the whole revoke thing is spin from the GPL crowd Umm, so the author of the software is "the GPL crowd"??!?! Because if you bothered to read his post, you would see these words:
"the licensing under the GPL for both packages has been revoked by the author", followed by "PUBLIC NOTICE: atscap and pchdtvr GPL revoked"
If you want a suggestion on what to buy, support for Intel chipsets is very good. Unfortunately, unless you're an electronics engineer, purchasing a chipset doesn't do you very much good unless it's already on a card, and card manufacturers don't advertise which chipset is on a specific card (in fact, chipsets in many of the cheap cards get changed with other ones from batch to batch - I guess the cardboard boxes are more expensive to change than the electronics on the card.)
I'd love to get a wireless card with an intel chipset, but try finding a card that says they use them.
No, the difference should be obvious. You're not buying thousands of cell phones. Wal-Mart is buying thousands of items from whoever they buy from. So what you're saying is that bullying is OK - that the larger party deserves concessions, and can do whatever the hell they want just because they're larger, and that this is perfectly acceptable.
Your analogy is asinine No, your defense of the indefensible is what's asinine.
Wal-Mart has set the bar and said that they require RFID tags by some day in the future to do business with Wal-Mart Yes, and I "set the bar" by saying that anyone who sells anything to me must handle disposal of the packaging.
Two dollars per Pallet is a fair price (IMHO) as they have to tag, inventory, and verify each non-RFID pallet Back to the cellphone analogy.
When I bought my cellphone, I have to unwrap everything, discard the packaging, etc. This takes some amount of time. Would it be reasonable to send a bill to the place I bought it from for this, and expect them to pay it?
If not, why is it reasonable for Wal-mart to do the same?
I do not have a problem with catastrophic insurance covering hugely expensive things like that. So you're saying that a free market would solve all problems, except the ones it can't?!??!
Boies couldn't have known without SCO knowing Which part of *SHOULD HAVE KNOWN* is giving you problems?
In any event, SCOX *did* know - that's why they asked Novell at the beginning to go along with them.
I doubt SCO knew because if they'd known they probably wouldn't have committed such a messy suicide Maybe you should read up on the case before you comment further. This sentence alone shows that you don't know anything about the case whatsoever.
I really hope you were joking I think your sarcasm detector needs a little fine tuning (as well as the people who modded him down.) Direct your eye to this line:
The bible [...] can only be understood it it's native english (emphasis mine.)
I know a lot of religious nutters, but not one of them will claim that the bible was originally written in English.
Your ordinary user is hosed no matter what OS he is running, because he'll have no idea how to fix it. You are exactly correct.
What most people don't understand (because of efforts by MS) is that using a computer is not the same as administering one.
MS has done it's loyal best to try to get people to think that using and administering are the same, and that (by extension) easy to use must also mean easy to administer. They've been so successful at it that they've spawned an entire generation of developers that automatically assumes that the user will have admin priveleges.
To use the obligatory/. car analogy: driving a car takes an entirely different skillset than being a mechanic. Expecting a car to be easy to work on because it's easy to drive is not only wrong, it's counter to logic (the more features it has, the more you have to know about.)
"But surely it can't be any good if they're just giving it away. After all, you don't get something for nothing." Some things are better when they're free. After all, you'd rather have sex with Mom than with a prostitute, right?
The distributor's computer creates the unauthorized copies at the request of the client computer. So you're suggesting that the RIAA file charges against the computers then?
The thing is that the *PERSON* who is making the unauthorized copy is the person doing the downloading.
If your computer switches on and acts as a computer should, then it's clearly not a bomb. There is absolutely no way to replace the hard drive with a miniature solid-state device running a basic OS install, and the battery with a much smaller one sacrificing battery life for extra room, and use the space saved for a big lump of Semtex to be triggered by echo detonate >/dev/bomb. This is entirely impossible. For someone who is completely and utterly wrong, you sure do seem sure of yourself.
If someone can turn a cell phone into a bomb, and have it still act like a cellphone, why couldn't someone do the same thing with a (much larger) computer?
Forensic evidence does not NEED to be presented in court. Yes, yes - and a lawsuit doesn't have to be presented in court either, because the parties could settle.
Various definitions: You mean definitions like "of, relating to, or used in courts of law", "Of or used in a court of law.", "something for court use", or "relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law."?
More colloquially one could describe forensics as merely data gathering evidence s/colloquial/incorrect/g
A parent using forensics software on a child's computer may not be considered forensics to the FBI, but it probably would be to the parent or child. But it *still* wouldn't be forensics.
When a piece of (proposed) legislation uses a term, it's not the "colloquial" interpretation.
Strict definitions need to keep up with colloquial usage. So you're saying that computer geeks should henceforth refer to their PCs "hard drives", that they should call a hard drive "memory", and that we should start referring to their desktop wallpaper as a "screensaver"? Because those are *all* terms that are colloquially mis-used.
The bills being considered are only about forensic evidence presented in court. *sigh* Forensic evidence is by definition presented in court. That's what forensic means.
I guess it's too much to expect/.'ers to actually know the definition of a word before they begin railing on it.
They shouldn't trust the input of the barcode, any more than a web developer trusts their input. Perhaps if you were comparing the people who *designed* the barcode system to web developers you'd have a point, but expecting the same from a minimum-wage clerk who's never had any real security training and doesn't even know how the system works is a bit much.
Maybe I'm missing something salient, but all this says is if you change the membership number provided to the system, the system will use that instead of any other. Yes, you are missing something. And it's significant becaose of this:
instead of the number being provided via a keyboard, it's provided via a barcode. Yes, and the people operating the machines that read these codes trust them.
