They failed because they couldn't support the one DRM that had mass market adoption: iTunes Music Store. No one else in any meaningful numbers bought into any other DRM scheme out there.
I mean shit. They sold hundreds of millions (if not billions) of tracks.
why can't we just use a bit of properly carved metal to start the vehicle without throwing in a bunch of junk?
Try to imagine your insurance rates for said car without the chipped keys. I'm not in the business but I'd wager that the chipped keys fairly significantly reduce the rate of car theft which makes insuring said car cheaper. I'd further wager that the rate increase of carved metal versus chipped keys to be more than $50 per annum.
I'm willing to bet you can get a VMWare/Parallels/etc. configuration to mimmic an OLPC laptop that'd make testing and development much easier than with OLPC itself.
This has already been ruled as legal by the courts. It was reported by slashdot 2-4 years ago.
Legal even though there was an "unauthorized access" law or because there was no "unauthorized access" law? What was legal yesterday may not be legal today. Again, without looking at the case or the ruling, it's difficult for me to say the two issues addressed are the same.
Having ignorant people hold back the rest of the world because they are too lazy to take some responsiblity for their configurations pisses me off.
The problem (read the article) is that the intent of the owner is that the access point is legal to use within the confines of the coffee shop. Since that isn't configurable (how do you define physical boundaries in an access point?), the owner is left with the best possible configuration possible.
The problem here is that you believe that everyone is a free loader. Some people are actually responsible and only use things that they have legal access to. I assure you legal professionals are very aware of the basic issue of legal access. It's only in the minds of people unfamiliar with the law that this issue is fuzzy. I called up a few fellow lawyers I know in regards to the issue. We all sided with the judge with regards to the his determination of the law.
When in doubt about legal access, I'd ask the owner. The price of a cup of coffee is cheaper than a criminal record, legal fees, and/or punishment. Do as you wish. Be prepared for the consequences of your own action.
IOW, in Michigan, it is a felony to sit outside a coffee shop or other establishment with "Free WiFi" without buying something.
No, that's the incorrect interpretation of the law. Read what the owner said. Authorization is given within the confines of the shop (the owner did not specify purchase). Authorization comes from the owner, not from the configuration on the device despite what the Slashdot community may believe to be correct. The intent of the owner trumps all configurations from a legal perspective.
When in doubt, ask. Don't assume and get yourself into legal trouble.
If you can provide proof that it was indeed me that put the sign up, you would have legal coverage for doing so. However, if you don't, I'd be very cautious. Just because there's a sign on some object saying it's free, doesn't mean it was put on there by its owner.
Before I address your concerns, I'll speak directly about the case that this entire thing is about. If the defendant in question really believes that the access point was free, bring the owner to testify that it was indeed free. I don't have the transcript so I can't say that he did or didn't try. If I was the defense lawyer, that's what I'd do first. I'd determine the intent of the owner. Because no matter what you do with hardware, the question of intent of the owner trumps all configurations. Authorization comes from the owner, always, and never the device when legal questions are raised.
Now your concern. The fact of the matter is that you don't know explicitly that you are allowed to connect to a person's webserver or not. However, how you know it was there may provide sufficient legal coverage. For example, if there was an advertisement for the web site from an authorized advertiser for the owner promoting said web site, then absolutely you have reasonable legal coverage. You are connecting to their web site in response to an advertisement to do so for more information. However, the owner could charge you with the equivalent of trespass. It probably wouldn't stick.
That charge is not in their best interest. The charge creates confusion (assuming you access their web site like everyone else) as to who can and cannot access the web site. This creates press coverage and people who wishes to obey the law don't access their web site in fear of being charged. The owner is unable to disseminate information. His business suffers. Therefore, given this scenario it's reasonable to assume that you can connect to a web site given these circumstances. If you connect to a web server that's hidden off somewhere unadvertised, you are on shaky grounds legally (connect by trying various IP's etc, and not via a link from some page owned by the business).
Why can't you connect to a router wifi access point when it is configured to give public access?
