Well remember we, as license payers, pay for the content to be made. Giving it away to the world for free would probably be in violation of their charter, and would certainly make me ask "Why am I paying this again"?
Except it's just as unnecessary as MS publishing aggregated stats from WindowsUpdate. For which there would be a massive outcry. Out of interest was there an EULA or something to the effect on the yum process saying that your IP address would be recorded?
And my immediate thought was "Oh, it's Mitchell and Webb from Radio 4". But then I am a PC user.
(For non-UK residents, or UK residents under 30, Radio 4 is the BBC's "wireless" [the old meaning of wireless, don't get excited] station which has news, politics and other spoken word programmes. None of these popular beat combos, oh no)
The BSA often advertises with "Grass on your old company" type adverts; and have said before it's reports like this that initiate actions. Of course their records aren't open for review, so who knows.
In the UK there is the Anton Piller order (and the newer Search Order) which is like a civil search warrant, which can be used to enable surprise searches in cases of suspected copyright, patent or trademark infringement.
For those of you/us in the UK there is the ability to opt-out of the central NHS records system currently being developed. This is probably a good thing if you don't want civil servants to have the ability to look at your medical records or if you don't want a 3rd party, private, company to process them (as happens now). Simply fill in the form on the site and it will generate a letter for you to post to your GP.
I did, and wow, I even read the PDF. Aas I said it's probably too late now; the padlock is too engrained in user's minds as a way to indicate a site is trusthworthy and real.
If you read the paper the actual "worse when trained" only referred to sites where the phising toolbar notification was not displayed and not really as a function of EVA;
The
participants who were asked to read the Internet Explorer help file were more
likely to classify both real and fake sites as legitimate whenever the phishing
warning did not appear.
and really, reading a help file is hardly training:)
It's a user education problem, and it's probably too late. SSL has long been missold to end users as an indication of security and trust; it may well secure some communications but the trust aspect is bogus. The newer certificates attempt to add a more measurable trust metric, but without user education it will be useless. Warnings on screen simply get ignored. The study could have equally been done with Opera (which supports the new eval certificates. In addition they also used Firefox on the Mac to indicate a homograph attack.
Actually it may not just be the labels. Remember the labels only hold part of the copyright; they have rights to an individual recording; however the song writer(s) hold copyright over every recording and the recording artist also has "performing rights".
Also you tend to find that US labels will not have rights to sell anything in Europe (independant labels not withstanding); it will be the local labels that have those rights. So for example EMI US probably won't have the rights to sell music in the UK, that is handled by EMI UK. (can you tell I've been through this mess before? *grin*) You can argue that it's usually the labels that are insisting on DRM, but I've also dealt with some artists that also wanted it.
Except it's nothing new; that's what the TAP programme is. I've been involved with the SQL 2005 TAP, where they supported a live rollout of the beta code for a large project; and throughout we had direct access to parts of the SQL team. TAP doesn't mean the software is thrown at you and you flounder with it, it's a carefully organised rollout and feedback process. We also did the same with BizTalk 2004, and MS ended up flying some of the BizTalk team over to help fix bugs at a customer site (of course the customer was the one who choose to use BizTalk 2004; meh, what can you do?)
That's all well and good, except for one little point. The last A in RIAA. Recording Industry Association of America. I didn't realise Norway was part of America. You can blame the RIAA for a lot of ills, but you can't blame them for putting DRM in stores where they do not operate, nor do they represent the labels.
Rights are complicated, they are not owned by a single person. The tune and lyrics authors and/or their publishers own authors' rights, which is the classic copyright. The artist that performs that music has certain perfomer 'related rights'. Finally the record label typically owns the copyright or producer's related rights in the particular recording of the song (and generally paid for the recording of that song).
A label may not have a distribution network in another country; so what happens is the artist, or the label grant redisribution rights to another label/company. EMI UK, for example, may license EMI US to distribute tracks in the US; but it needs the agreement with every rights owner for a track. EMI the parent company holds no rights, it's EMI UK, EMI US, Parlaphone etc that own the rights. Now getting everyone to agree is sometimes an exercise in herding cats, as renumeration will change on a per country basis.
So it not as simple as changing a flag; it needs everyone's agreement. And contracts. And methods put in place to make sure rights payments are made.
It has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with the selling rights granted to stores. A label in the US tends to only have the rights to sell the track in the US (and Canada). Labels in the UK usally can only sell in the UK. Even if the labels are global you still need to gain the rights to sell from EMI UK (to sell to the British), EMI France (to sell to France) and so on and you are constrained by the limits placed on you when you are granted the rights by the label.
This has been the situation for years and is not just limited to digital music. And it's been discussed on slashdot before, on why it took Apple so long to open iTunes outside the US, why the Zune store is US only and so on.
Actually you can. Obviously the server side asp.net extensions where you can mark web services as ajax servers and the functionality to raise the nice eventing model requires asp.net at the back end; but the client side libraries (the way to call web services, timers etc.) are released on their own, for use anywhere;
Microsoft AJAX Library
For ASP.NET AJAX development on non-Windows systems, the Microsoft AJAX Library package contains the complete set of client JavaScript components that are included in the full ASP.NET AJAX installation. You may use and modify these scripts in your own applications. To simplify installation, the Microsoft AJAX Library package is available as a compressed (.zip) file.
