As someone a very long way from retirement, I like stock prices going down. It means that my retirment fund will be able to buy more stock for the same amount of money.
Also, it means that some rich bastards get slighly less rich.:-)
The odds of you being killed in the U.S. by a terrorist is so small that only an ignortant and fearfull population would even worry about it. So you just have to replace the current population?
Palladium is specificially designed to prevent a virtual implementation. That's the whole point of "trusted" hardware: the DRM app needs to know that it's running on a specifc, MS-approved device that won't leak its output to a screen-capture utility or through the analog hole.
It achieves this using PKI and digital signatures, so a virtual version would need to forge the Palladium device's signature. That means finding the private key, which is a DMCA violation and, more importantly, practically impossible. It's 2048-bit RSA, which would take trillions of years to crack even using the most powerful distributed computing project.
More importantly, most people are not programmers, and most companies are not in the business of selling software. If you're poor and trying to break free of poverty (or even if you're rich and trying to get richer), the concept of not having to pay Microsoft's exhorbitant licensing fees is very attractive.
Gates has to sell if he wants to buy his billionaire toys or donate money to chariy: Almost all his famed wealth was originally tied up in MS stock, so the only way to get at it is to sell. To avoid claims of insider trading, and to smooth out the bumps, he sells a little bit pretty much all the time. If he unloaded even 1% at once, the shock would severely hurt MS's stock price, just because of supply and demand, never mind (justified) thoughts that he must have some inside info.
Dancing Boy is different. MS alrady pays him a 7-figure salary, so he doesn't really need to sell in the way that Gates does. Unless he's got a huge tax bill, gambling debt, ransom demand, etc. to meet.
International IP laws differ. It's possible that SCO really believes it has a case against Linux in the US, but knows it wouldn't in India.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, neither open-source or proprietary software is a defence against an IP shakedown. Consider:
Linux users are threatened by SCO. Probably an empty threat.
Windows users are threatened by the BSA. Usually an empty threat, but not always.
Almost everyone with a Web site is threatened by SBC. Definitely not an empty threat, even if SBC ultimately loses in court (as it should).
The RIAA is suing ISPs to get users' private information, and the MPAA wants to hack into every computer to check for copyrighted material. The most serious threat of all, as their lobbyists mean they'll probably win.
The whole copyright and patent business has gotten completely out of control. It's no longer a exaggeration to say that most of what's good about computers is threatencopyright ed by the fundamentalists. I think Stallman was right.
From the artucle, it looks like this applies only to corporate personnel departments, so I don't think I'm in violation of federal law when I delete all the resumes I get in my work inbox.
Slippery slope legal question: Does this mean it's illegal to use spam filtering software that might catch a resume en-route to a personnel dept? If so, a very large proportion of companies are breaking the law.
I'd prefer a directly-elected president, but a real electoral college might be a good idea. The problem is, how can it be prevented from being taken over by the parties, as at present?
The greatest problem with the sterile seeds is that, because seeds tend to blow between fields, they might get mixed up with the natural, non-GMO, non-sterile seeds. A farmer who isn't intentionally using GMOs (like the one in this case claims to be) could find that the seeds he plants don't grow. In an area of the world where food is in short supply, that's even worse than being sued by Monsanto.
This risk is one reason why some countries don't accept GM food, even if people are starving and others are offering to give it to them for free: They're afraid that sterile seeds will cause an even greater famine next harvest. Though there's a lot of paranoia around GM food, this particular fear sounds valid.
The Labour government certainly doesn't think it's biased towards them! And opinion polls show that most British people think it's biased towards the Conservative party, not Labour. Of course, everyone with strong views thinks every non-basied media outlet is biased towards the other side.
I think the BBC is actually pretty good. But if you're in search of unbiased coverage, watch out for:
Christianity. There's no separation of church and state in the UK, and the BBC is officially part of the Anglican religious apparatus. It broadcasts a Church of England service every day, for example, and at prime time on Sunday. Having said that, it does now include some religious programming aimed at other faiths, and discussion of religious issues from an atheist perspective.
Deference towards the British monarchy and, inexplicably, Peter Mandelson (a former minister and close friend of Blair).
Caution when dealing with neo-Nazis and fascists. BBC interviewers are (rightly) savage when dealing with regular politicians, but they put on the kid gloves when dealing with the BNP and NF.
Advertisments for itself, often disguised as news (eg. an "investigative" report into the Teletubby phenomenon). Not as bad as commercial broadcasters, of course, but entirely free of commercialism either.
An almost religious love for cricket in the sports department. They often cancel Star Trek or Buffy if a cricket match over-runs, and their news and classical music radio stations frequently abandon all regular programming to cover the latest game. This is much worse than the similar habit that some US network affiliates have with baseball or American football, because the BBC covers the whole country and each cricket game can last for a week!
This just about says it all. A security problem for whom?
Ask any computer user, from a home web surfer to an IT manager, what they consider to be the worst security threats. My guess is they would list things like MS Outlook viruses, buffer overflows, ActiveX controls, spam and Gator. Would anyone but the MPAA mention graphics cards?