Configured by whom? How do you know that the configuration on the access point mirrors the intention of the owner? How do you know it's configured? What if it's the default? How do you know the access point wasn't hacked to provide free access to everyone? If there's a "free - take this" sign on a riding lawn mower on someone's lawn, would you take it without checking? What if the sign was put on there by some prankster?
Unless you know that the configuration was done by the owner with the intent to give you free access, I'd be very careful.
My insurance company isn't the arbitrator of the law. The contract I sign may spell out the terms under which they pay out but legally, if you got in my car under the conditions described above and took it for a joyride, you may find yourself in jail. The insurance company not paying doesn't have a single impact on you going to jail for car theft.
What if my NIC asks his router if I'm allowed to use his network, and his router says "yes"? Is it okay then?
This is true if and only if his router speaks for him. Legally, since you can't transfer power of attorney to an inanimate object, this is legally dubious. It makes perfect sense that his router speaks for him if you are not a lawyer, not trained as one, and have basically no knowledge of the law.
Call me old school, but I limit my clothes to cotton and wool. Simple. I also pay out the ass for them.
I suppose I'm lucky. My office is a scant 2 blocks away from some residential buildings (condos). Those condos are within 4 blocks of mass transit and a quaint main street style shopping area. I live about an hour away (via mass transit) from the office.
The suburbs don't need to die. My parents live in a fairly well designed suburb in Northern Virginia. It's 10 minutes from my father's office. Mom takes a train into Washington DC for work. It's all in the infrastructure planning.
Incidentally, I moved away from Silicon Valley because the entire infrastructure around that area was just stupid. How is it that you can get some of the most brilliant engineering minds together and no one spends time on the infrastructure?
If you don't like what big oil is doing... stop buying their products. I flat out stopped driving 3 years ago. I have not bought a single gallon of gasoline for 3 years. Every time I hear about gas prices going up, I smile inside.
Toolbar icons icons have multiple sizes. Check out this tip. It's like someone sat down and said, "Hm. How do we make this work for different types of users?"
Now, do you think that the teacher whom you entrust your child's life and education to is any less willing to kill because the law says that he must leave his gun that he carries in public at home when he walks through the door to the school?
I don't trust my child's life to an educator. I trust them to teach my child the basic education. The more advanced stuff like morality I'll take care of. My opinion is that most educators take children and turn them into sheep: future victims.
Also, should other people with children be unerved by the fact that you are willing to kill?
Absolutely. Perhaps they should teach their kids to fight back instead of trusting in other people to keep their kids alive. The problem with trusting other people is that people can be corrupted. The best advice I can give on this is Dan Farmer's analysis on trust networks. Once your trusted networks are infiltrated, you are basically screwed. The same concept applies to human relationship.
If someone is holding the son/daughter of your child's teacher hostage with the explicit instruction that if he doesn't harm your child, his kid dies, what do you think is going to happen to your child?
Do you trust a cop?
No. As the survivor of a fire fight that lost me two family members almost 2 decades ago, the crime has never been prosecuted. I don't trust a cop at all as an instrument of justice, maybe as an instrument of traffic control, but not justice.
If so, are you unnerved by your decision to be willing to kill?
I'm not unnerved by my decision to kill. I know and am comfortable with my perspective on it. I know I'm willing to kill the guy with the gun. I personally don't know who the teacher is willing to kill, only that he is willing to kill.
Personally, I trust me more than I trust some teacher. Likewise, I don't trust other people to do what's best for what's important to me.
Firearms are not a crime deterrent no matter whose rhetoric you listen to. The key thing to realize about firearms and concealed carry laws is that to make that stuff work, the person with the firearm in the defensive position needs to have the willingness to kill or at least severely impair the aggressor to the point where violence is abated.
Let that sink in for a moment. Do you feel safer with your kids in an environment where one of the faculties has made a conscious decision that he is willing to kill? Does that unnerve you like it unnerves me?
I am greatly intrigued by the school program that teaches kids to fight back. At the very least if I die due to similar violence, I at least made a conscious decision to do something, anything, that might affect the outcome in a positive way.
