I seriously hope more EU countries will demand the same thing. It's outrageous
Actually, I kind of agree with Google's position about destroying it.
I mean, it boils down to "you have collected something which is illegal and invasive to have... why don't you give it to us and we'll, er, keep it safe."
I agree that if Google is actually scraping people's email and stuff from unsecured wireless that's a huge invasion of privacy and is a very bad thing. But, handing the same information over to a government who wouldn't be allowed to have it either doesn't seem any better.
If the proof had gone the other way, it would mean that the equation would produce something akin to "ultraviolet catastrophes"
You know, I've read your post several times... and things like this only reinforce the fact that this is way over my head.:-P
So, they've likely demonstrated numerically that the formula isn't gibberish, and that it actually describes some physical phenomenon with some modest degree of accuracy without spiraling out of control?
Is an ultraviolet catastrophe a math term, or a physics one? The opposite of a "crimson success", or literal run-away UV event from particle decay?
As usual, explanations from mathematicians leave me confused -- especially when that math is describing phyics.;-)
Normal computers must look really bad to people that they don't want to use them.. I guess I've never been a part of that world. I've been lying on a couch with my full-sized laptop all day and I'm perfectly comfortable...
For me, the ergonomics of something more like a book instead of a laptop or a desktop is potentially a game changer.
Now, I'm not buying one this week, but it's something I'm pondering.
If these devices do remain something that is a niche then I do have no problem with it. You are perfectly right; I won't buy them. Instead I will buy the next device that comes out that does exactly what I want it to do.
And I bet that device will be entirely different from what an iPad does, and probably need to be a lot more beefy. Chances are, the software won't initially be able to make good use of the touch screen. I look at it the iPad as more of a large iPod with web access.
My fear though is that companies (which tend to do what the masses want and go where the money is) start to put all their energy into creating devices like this and forsake all the more complex things that devices *could* do. My fear is that suddenly the tech industry becomes all about you tube, facebook, etc and does not strive for anything more.
Oh, I agree with you. You can already buy phones and cameras and the like which are pre-built to be able to push stuff straight to Facebook et al. Sadly, that's because that's what people want to do nowadays. This device seems to be eschewing complicated as well -- but so they can focus on some very basic stuff with a completely different user interface paradigm.
Already the next version of Ubuntu seems to be all about these things. I care not about them. So I am being affected by it. There is only so much room in the market places for these devices.. Where are the ones that the technical people want?
You know, I just upgraded my Ubuntu VMWare box to the latest and greatest. I have the exact same desktop I had before I upgraded, and I don't see any additional Facebook crap. Sadly, for companies nowadays if everyone wants Facebook and Twitter, if you don't support those, you cease to be relevant.
As far as the stuff the technical people want, that's a harder issue. Technical people have greater demands, and that's harder to do. And, a comparatively small percent of the possible market wants those features. So, it's not cost effective.
My wife's father wants a GPS nav which will show the axle load-rating for specific roads since he works with a trucking company and has to figure out how to get dump trucks to places. The problem is, it's a much more specialized device, and only a fraction of the total market wants that. As a result, you'll pay through the nose for it.
Jobs is giving you the very dumbed down device, so that he can give you a good experience with limited functionality. This will likely spur people to make touch-screen pads that are beefier, but Apple doesn't target that market. I know people with Masters degrees in Comp Sci who use Macs because they just want to click the buttons and do something instead of mucking about with it.
For me, the use of this sucker is sitting in my backyard, surfing the web, drinking a beer, and playing my iTunes tracks with it. Or sitting in my lazy boy, or in front of the fireplace. It's like the old Star Trek PAD. You take it where you want to be, and noodle around with it. Reading the morning news with a coffee kind of different. Unchained from the desk and not using a computer to do "work".
I don't think you're very logical, I am obviously pointing out that one of the problems Jobs has with Flash applies to Objective-C in exactly the same fashion. Objective-C was designed for desktop computers.