There is no particular reason to link a browser and an OS. Putting IE in Windows is generally good for IE (faster browsing), but bad for Windows (less stable OS). And despite all the BS from Microsoft, Windows doesn't use the same application for browsing the Web as for browsing a local machine. Yes, a user can type either a URL or a local folder path into the address bar, but there are two different applications. If you type "C:" into IE, IE closes and regular Explorer starts up. They look like the same application, because the window of one is transferred to the other, but they're not really the same.
Microsoft just bought into Netscape's hype about how the browser would replace the OS, and decided it had to kill Netscape. The government then bought into the same hype, and decided it had to crack down on Microsoft. The truth is that the browser doesn't matter. It's just one mor application, albeit a popular one.
While the govt. was right to go after Microsoft, focusing on the broswer was a big mistake that made teh DoJ look like Netscape's pawn. It should have focused on things like the boot-loader, EULAs and OEM licensing retsrictions.
Don't forget the War on Sharing (or "piracy"). And we all know what motivates that.
One more big reason for the War on Drugs is lobbying from the privatized prison industry (Republicans) and the prison guards' unions (Democrats). The U.S. now locks up more people than any other nation in the world, both in absolute terms and as a pecentage of its population. Most pork barrel projctes merely take taxpayers' money, but prisons require a steady supply of inmates too.
We're all really cynical about the music industry. All those bands may sing about rebellion, but they're just manufactured by large corporations to make money, right?
This suit demonstrates othersie. The music industry really is out to destroy capitalism!
The suit sounds like a challenge to the concept of limited liability. Given the questionable behaviour of almost every corporation, no-one would want to risk owning any stock at all if the RIAA wins. It could be the end of the capitalist economic system as we know it.
Many people would see the end of corporations and stock markets as a good thing, but up till now I didn't think the RIAA lawyers were among them. Maybe all those rich rock stars are anti-establishment after all!
It's compiling, not copying. You are perfectly free to use a GPL compiler to produce a closed-source program, and of course to run both the compiler and the code it produces on any platform at all.
It should depend on whose fault the actual accident is. In the (rare) case that a motorcyclist actually crashes into a car, the driver of the car shouldn't be liable.
In the (more likely) case that a motorcyclist is hit by a car, the car driver should be held responsible. Requiring the motorcyclist to wear a helmet is just like requiring all kids to wear a flack jacket as a protection against school shootings, or blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.
I'm not saying that riding a motorcyle without a helmet is a particularly good idea, but people shouldn't be forced by law to protect themselves from others, even if such protection is very advisable.
are you saying that MS should be allowed to say you can't firewall their products?
Microsoft probably will add that as a restriction in some of its EULAs, if it hasn't already done so. It may not be legally binding, but a few well-placed campaign contributions will change that (UCITA). With Palladium, they will even be able to enforce it automatically: software simply won't run until Microsoft's central database confirms that your license is still valid.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone a very long way from retirement, I like stock prices going down. It means that my retirment fund will be able to buy more stock for the same amount of money.
:-)
Also, it means that some rich bastards get slighly less rich.
You buy a fully-refundable ticket. Yes, fully-refundable tickets are a lot more expensive, but that doesn't matter as you're getting your money back.
The odds of you being killed in the U.S. by a terrorist is so small that only an ignortant and fearfull population would even worry about it.
So you just have to replace the current population?
Fair Use is a fuzzy legal concept, like Reasonable Doubt. There's no fixed definition of how much use is fair.
Palladium is specificially designed to prevent a virtual implementation. That's the whole point of "trusted" hardware: the DRM app needs to know that it's running on a specifc, MS-approved device that won't leak its output to a screen-capture utility or through the analog hole.
It achieves this using PKI and digital signatures, so a virtual version would need to forge the Palladium device's signature. That means finding the private key, which is a DMCA violation and, more importantly, practically impossible. It's 2048-bit RSA, which would take trillions of years to crack even using the most powerful distributed computing project.
More importantly, most people are not programmers, and most companies are not in the business of selling software. If you're poor and trying to break free of poverty (or even if you're rich and trying to get richer), the concept of not having to pay Microsoft's exhorbitant licensing fees is very attractive.
Gates has to sell if he wants to buy his billionaire toys or donate money to chariy: Almost all his famed wealth was originally tied up in MS stock, so the only way to get at it is to sell. To avoid claims of insider trading, and to smooth out the bumps, he sells a little bit pretty much all the time. If he unloaded even 1% at once, the shock would severely hurt MS's stock price, just because of supply and demand, never mind (justified) thoughts that he must have some inside info.
Dancing Boy is different. MS alrady pays him a 7-figure salary, so he doesn't really need to sell in the way that Gates does. Unless he's got a huge tax bill, gambling debt, ransom demand, etc. to meet.
International IP laws differ. It's possible that SCO really believes it has a case against Linux in the US, but knows it wouldn't in India.
- Linux users are threatened by SCO. Probably an empty threat.
- Windows users are threatened by the BSA. Usually an empty threat, but not always.