I would rather die trying to make a difference rather than die a victim cowering. In the very least, it would be a good death.
Slashdot Mirror
How does having my name associated with a file I paid for prevent my friends from playing my purchase?
Unless that email client has search-based folders ala Gmail, and Mail.app, welcome to the last fucking century.
Trust. But verify.
It's not for nuclear armaments anymore.
They failed because they couldn't support the one DRM that had mass market adoption: iTunes Music Store. No one else in any meaningful numbers bought into any other DRM scheme out there.
I mean shit. They sold hundreds of millions (if not billions) of tracks.
Try to imagine your insurance rates for said car without the chipped keys. I'm not in the business but I'd wager that the chipped keys fairly significantly reduce the rate of car theft which makes insuring said car cheaper. I'd further wager that the rate increase of carved metal versus chipped keys to be more than $50 per annum.
Don't worry. I'm selling carbon credits. Just pay me and continue on what you were doing.
I'm willing to bet you can get a VMWare/Parallels/etc. configuration to mimmic an OLPC laptop that'd make testing and development much easier than with OLPC itself.
How likely does the grand prize winner(s) need an OLPC laptop?
Legal even though there was an "unauthorized access" law or because there was no "unauthorized access" law? What was legal yesterday may not be legal today. Again, without looking at the case or the ruling, it's difficult for me to say the two issues addressed are the same.
The problem (read the article) is that the intent of the owner is that the access point is legal to use within the confines of the coffee shop. Since that isn't configurable (how do you define physical boundaries in an access point?), the owner is left with the best possible configuration possible.
The problem here is that you believe that everyone is a free loader. Some people are actually responsible and only use things that they have legal access to. I assure you legal professionals are very aware of the basic issue of legal access. It's only in the minds of people unfamiliar with the law that this issue is fuzzy. I called up a few fellow lawyers I know in regards to the issue. We all sided with the judge with regards to the his determination of the law.
When in doubt about legal access, I'd ask the owner. The price of a cup of coffee is cheaper than a criminal record, legal fees, and/or punishment. Do as you wish. Be prepared for the consequences of your own action.
No, that's the incorrect interpretation of the law. Read what the owner said. Authorization is given within the confines of the shop (the owner did not specify purchase). Authorization comes from the owner, not from the configuration on the device despite what the Slashdot community may believe to be correct. The intent of the owner trumps all configurations from a legal perspective.
When in doubt, ask. Don't assume and get yourself into legal trouble.
If you can provide proof that it was indeed me that put the sign up, you would have legal coverage for doing so. However, if you don't, I'd be very cautious. Just because there's a sign on some object saying it's free, doesn't mean it was put on there by its owner.
Before I address your concerns, I'll speak directly about the case that this entire thing is about. If the defendant in question really believes that the access point was free, bring the owner to testify that it was indeed free. I don't have the transcript so I can't say that he did or didn't try. If I was the defense lawyer, that's what I'd do first. I'd determine the intent of the owner. Because no matter what you do with hardware, the question of intent of the owner trumps all configurations. Authorization comes from the owner, always, and never the device when legal questions are raised.
Now your concern. The fact of the matter is that you don't know explicitly that you are allowed to connect to a person's webserver or not. However, how you know it was there may provide sufficient legal coverage. For example, if there was an advertisement for the web site from an authorized advertiser for the owner promoting said web site, then absolutely you have reasonable legal coverage. You are connecting to their web site in response to an advertisement to do so for more information. However, the owner could charge you with the equivalent of trespass. It probably wouldn't stick.
That charge is not in their best interest. The charge creates confusion (assuming you access their web site like everyone else) as to who can and cannot access the web site. This creates press coverage and people who wishes to obey the law don't access their web site in fear of being charged. The owner is unable to disseminate information. His business suffers. Therefore, given this scenario it's reasonable to assume that you can connect to a web site given these circumstances. If you connect to a web server that's hidden off somewhere unadvertised, you are on shaky grounds legally (connect by trying various IP's etc, and not via a link from some page owned by the business).