But with flash he's talking about the user interface. With Objective-C you're talking about the back-end language, which the user will never be aware of. So, your comparison is a red herring, and it misses the entire point.
Flash has interface elements which are specific to the web, or at least desktop computing where you're using a keyboard and a mouse, navigating menus, and whatnot. It's got tooltips that happen when you hover the mouse and things which make no sense in a purely touch-screen interface that is used on the iPad. This look like it' trying to truly change the way the user interface works. And, from my experience, Flash has always been a big steaming pile of crap, and I don't install it on my machines if I have any control over it. Any site which requires flash doesn't get used by me. Adobe just wants to port the exact same apps to the iPad and continue with the status quo. Apple wants to change things.
What Steve Jobs is exceedingly good at doing is steering a company which sells products which people want, and which they will buy in droves. The fact that iPods, iPhones, iTunes, and (likely) iPads are all very popular and sell like mad, says that as far as the consumers who are buying it are concerned, they're producing exactly what it is people want.
For me, an iPad sounds more like a combination of an e-book reader, iPod, and a lightweight web browsing appliance. Meaning, I would use it entirely differently than I would use a desktop computer, which I believe is the whole point.
My iPod touch talks to one machine at a time in my home, I need to be physically connected to that machine, and I need to use a specific application on that machine. That's it! How boring.
And once you sync it, you then use the iPod completely independent from your computer and for different purposes. Likely, the iPad would do the same thing -- once you sync it, you go away from your computer and use it differently. At the very least, you do a subset of the things you do on your computer and in different places. Then you go back and sync it again.
Frankly I think it is an absolutely abhorrent development to computing and it is about a dozen steps back.
Oh come on now. That's the most ridiculous bit of hyperbole I've heard in a long time. Even for Slashdot.
It is technology which is used in a way that you don't agree with, and that you can't see the value in, by a company you apparently don't like. As a result you (and apparently everyone else on Slashdot) have decided that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and has committed some heinous form of moral transgression. You're not even listening anymore -- you're just sputtering on about something with your panties in a bunch.
You are perfectly free to not buy one of these, and the people who are interested in them are also perfectly free to go out and buy them. Your freedoms are not being violated. In fact, since you're not going to be a consumer, you're not even affected -- so what the fuck do you care?
Insult to injury: they have to pay $15 or more for the privilege of using the same type of productivity software on the iPad that comes free with their usual OSes.
In fact, I'm betting people won't be putting "productivity software" on iPads. They'll have music, and they'll have some videos and photos, and they'll have access to their wireless so they can browse the web, maybe an e-book or two, some games.
The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced it's an entertainment/media appliance, and people will not be using it the same way they use computers. They'll take some of the tasks they do on computers now, and do them in different places with more comfortable chairs in leisure.
It's not a device for managing your Outlook calendar, or doing spreadsheets, or any of the tasks like "productivity software". This is about play, and things which aren't really considered "productive", but "recreational".
I would love it if I could just not care as the idiotic masses bought their locked-down, everything-must-be-signed devices and enjoy their crappy proprietary software. Doesn't affect me, right?
Wrong: if there's no mass market for computers, they'll be as expensive as they were in the 1960s.
What an insane leap of logic.
As manufactured, and as marketed, the iPad can't end the mass market for computers -- it requires one to be sync'd with, and it simply can't do all of the things a general purpose computer can do. It's running the same OS as a phone and is not being marketed as a replacement for a computer. More like an accessory.
It's an appliance for media, and it's not going to cause the general purpose computer to become obsolete no more than camera phones have caused people to stop buying real cameras.
Seriously, this is just rampant paranoia... ZOMG, teh evil iPad will wipe out computing as we know it!! What have you people been smoking?
Same here. I use my netbook as the low-end laptop that it is.
But I don't see an iPad as even being in the same category as a low-end laptop, certainly not a replacement for it. This seems more like a device which is intended to be used differently from your existing devices, and quite possibly in conjunction with them. You sync your iPad with your main machine, and load up the media you want on it, plus you can surf on your wireless (or even 3G if you buy the fancy one).
