or oversight. If there is/was, what was it? This case was even put before the state Supreme Court, who declined to take the case -so now the actual search of the drives can take place. In the mean time, any intentional or accidental destruction (normal drive use) of the evidence was prevented -that's good. In fact, from TFA
Feudale ruled Feb. 23 that the state could seize the computers but view only Internet data relevant to the case. The judge also ordered the agent who withdraws the data to show them to him first - before passing them to prosecutors - to ensure that the journalists' other confidential files are not compromised. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the State Supreme Court.
So what's the problem?
Just to clarify, they didn't "just suspect" there was some evidence, AFAICT they provided enough evidence to a judge to get a search warrent.
True, but they do seize all records. And, depending on the circumstances, they do "seize" the house if a crime was committed there.
If they suspect there is a evidence in the form of a paper record in an office, they have a choice. Either shut down the office until someone can search through all the papers to try to find it, or box it all up and haul it away until someone can search through all the papers. If the evidence is on a hard drive, they can either close the office until the drive can be searched, or seize the drive and do the search off the premises. In this case, I'd guess that removing the drives is preferable to shutting down the office.
The only other alternative is to give up and say, if evidence is stored on a computer, its immune from search because we might see someone's "dirty laundry". How would you suggest they gather the evidence?
Wrong - the computers will contain all sorts of information, and there's no guarantee whatsoever that any sort of control over the information retrieved will be implemented.
And that's no different than any search when a house or office is involved. The same "sort of control over the informatnion retrieved" is the same in all cases.
Really. Its not like there's something mystical on computers that hasn't been dealt with in "paper" searches. How are records any different just because they're on a computer?
And to add to that, if a crime is committed, all possible evidence may be seized. Your property was used in committing a crime? It sucks, but it will be taken away from you -doesn't matter if its your gun, your car or your computer (or 4 hard dirves as in this case). I'd like to know how people think law enforcement should be handled if this was not the case. Every time computers are seized as evidence in computer crime, the /. crowd starts crying foul. Do you want computer crime prosecuted or not?
A felony crime is alleged to have been committed. Evidence is seized. Been happening for decades/centuries.
I don't think its any more relevant for a computer than for a home, complete with all kinds of records, etc. Nobody makes sure only relevant rooms or boxes of records are searched. For it to qualify as a "search", you actually need to search and see everything.
I like the last line of the writup, "What's the verdict? Real or Fake?"
/. and we can debate wether or not he's guilty. Who needs evidence when someone can probably Google the guy and we can determine by uninformed debate what the verdict should be.
The answer: Nobody can know until the real evidence is made available.
I just read someone from my home town was arrested for shoplifing. Maybe I should submit the story to
I know, I Know. I should get lost and chill out.
Easy. They assume that the fishermen, like you, don't know that "large school of fish" is Hebrew slang for "hurricane".
Problem solved.
So maybe the posts waaay above here are right. Hire Lt. Worf to play the part of the Maytag repairman, sitting in a corner waiting for an actual security threat. Show him getting all excited when a "virus alert" goes out, only to find out it only affects Windows, or requires a Mac user to intentionally infect their computer -back to the corner.
Shows Apple is ready for a threat, if it ever happens.
...And more important, does it run on Windows?
I think he's referring to the episode where some of the crew end up in an alternate universe -the one with the bearded Spock.
There goes 10 years of trying to prove I'm not a nerd.
The whole "controversy" over wether Google should or should not being doing what it's shareholders want is kind of funny.
To partake in the amusement remember that Google is doing what its current shareholders want. Including their two biggest shareholders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page.