On a client-side Windows system, we have the JavaScript for the AJAX functionality running in the browser. The browser itself, depending on which one is being used, may be running on top of.NET 2.0.
What weird browser are you running that sits on top of.net 2.0? Firefox doesn't. IE doesn't. Would you care to backup your claim that "AJAX applications and ASP.NET are highly prone to failure"? They're probably just as prone to failure as a PHP, CGI or JSP application and the most probable cause will be the code you developed, not the framework they run under.
And damned if those C++ programs I write aren't sitting on top of a C++ runtime. Damnit. The layers! Won't someone think of the children?
The "source available" (notice how carefully I worded that to avoid your assumption that it should be "open source" using your/RMS's definition) is mentioned on Scott Guthrie's blog
In addition to shipping the source code for the ASP.NET AJAX Control Toolkit controls, we are also releasing all of the source code for the fully supported ASP.NET AJAX 1.0 release. Specifically:
We are releasing the client-side ASP.NET AJAX JavaScript library (which we also call the "Microsoft AJAX Library") under the Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL). This grants developers the right to freely customize/modify the library, as well as to redistribute the derivative versions of the JavaScript library for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
To help with debugging and development, we are also releasing all of the source code for the server-side ASP.NET AJAX 1.0 implementation (including the UpdatePanel, UpdateProgress, ScriptManager, and Network Serialization code) under the Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL).
Being granted "the right to freely customize/modify the library, as well as to redistribute the derivative versions of the JavaScript library for both commercial and non-commercial purposes" is pretty "open", despite not being released under the GPL. Heck it's almost a BSD license. It's certainly the least restrictive of the MS source licenses, they just haven't submitted it to the OSI for approval (and really, can you blame them?). It was written with the OSD in mind.
Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards
Oh utter nonsense. It was more to do with customers saying the software they use must support it than the ODSL. Sure you could argue that the ODSL pushed the format to customers, but saying the ODSL was responsible? Naw.
Interestingly I noticed that my doctor was recalling my xrays in an IE based system a few weeks ago. I've also seen tablet PCs in use in an American cancer clinic to recall patient records and scans. Certainly windows wasn't driving the original acquisition framework, but for static images delivered to most doctors it's fine.
You talk about minimising risk; which is fine, but you can't take the attitude that nothing is worth the risk, otherwise, for example, chemo would be ruled out because some people react badly, radiotherapy would be out because some radio therapy machines went wrong and delivered too high a dose and killed people. Risk analysis is not about removing all risk, but reducing it to an acceptable level.
Seriously I'm sure it would depend on what dies. A disk drive would get thrown and replaced, a motherboard frying is more serious (but of course you can rescue the memory and media). The nice thing about scaling out rather than up is that as newer hardware comes along you don't need to replace the old stuff; so why through something out unless it's dead beyond recovery, in which case it's useless to anyone and off to the recycler it goes.
As Northrop Grumman has just opened a factory for high energy laser weapons in Redondo Beach, California. Admittedly they're aiming to shoot down ballistic missles and systems to protect buildings and areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Well remember we, as license payers, pay for the content to be made. Giving it away to the world for free would probably be in violation of their charter, and would certainly make me ask "Why am I paying this again"?
Except it's just as unnecessary as MS publishing aggregated stats from WindowsUpdate. For which there would be a massive outcry. Out of interest was there an EULA or something to the effect on the yum process saying that your IP address would be recorded?
Except collecting the IP addresses then using them for marketing purposes is not necessary
And my immediate thought was "Oh, it's Mitchell and Webb from Radio 4". But then I am a PC user.
(For non-UK residents, or UK residents under 30, Radio 4 is the BBC's "wireless" [the old meaning of wireless, don't get excited] station which has news, politics and other spoken word programmes. None of these popular beat combos, oh no)
The BSA often advertises with "Grass on your old company" type adverts; and have said before it's reports like this that initiate actions. Of course their records aren't open for review, so who knows.
In the UK there is the Anton Piller order (and the newer Search Order) which is like a civil search warrant, which can be used to enable surprise searches in cases of suspected copyright, patent or trademark infringement.
For those of you/us in the UK there is the ability to opt-out of the central NHS records system currently being developed. This is probably a good thing if you don't want civil servants to have the ability to look at your medical records or if you don't want a 3rd party, private, company to process them (as happens now). Simply fill in the form on the site and it will generate a letter for you to post to your GP.
If you read the paper the actual "worse when trained" only referred to sites where the phising toolbar notification was not displayed and not really as a function of EVA;
and really, reading a help file is hardly trainingIt's a user education problem, and it's probably too late. SSL has long been missold to end users as an indication of security and trust; it may well secure some communications but the trust aspect is bogus. The newer certificates attempt to add a more measurable trust metric, but without user education it will be useless. Warnings on screen simply get ignored. The study could have equally been done with Opera (which supports the new eval certificates. In addition they also used Firefox on the Mac to indicate a homograph attack.