Of course, the danger here is that laptop companies will stop making netbooks in favor of "curated" or "walled" tablets if they see far more profit in the latter.
I actually question if multiple vendors could successfully do this. If the underlying OS is still a Windows variant, it's a lot harder to design it to work differently and give a different experience and interface -- this throws away the mouse and starts over. Also, it's going to be tougher to create the infrastructure for things like app stores and the like.
Apple has this thing running on the same OS they use for their phones, and already has built the infrastructure for stuff like iTunes. Microsoft could try to compete with this device, but I don't think I'd want to buy one from them.
I actually think trying to compete with this device will be quite difficult -- Apple is trading on their ability to produce a really excellently functioning user experience on a well-defined platform. Nobody else really has that to draw on.
Can't Slashdot editors find ANYTHING newsworthy that isn't about Apple ?
Slashdot is reporting on what other people are talking about. Everyone is talking about the iPad, and in case you haven't noticed, Apple's track record with very successful consumer technology is hardly something you can ignore -- iPod and iPhone and iTunes have generated huge sales.
It might be gold-plated, but it's still a turd underneath, and no amount of iHype or Apple apologists will change that.
What, specifically, makes it a turd? What aspect of saying this a cool device makes one an 'Apple Apologist'? I don't even know what it means to be an Apple Apologist -- I don't even own an Apple computer, but I do own an iPod (four, in fact), and I'm certainly not "apologizing" for anything they've done. You think the Zune was some great new bit of technology that the world missed out on?
You're entitled to your opinion, I just fail to see why people like you are so smugly convinced that this isn't a useful bit of technology. I'm very excited by this device, because it's one of the most novel computer devices I've seen in quite a while -- in terms of form factor and interface, as well as how I envision it being used.
This is mostly about people bashing Apple, and acting like children and saying everyone who doesn't agree that this device is the work of Satan is a doody-head.
I mean seriously, if the only thing you have to add to the discussion is "why are we talking about Apple again"... stop reading the threads.
a mode of computing where choice is constrained to deliver less complex, more relevant experiences. Let me repeat that, because it's the essence of the Curated Computing experience: less choice; more relevance.
This pretty much gets to the crux of things. Yes, you can't do everything with this device. But the things you do want to do are more usable, and better designed.
Additionally, tablets should be positioned as complementary to the rest of a product line. Even though there have been many claims to the contrary, it is unlikely tablets will eliminate laptops, or even netbooks, at least in the short term. So consumers need to see how this device fits into their life in a new way.
This is a different device for doing different things differently than you do them now. It's not going to replace the machine I do my professional work on. But sitting in the back yard, or in my recliner, or what have you... it allows passive web surfing, reading a book, or propping it up in the kitchen like a cookbook with a recipe I got off the web.
I'm really interested in one of these once the price comes down a little. The early adopters are shelling out money for them now, but I can see a lot of people eventually getting one of these.
The actual judgement is a bit more level-headed than the/. summary makes it to be.
The judge essentially said you ought to have some minimum level of security, elst you're liable for damages, much like everything else
In this case, to continue with the car analogy... when the dealership sold you the car, it had no brakes on it. It had places where you could install brakes, and the manual told you how you could install brakes. But nobody told you that you were required to have brakes installed, and that it was in fact dangerous and illegal to not have brakes installed.
If it is illegal to have a car without brakes, then it should be illegal to sell a car without brakes. Since, clearly, the routers are sold without brakes, er... crypto enabled, then these must be illegal devices, no?
This basically means that everyone in the world has custodial rights on behalf of copyright holders to ensure that nothing they own can be used by a third party to infringe copyright. This is bad, and I think it's a stupid ruling.
are libraries responsible if they provide a photocopier for their users unless they personally check everything you copy to ensure fair use? Are Blockbusters responsible if someone borrows and copies a DVD because they failed to send one of their employees home with you to check how you used the disk?