Configured by whom? How do you know that the configuration on the access point mirrors the intention of the owner? How do you know it's configured? What if it's the default? How do you know the access point wasn't hacked to provide free access to everyone? If there's a "free - take this" sign on a riding lawn mower on someone's lawn, would you take it without checking? What if the sign was put on there by some prankster?
Unless you know that the configuration was done by the owner with the intent to give you free access, I'd be very careful.
My insurance company isn't the arbitrator of the law. The contract I sign may spell out the terms under which they pay out but legally, if you got in my car under the conditions described above and took it for a joyride, you may find yourself in jail. The insurance company not paying doesn't have a single impact on you going to jail for car theft.
This is true if and only if his router speaks for him. Legally, since you can't transfer power of attorney to an inanimate object, this is legally dubious. It makes perfect sense that his router speaks for him if you are not a lawyer, not trained as one, and have basically no knowledge of the law.
How do you feel about the Eisenhower system? Can you live without it?
Call me old school, but I limit my clothes to cotton and wool. Simple. I also pay out the ass for them.
I suppose I'm lucky. My office is a scant 2 blocks away from some residential buildings (condos). Those condos are within 4 blocks of mass transit and a quaint main street style shopping area. I live about an hour away (via mass transit) from the office.
The suburbs don't need to die. My parents live in a fairly well designed suburb in Northern Virginia. It's 10 minutes from my father's office. Mom takes a train into Washington DC for work. It's all in the infrastructure planning.
Incidentally, I moved away from Silicon Valley because the entire infrastructure around that area was just stupid. How is it that you can get some of the most brilliant engineering minds together and no one spends time on the infrastructure?
If you don't like what big oil is doing ... stop buying their products. I flat out stopped driving 3 years ago. I have not bought a single gallon of gasoline for 3 years. Every time I hear about gas prices going up, I smile inside.
Which touch detection mechanic were you using originally for them?
Ask a waitress. Waiting staff at restaurants and country clubs have been using touch screen systems since the early 90's.
I know because I used to sell those systems to them. They work just fine.
Get a job.
I don't trust my child's life to an educator. I trust them to teach my child the basic education. The more advanced stuff like morality I'll take care of. My opinion is that most educators take children and turn them into sheep: future victims.
Absolutely. Perhaps they should teach their kids to fight back instead of trusting in other people to keep their kids alive. The problem with trusting other people is that people can be corrupted. The best advice I can give on this is Dan Farmer's analysis on trust networks. Once your trusted networks are infiltrated, you are basically screwed. The same concept applies to human relationship.
If someone is holding the son/daughter of your child's teacher hostage with the explicit instruction that if he doesn't harm your child, his kid dies, what do you think is going to happen to your child?
No. As the survivor of a fire fight that lost me two family members almost 2 decades ago, the crime has never been prosecuted. I don't trust a cop at all as an instrument of justice, maybe as an instrument of traffic control, but not justice.
I'm not unnerved by my decision to kill. I know and am comfortable with my perspective on it. I know I'm willing to kill the guy with the gun. I personally don't know who the teacher is willing to kill, only that he is willing to kill.
Personally, I trust me more than I trust some teacher. Likewise, I don't trust other people to do what's best for what's important to me.
Firearms are not a crime deterrent no matter whose rhetoric you listen to. The key thing to realize about firearms and concealed carry laws is that to make that stuff work, the person with the firearm in the defensive position needs to have the willingness to kill or at least severely impair the aggressor to the point where violence is abated.
Let that sink in for a moment. Do you feel safer with your kids in an environment where one of the faculties has made a conscious decision that he is willing to kill? Does that unnerve you like it unnerves me?
I am greatly intrigued by the school program that teaches kids to fight back. At the very least if I die due to similar violence, I at least made a conscious decision to do something, anything, that might affect the outcome in a positive way.
I would rather die trying to make a difference rather than die a victim cowering. In the very least, it would be a good death.