Like that will happen. During the Euro conversion it was interesting to note that prices never went down, they were always rounded up.
Also you tend to find that US labels will not have rights to sell anything in Europe (independant labels not withstanding); it will be the local labels that have those rights. So for example EMI US probably won't have the rights to sell music in the UK, that is handled by EMI UK. (can you tell I've been through this mess before? *grin*) You can argue that it's usually the labels that are insisting on DRM, but I've also dealt with some artists that also wanted it.
Except it's nothing new; that's what the TAP programme is. I've been involved with the SQL 2005 TAP, where they supported a live rollout of the beta code for a large project; and throughout we had direct access to parts of the SQL team. TAP doesn't mean the software is thrown at you and you flounder with it, it's a carefully organised rollout and feedback process. We also did the same with BizTalk 2004, and MS ended up flying some of the BizTalk team over to help fix bugs at a customer site (of course the customer was the one who choose to use BizTalk 2004; meh, what can you do?)
That's all well and good, except for one little point. The last A in RIAA. Recording Industry Association of America. I didn't realise Norway was part of America. You can blame the RIAA for a lot of ills, but you can't blame them for putting DRM in stores where they do not operate, nor do they represent the labels.
Rights are complicated, they are not owned by a single person. The tune and lyrics authors and/or their publishers own authors' rights, which is the classic copyright. The artist that performs that music has certain perfomer 'related rights'. Finally the record label typically owns the copyright or producer's related rights in the particular recording of the song (and generally paid for the recording of that song).
A label may not have a distribution network in another country; so what happens is the artist, or the label grant redisribution rights to another label/company. EMI UK, for example, may license EMI US to distribute tracks in the US; but it needs the agreement with every rights owner for a track. EMI the parent company holds no rights, it's EMI UK, EMI US, Parlaphone etc that own the rights. Now getting everyone to agree is sometimes an exercise in herding cats, as renumeration will change on a per country basis.
So it not as simple as changing a flag; it needs everyone's agreement. And contracts. And methods put in place to make sure rights payments are made.
Well it hasn't stopped slashdot arguing against it either ... *duck*
It has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with the selling rights granted to stores. A label in the US tends to only have the rights to sell the track in the US (and Canada). Labels in the UK usally can only sell in the UK. Even if the labels are global you still need to gain the rights to sell from EMI UK (to sell to the British), EMI France (to sell to France) and so on and you are constrained by the limits placed on you when you are granted the rights by the label.
This has been the situation for years and is not just limited to digital music. And it's been discussed on slashdot before, on why it took Apple so long to open iTunes outside the US, why the Zune store is US only and so on.
So it has to be GPL or PD dedicated? What's wrong with the license it's actually released under?
Actually you can. Obviously the server side asp.net extensions where you can mark web services as ajax servers and the functionality to raise the nice eventing model requires asp.net at the back end; but the client side libraries (the way to call web services, timers etc.) are released on their own, for use anywhere;
You can download it yourself and see.
On a client-side Windows system, we have the JavaScript for the AJAX functionality running in the browser. The browser itself, depending on which one is being used, may be running on top of .NET 2.0.
What weird browser are you running that sits on top of .net 2.0? Firefox doesn't. IE doesn't. Would you care to backup your claim that "AJAX applications and ASP.NET are highly prone to failure"? They're probably just as prone to failure as a PHP, CGI or JSP application and the most probable cause will be the code you developed, not the framework they run under.
And damned if those C++ programs I write aren't sitting on top of a C++ runtime. Damnit. The layers! Won't someone think of the children?
The "source available" (notice how carefully I worded that to avoid your assumption that it should be "open source" using your/RMS's definition) is mentioned on Scott Guthrie's blog
Being granted "the right to freely customize/modify the library, as well as to redistribute the derivative versions of the JavaScript library for both commercial and non-commercial purposes" is pretty "open", despite not being released under the GPL. Heck it's almost a BSD license. It's certainly the least restrictive of the MS source licenses, they just haven't submitted it to the OSI for approval (and really, can you blame them?). It was written with the OSD in mind.
I believe the internet has enough prior art to make immoral computing unpatentable.
(But dear it's "art". Honestly. Pass the tissues)
Oh utter nonsense. It was more to do with customers saying the software they use must support it than the ODSL. Sure you could argue that the ODSL pushed the format to customers, but saying the ODSL was responsible? Naw.
You talk about minimising risk; which is fine, but you can't take the attitude that nothing is worth the risk, otherwise, for example, chemo would be ruled out because some people react badly, radiotherapy would be out because some radio therapy machines went wrong and delivered too high a dose and killed people. Risk analysis is not about removing all risk, but reducing it to an acceptable level.
Seriously I'm sure it would depend on what dies. A disk drive would get thrown and replaced, a motherboard frying is more serious (but of course you can rescue the memory and media). The nice thing about scaling out rather than up is that as newer hardware comes along you don't need to replace the old stuff; so why through something out unless it's dead beyond recovery, in which case it's useless to anyone and off to the recycler it goes.
As Northrop Grumman has just opened a factory for high energy laser weapons in Redondo Beach, California. Admittedly they're aiming to shoot down ballistic missles and systems to protect buildings and areas.