Book publishers have tried to make photocopiers illegal because in their mind, all people do is violate copyrights.
The *AA would prefer that the rental model be outlawed and that any device which could be use to violate their 'rights' (ie. a general purpose computer) should be illegal. They want every single piece of electronics to be outfitted with gear to prevent you from doing anything on the off beat chance that the bit involved belong to them.
If these corporations had their own way, all technology would be subservient to their wishes, and all forms of media would be closely monitored and scrutinized so that everyone within a 50' radius would be expected to pay fees anytime a radio or TV is turned on.
They have no interest in 'public service' or 'the commons' -- they only have interest in their stuff.
I hope there is slightly more to this story than the summary suggests. It seems absurd unless they have a law against sharing your internet connection.
Not much more -- basically if you fail to attempt to at least moderately secure your wireless with at least a nominal password, and someone else uses it for an illegal purpose, you would be guilty under this law.
Now, in theory you could use a password of "password", and you'd likely be safe; they even say that you don't need to constantly ensure that your password hasn't been breached, just make some initial effort. But, if you go to the store, buy a router, plug it in and walk away -- you apparently are just asking to get sued since someone can come along and use it for illegal purposes.
Ostensibly, if you can get burned for copyright, you are also criminally liable for kiddie porn, spam, and any other nefarious use someone else might get up to since the same reasoning would apply.
The interesting thing is, would the judge in this case know how to set the password and encryption scheme on a commercial router? Or is this a case where the law is too clueless about the technology? This is the way these things work out of the box, and consumer understanding has lagged behind actual ownership.
The people in Germany (and elsewhere?) are expected to secure their facilities to protect the RIAA's clients. So the RIAA should pay them for their efforts.
Well, since I'm betting the Wi-Fi router doesn't use a password by default, and came that way from the factory -- unless the manual tells you that you have to apply a password (or that it won't work until you do) I'd turn around and sue the company for selling you a copyright-infringement device.
This is definitely a case of copyright enforcement run amok.
um... Mac OSX.... and it's actually a certified Unix whereas Linux is just a unixalike (Ubuntu user here).
Never having used Mac OSX, that's news to me. (The case-sensitive part, not the Unix part.)
However, having used NextStep, SunOS, HP-UX (9 and 10), Solaris, AIX, IRIX, FreeBSD, Linux, and maybe even a couple others since about '91 -- I've simply never even seen one that was insensitive.
Heck, is a case-insensitive filesystem even POSIX compliant? (I have no idea -- just always thought case insensitive was a pretty lame feature.)
Why not make it an 8.3 fileystem and get it over with.:-P
Insurance companies, head hunting agencies, 3-letter government agencies, your employer, etc.
In short, anyone they choose to share it with.... nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to copy, modify, translate, publicly display and distribute this content is pretty much everyone.
I'd been looking forward to this for a while now. Having installed I find out that Steam doesn't support case-sensitive file systems.
Oh, that's hilarious.
WTF is the point of porting something to Linux if you expect a case-insensitive filesystem??? Heck, I'm not sure I've ever *seen* a case-insensitive filesystem on any UNIX-like OS.
I know people who have been snipped - I've researched it, and I've been thinking about it for a couple of years.
Like I said, I'd rather go in for one snip and a weekend with some discomfort than go in every six months to get the Nap Zapper Ultrasound 9000 applied. That's just pretty low on my list.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I kind of agree with Google's position about destroying it.
I mean, it boils down to "you have collected something which is illegal and invasive to have ... why don't you give it to us and we'll, er, keep it safe."
I agree that if Google is actually scraping people's email and stuff from unsecured wireless that's a huge invasion of privacy and is a very bad thing. But, handing the same information over to a government who wouldn't be allowed to have it either doesn't seem any better.
The Universe has exactly what it needs.
Our interpretation of what it should have obviously needs tweaking -- or at the very least, we need better observations.