Think about this: you go somewhere that uses ID/membership cards with barcodes on it. Salesdrone asks for your card. If you just give them the number verbally and are security-minded, they'll probably ask for ID. However if you provide the card, they won't, because they the card *is* the ID.
Non-technical people don't understand how barcodes work, so they assume that nobody else does either. So if nobody else understands it, then it can't be forged.
My father taught me this when I was six, and it rings true here. At a baseball game, some reporter was going around asking for public opinion regarding some baseball issue. My father denied the interview saying that he was the officer of a public communications company, and should not be presented publicly by this reporter; even on a matter as unrelated as his opinions on baseball. Sounds to me like your father was a self-important jackass, and seeing as you are the same, he didn't do a very good job of raising you, either.
Since when did "free trade" translate into an abandonment of sovereignty in favor of having an unelected global organization dictate national policy? Mr Bush? Is that you?
I have something to tell you that you might not like:
When you sign a treaty with another country, you will be expected to follow through with it.
If you don't like the terms of a treaty, have them changed before you sign it. Have something added like "The USA can break the terms of this treaty at will, with no repercussions at all."
Of course, good luck getting the other party to sign that.
When was the last time you actually searched for files you hadn't accessed in six months? Last weekend, when I decided to go through and clean up my home directory.
Your statement is only true if legislators or industry manage to close the analog hole. No, it's still true. Just because they can't do it yet doesn't mean they don't already have full legal support.
Anything that closes the "analog hole" would be (by definition) a "technological measure" - which is protected by the DMCA.
The DMCA effectively eliminated copyright expiry. Instead of the expiry term being set by congress, it is now set by the technology that is wholely and completely controlled by big media companies.
Yes, there is _some_ movement in the US to make copyright indefinite, but (at least for now) it is not close to becoming law. Sorry, you missed the boat. The law to make US copyrights indefinite passed 8 years ago. It was also challenged all the way to Supreme Court, and found to be 100% constitutional.
It was called the DMCA, and contained provisions to extend copyright indefinitely (even though nobody seems to realize it.)
See, legally the copyright expires, of course. But technically it doesn't. If a copyright holder places "technological measures" to prevent someone from copying/accessing a work, then as long as the measures continue to function, you are legally prevented from using the material once is has entered the public domain, because the "technological measures" are given force of law.
Slashdot Mirror
"the licensing under the GPL for both packages has been revoked by the author", followed by "PUBLIC NOTICE: atscap and pchdtvr GPL revoked"
How does that foot of yours taste?
He can *try* to do whatever he damn well pleases, doesn't mean he actually *can*.
I'd love to get a wireless card with an intel chipset, but try finding a card that says they use them.
No wonder the American economy is in the toilet.
It's really no different.
When I bought my cellphone, I have to unwrap everything, discard the packaging, etc. This takes some amount of time. Would it be reasonable to send a bill to the place I bought it from for this, and expect them to pay it?
If not, why is it reasonable for Wal-mart to do the same?
Brilliant, simply brilliant.
In any event, SCOX *did* know - that's why they asked Novell at the beginning to go along with them. I doubt SCO knew because if they'd known they probably wouldn't have committed such a messy suicide Maybe you should read up on the case before you comment further. This sentence alone shows that you don't know anything about the case whatsoever.
I know a lot of religious nutters, but not one of them will claim that the bible was originally written in English.
Klingon, yes. But not English.
But man - the one on the left looks like Richard Kiel in drag!
What most people don't understand (because of efforts by MS) is that using a computer is not the same as administering one.
MS has done it's loyal best to try to get people to think that using and administering are the same, and that (by extension) easy to use must also mean easy to administer. They've been so successful at it that they've spawned an entire generation of developers that automatically assumes that the user will have admin priveleges.
To use the obligatory
The thing is that the *PERSON* who is making the unauthorized copy is the person doing the downloading.
If someone can turn a cell phone into a bomb, and have it still act like a cellphone, why couldn't someone do the same thing with a (much larger) computer?
When a piece of (proposed) legislation uses a term, it's not the "colloquial" interpretation. Strict definitions need to keep up with colloquial usage. So you're saying that computer geeks should henceforth refer to their PCs "hard drives", that they should call a hard drive "memory", and that we should start referring to their desktop wallpaper as a "screensaver"? Because those are *all* terms that are colloquially mis-used.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
I guess it's too much to expect
Think about this: you go somewhere that uses ID/membership cards with barcodes on it. Salesdrone asks for your card. If you just give them the number verbally and are security-minded, they'll probably ask for ID. However if you provide the card, they won't, because they the card *is* the ID.
Non-technical people don't understand how barcodes work, so they assume that nobody else does either. So if nobody else understands it, then it can't be forged.
I have something to tell you that you might not like:
When you sign a treaty with another country, you will be expected to follow through with it.
If you don't like the terms of a treaty, have them changed before you sign it. Have something added like "The USA can break the terms of this treaty at will, with no repercussions at all."
Of course, good luck getting the other party to sign that.
Anything that closes the "analog hole" would be (by definition) a "technological measure" - which is protected by the DMCA.
The DMCA effectively eliminated copyright expiry. Instead of the expiry term being set by congress, it is now set by the technology that is wholely and completely controlled by big media companies.
It was called the DMCA, and contained provisions to extend copyright indefinitely (even though nobody seems to realize it.)
See, legally the copyright expires, of course. But technically it doesn't. If a copyright holder places "technological measures" to prevent someone from copying/accessing a work, then as long as the measures continue to function, you are legally prevented from using the material once is has entered the public domain, because the "technological measures" are given force of law.