- Almost everyone with a Web site is threatened by SBC. Definitely not an empty threat, even if SBC ultimately loses in court (as it should).
- The RIAA is suing ISPs to get users' private information, and the MPAA wants to hack into every computer to check for copyrighted material. The most serious threat of all, as their lobbyists mean they'll probably win.
The whole copyright and patent business has gotten completely out of control. It's no longer a exaggeration to say that most of what's good about computers is threatencopyright ed by the fundamentalists. I think Stallman was right.From the artucle, it looks like this applies only to corporate personnel departments, so I don't think I'm in violation of federal law when I delete all the resumes I get in my work inbox.
Slippery slope legal question: Does this mean it's illegal to use spam filtering software that might catch a resume en-route to a personnel dept? If so, a very large proportion of companies are breaking the law.
I'd prefer a directly-elected president, but a real electoral college might be a good idea. The problem is, how can it be prevented from being taken over by the parties, as at present?
The greatest problem with the sterile seeds is that, because seeds tend to blow between fields, they might get mixed up with the natural, non-GMO, non-sterile seeds. A farmer who isn't intentionally using GMOs (like the one in this case claims to be) could find that the seeds he plants don't grow. In an area of the world where food is in short supply, that's even worse than being sued by Monsanto.
This risk is one reason why some countries don't accept GM food, even if people are starving and others are offering to give it to them for free: They're afraid that sterile seeds will cause an even greater famine next harvest. Though there's a lot of paranoia around GM food, this particular fear sounds valid.
To the non-geek, this is cracking. Like keyboard shortcuts or the right mouse button.
Interesting that they called it cracking, not hacking.
It's the fault of the government for allowing corporations to exist, and to influence the law.
I think the BBC is actually pretty good. But if you're in search of unbiased coverage, watch out for:
This just about says it all. A security problem for whom?
Ask any computer user, from a home web surfer to an IT manager, what they consider to be the worst security threats. My guess is they would list things like MS Outlook viruses, buffer overflows, ActiveX controls, spam and Gator. Would anyone but the MPAA mention graphics cards?
There is no particular reason to link a browser and an OS. Putting IE in Windows is generally good for IE (faster browsing), but bad for Windows (less stable OS). And despite all the BS from Microsoft, Windows doesn't use the same application for browsing the Web as for browsing a local machine. Yes, a user can type either a URL or a local folder path into the address bar, but there are two different applications. If you type "C:" into IE, IE closes and regular Explorer starts up. They look like the same application, because the window of one is transferred to the other, but they're not really the same.
Microsoft just bought into Netscape's hype about how the browser would replace the OS, and decided it had to kill Netscape. The government then bought into the same hype, and decided it had to crack down on Microsoft. The truth is that the browser doesn't matter. It's just one mor application, albeit a popular one.
While the govt. was right to go after Microsoft, focusing on the broswer was a big mistake that made teh DoJ look like Netscape's pawn. It should have focused on things like the boot-loader, EULAs and OEM licensing retsrictions.
Don't forget the War on Sharing (or "piracy"). And we all know what motivates that.
One more big reason for the War on Drugs is lobbying from the privatized prison industry (Republicans) and the prison guards' unions (Democrats). The U.S. now locks up more people than any other nation in the world, both in absolute terms and as a pecentage of its population. Most pork barrel projctes merely take taxpayers' money, but prisons require a steady supply of inmates too.
This is why Windows XP has product activation --- so that people can't install their old copy on a new machine.
This is one reason why IBM has to fight this in court. If it buys SCO, many people (myself included) will assume that SCO actually had a case.
We're all really cynical about the music industry. All those bands may sing about rebellion, but they're just manufactured by large corporations to make money, right?
This suit demonstrates othersie. The music industry really is out to destroy capitalism!
The suit sounds like a challenge to the concept of limited liability. Given the questionable behaviour of almost every corporation, no-one would want to risk owning any stock at all if the RIAA wins. It could be the end of the capitalist economic system as we know it.
Many people would see the end of corporations and stock markets as a good thing, but up till now I didn't think the RIAA lawyers were among them. Maybe all those rich rock stars are anti-establishment after all!
It's compiling, not copying. You are perfectly free to use a GPL compiler to produce a closed-source program, and of course to run both the compiler and the code it produces on any platform at all.
It should depend on whose fault the actual accident is. In the (rare) case that a motorcyclist actually crashes into a car, the driver of the car shouldn't be liable.
In the (more likely) case that a motorcyclist is hit by a car, the car driver should be held responsible. Requiring the motorcyclist to wear a helmet is just like requiring all kids to wear a flack jacket as a protection against school shootings, or blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.
I'm not saying that riding a motorcyle without a helmet is a particularly good idea, but people shouldn't be forced by law to protect themselves from others, even if such protection is very advisable.
are you saying that MS should be allowed to say you can't firewall their products?
Microsoft probably will add that as a restriction in some of its EULAs, if it hasn't already done so. It may not be legally binding, but a few well-placed campaign contributions will change that (UCITA). With Palladium, they will even be able to enforce it automatically: software simply won't run until Microsoft's central database confirms that your license is still valid.