If your model doesn't match reality, it's not your reality that needs fixing. :-P
You know, I've read your post several times ... and things like this only reinforce the fact that this is way over my head. :-P
So, they've likely demonstrated numerically that the formula isn't gibberish, and that it actually describes some physical phenomenon with some modest degree of accuracy without spiraling out of control?
Is an ultraviolet catastrophe a math term, or a physics one? The opposite of a "crimson success", or literal run-away UV event from particle decay?
As usual, explanations from mathematicians leave me confused -- especially when that math is describing phyics. ;-)
For me, the ergonomics of something more like a book instead of a laptop or a desktop is potentially a game changer.
Now, I'm not buying one this week, but it's something I'm pondering.
Different things for different folks.
Cheers
And I bet that device will be entirely different from what an iPad does, and probably need to be a lot more beefy. Chances are, the software won't initially be able to make good use of the touch screen. I look at it the iPad as more of a large iPod with web access.
Oh, I agree with you. You can already buy phones and cameras and the like which are pre-built to be able to push stuff straight to Facebook et al. Sadly, that's because that's what people want to do nowadays. This device seems to be eschewing complicated as well -- but so they can focus on some very basic stuff with a completely different user interface paradigm.
You know, I just upgraded my Ubuntu VMWare box to the latest and greatest. I have the exact same desktop I had before I upgraded, and I don't see any additional Facebook crap. Sadly, for companies nowadays if everyone wants Facebook and Twitter, if you don't support those, you cease to be relevant.
As far as the stuff the technical people want, that's a harder issue. Technical people have greater demands, and that's harder to do. And, a comparatively small percent of the possible market wants those features. So, it's not cost effective.
My wife's father wants a GPS nav which will show the axle load-rating for specific roads since he works with a trucking company and has to figure out how to get dump trucks to places. The problem is, it's a much more specialized device, and only a fraction of the total market wants that. As a result, you'll pay through the nose for it.
Jobs is giving you the very dumbed down device, so that he can give you a good experience with limited functionality. This will likely spur people to make touch-screen pads that are beefier, but Apple doesn't target that market. I know people with Masters degrees in Comp Sci who use Macs because they just want to click the buttons and do something instead of mucking about with it.
For me, the use of this sucker is sitting in my backyard, surfing the web, drinking a beer, and playing my iTunes tracks with it. Or sitting in my lazy boy, or in front of the fireplace. It's like the old Star Trek PAD. You take it where you want to be, and noodle around with it. Reading the morning news with a coffee kind of different. Unchained from the desk and not using a computer to do "work".
But with flash he's talking about the user interface. With Objective-C you're talking about the back-end language, which the user will never be aware of. So, your comparison is a red herring, and it misses the entire point.
Flash has interface elements which are specific to the web, or at least desktop computing where you're using a keyboard and a mouse, navigating menus, and whatnot. It's got tooltips that happen when you hover the mouse and things which make no sense in a purely touch-screen interface that is used on the iPad. This look like it' trying to truly change the way the user interface works. And, from my experience, Flash has always been a big steaming pile of crap, and I don't install it on my machines if I have any control over it. Any site which requires flash doesn't get used by me. Adobe just wants to port the exact same apps to the iPad and continue with the status quo. Apple wants to change things.
What Steve Jobs is exceedingly good at doing is steering a company which sells products which people want, and which they will buy in droves. The fact that iPods, iPhones, iTunes, and (likely) iPads are all very popular and sell like mad, says that as far as the consumers who are buying it are concerned, they're producing exactly what it is people want.
For me, an iPad sounds more like a combination of an e-book reader, iPod, and a lightweight web browsing appliance. Meaning, I would use it entirely differently than I would use a desktop computer, which I believe is the whole point.
And once you sync it, you then use the iPod completely independent from your computer and for different purposes. Likely, the iPad would do the same thing -- once you sync it, you go away from your computer and use it differently. At the very least, you do a subset of the things you do on your computer and in different places. Then you go back and sync it again.
Oh come on now. That's the most ridiculous bit of hyperbole I've heard in a long time. Even for Slashdot.
It is technology which is used in a way that you don't agree with, and that you can't see the value in, by a company you apparently don't like. As a result you (and apparently everyone else on Slashdot) have decided that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and has committed some heinous form of moral transgression. You're not even listening anymore -- you're just sputtering on about something with your panties in a bunch.
You are perfectly free to not buy one of these, and the people who are interested in them are also perfectly free to go out and buy them. Your freedoms are not being violated. In fact, since you're not going to be a consumer, you're not even affected -- so what the fuck do you care?
Seriously, get over yourself.
Yeah, but when I think of doing something fun the last thing I think of is a Solaris box. :-P
In fact, I'm betting people won't be putting "productivity software" on iPads. They'll have music, and they'll have some videos and photos, and they'll have access to their wireless so they can browse the web, maybe an e-book or two, some games.
The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced it's an entertainment/media appliance, and people will not be using it the same way they use computers. They'll take some of the tasks they do on computers now, and do them in different places with more comfortable chairs in leisure.
It's not a device for managing your Outlook calendar, or doing spreadsheets, or any of the tasks like "productivity software". This is about play, and things which aren't really considered "productive", but "recreational".
What an insane leap of logic.
As manufactured, and as marketed, the iPad can't end the mass market for computers -- it requires one to be sync'd with, and it simply can't do all of the things a general purpose computer can do. It's running the same OS as a phone and is not being marketed as a replacement for a computer. More like an accessory.
It's an appliance for media, and it's not going to cause the general purpose computer to become obsolete no more than camera phones have caused people to stop buying real cameras.
Seriously, this is just rampant paranoia ... ZOMG, teh evil iPad will wipe out computing as we know it!! What have you people been smoking?
But I don't see an iPad as even being in the same category as a low-end laptop, certainly not a replacement for it. This seems more like a device which is intended to be used differently from your existing devices, and quite possibly in conjunction with them. You sync your iPad with your main machine, and load up the media you want on it, plus you can surf on your wireless (or even 3G if you buy the fancy one).
I actually question if multiple vendors could successfully do this. If the underlying OS is still a Windows variant, it's a lot harder to design it to work differently and give a different experience and interface -- this throws away the mouse and starts over. Also, it's going to be tougher to create the infrastructure for things like app stores and the like.
Apple has this thing running on the same OS they use for their phones, and already has built the infrastructure for stuff like iTunes. Microsoft could try to compete with this device, but I don't think I'd want to buy one from them.
I actually think trying to compete with this device will be quite difficult -- Apple is trading on their ability to produce a really excellently functioning user experience on a well-defined platform. Nobody else really has that to draw on.
Slashdot is reporting on what other people are talking about. Everyone is talking about the iPad, and in case you haven't noticed, Apple's track record with very successful consumer technology is hardly something you can ignore -- iPod and iPhone and iTunes have generated huge sales.
What, specifically, makes it a turd? What aspect of saying this a cool device makes one an 'Apple Apologist'? I don't even know what it means to be an Apple Apologist -- I don't even own an Apple computer, but I do own an iPod (four, in fact), and I'm certainly not "apologizing" for anything they've done. You think the Zune was some great new bit of technology that the world missed out on?
You're entitled to your opinion, I just fail to see why people like you are so smugly convinced that this isn't a useful bit of technology. I'm very excited by this device, because it's one of the most novel computer devices I've seen in quite a while -- in terms of form factor and interface, as well as how I envision it being used.
This is mostly about people bashing Apple, and acting like children and saying everyone who doesn't agree that this device is the work of Satan is a doody-head.
I mean seriously, if the only thing you have to add to the discussion is "why are we talking about Apple again" ... stop reading the threads.
From TFA ...
This pretty much gets to the crux of things. Yes, you can't do everything with this device. But the things you do want to do are more usable, and better designed.
This is a different device for doing different things differently than you do them now. It's not going to replace the machine I do my professional work on. But sitting in the back yard, or in my recliner, or what have you ... it allows passive web surfing, reading a book, or propping it up in the kitchen like a cookbook with a recipe I got off the web.
I'm really interested in one of these once the price comes down a little. The early adopters are shelling out money for them now, but I can see a lot of people eventually getting one of these.
heartburn?
Anonymity is not a crime.
In this case, to continue with the car analogy ... when the dealership sold you the car, it had no brakes on it. It had places where you could install brakes, and the manual told you how you could install brakes. But nobody told you that you were required to have brakes installed, and that it was in fact dangerous and illegal to not have brakes installed.
If it is illegal to have a car without brakes, then it should be illegal to sell a car without brakes. Since, clearly, the routers are sold without brakes, er ... crypto enabled, then these must be illegal devices, no?
This basically means that everyone in the world has custodial rights on behalf of copyright holders to ensure that nothing they own can be used by a third party to infringe copyright. This is bad, and I think it's a stupid ruling.
Grumble grumble ... Wookies ... Endor ... acquit ... bollocks.
Book publishers have tried to make photocopiers illegal because in their mind, all people do is violate copyrights.
The *AA would prefer that the rental model be outlawed and that any device which could be use to violate their 'rights' (ie. a general purpose computer) should be illegal. They want every single piece of electronics to be outfitted with gear to prevent you from doing anything on the off beat chance that the bit involved belong to them.
If these corporations had their own way, all technology would be subservient to their wishes, and all forms of media would be closely monitored and scrutinized so that everyone within a 50' radius would be expected to pay fees anytime a radio or TV is turned on.
They have no interest in 'public service' or 'the commons' -- they only have interest in their stuff.
Not much more -- basically if you fail to attempt to at least moderately secure your wireless with at least a nominal password, and someone else uses it for an illegal purpose, you would be guilty under this law.
Now, in theory you could use a password of "password", and you'd likely be safe; they even say that you don't need to constantly ensure that your password hasn't been breached, just make some initial effort. But, if you go to the store, buy a router, plug it in and walk away -- you apparently are just asking to get sued since someone can come along and use it for illegal purposes.
Ostensibly, if you can get burned for copyright, you are also criminally liable for kiddie porn, spam, and any other nefarious use someone else might get up to since the same reasoning would apply.
The interesting thing is, would the judge in this case know how to set the password and encryption scheme on a commercial router? Or is this a case where the law is too clueless about the technology? This is the way these things work out of the box, and consumer understanding has lagged behind actual ownership.
Well, since I'm betting the Wi-Fi router doesn't use a password by default, and came that way from the factory -- unless the manual tells you that you have to apply a password (or that it won't work until you do) I'd turn around and sue the company for selling you a copyright-infringement device.
This is definitely a case of copyright enforcement run amok.
Must ... not ... take ... bait ...
Never having used Mac OSX, that's news to me. (The case-sensitive part, not the Unix part.)
However, having used NextStep, SunOS, HP-UX (9 and 10), Solaris, AIX, IRIX, FreeBSD, Linux, and maybe even a couple others since about '91 -- I've simply never even seen one that was insensitive.
Heck, is a case-insensitive filesystem even POSIX compliant? (I have no idea -- just always thought case insensitive was a pretty lame feature.)
Why not make it an 8.3 fileystem and get it over with. :-P
In short, anyone they choose to share it with .... nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to copy, modify, translate, publicly display and distribute this content is pretty much everyone.
Oh, that's hilarious.
WTF is the point of porting something to Linux if you expect a case-insensitive filesystem??? Heck, I'm not sure I've ever *seen* a case-insensitive filesystem on any UNIX-like OS.
Too funny.
So far, mostly just Slashdot. Shakespeare seems to be in the offing yet.
No, it's exactly as true as I realize. :-P
I know people who have been snipped - I've researched it, and I've been thinking about it for a couple of years.
Like I said, I'd rather go in for one snip and a weekend with some discomfort than go in every six months to get the Nap Zapper Ultrasound 9000 applied. That's just pretty low on my list. ;-)