Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!
How is it that you interpret disabling auto-update as meaning "NEVER PATCH AGAIN"? I took it to mean don't patch until you're confident it's safe to do so. Don't you think that's a more reasonable view?
Walmart pays a healthy dividend. If one owned, say, $10B worth of the stock, they'd have to scrape by on a mere $229M per year in cash. That's not even a million dollars a day! What's a person to do?
These are all physically incompatible. But an MP3 file is an MP3 file.
Not in this case. The files in question contained Real's DRM. That's why they had to backdoor them. If they were actually standard MP3 files they would have worked without issue, and would still be working today.
I'd say that if you are a sysadmin who somehow doesn't allow iPhones on any networks under your control, then within a week you will either have your mind changed or let go.
The only reason this was even an issue was because Real wanted to use their own DRM, so they had to hack their way onto the iPod. Normal files, no matter where or how you got them, would sync and stay synched without any problems.
In GCHQ's eyes, that probably the worst thing about this leaking. Not because of what they did, but because now the other companies know how much the paid and will raise their rates.
The copyright holder don't care. As long as the university is stopping people from downloading free content
Why in the world would they want to stop people? They're making money from it! They have incentive to make it as easy as possible. Their best strategy is likely to be to ignore most of it and issue the occasional small fine. That both keeps it going and fills their coffers.
Slashdot Mirror
Now there's something you don't read every day.
How is it that you interpret disabling auto-update as meaning "NEVER PATCH AGAIN"? I took it to mean don't patch until you're confident it's safe to do so. Don't you think that's a more reasonable view?
Walmart pays a healthy dividend. If one owned, say, $10B worth of the stock, they'd have to scrape by on a mere $229M per year in cash. That's not even a million dollars a day! What's a person to do?
Not in this case. The files in question contained Real's DRM. That's why they had to backdoor them. If they were actually standard MP3 files they would have worked without issue, and would still be working today.
Only third party music laced with DRM. Normal mp3 files from any source have always worked seamlessly.
I just checked. His parents said he could stay.
I'm pretty sure he was joking.
When this is all over somebody's going to win a Pulitzer Prize for an article laying out the whole saga.
I see what you did there.
If there's one thing Slashdot could use more of, it's comment sense.
True, but just don't ever say "I could care less" or you'll have fifty people "correcting" you, no matter how sarcastic you meant it to be.
The only reason this was even an issue was because Real wanted to use their own DRM, so they had to hack their way onto the iPod. Normal files, no matter where or how you got them, would sync and stay synched without any problems.
Just like Camel cigarettes used to do, get 'em while they're young.
Modulo Alderaan, of course.
That's not a particularly useful law then, is it?
That was the abridged version of the word.
Wouldn't that be the point of using the sensors? Strict rules, easily enforced. Seems like a (pardon the pun) no-brainer to me.
And their band is called The Oneeders.
In GCHQ's eyes, that probably the worst thing about this leaking. Not because of what they did, but because now the other companies know how much the paid and will raise their rates.
"Yes I snuck into your house and hid there for two years quietly observing you, but look, I wasn't malicious!."
Why in the world would they want to stop people? They're making money from it! They have incentive to make it as easy as possible. Their best strategy is likely to be to ignore most of it and issue the occasional small fine. That both keeps it going and fills their coffers.
Why is that insightful? Claiming ownership is not the same as copying. It is funny though.
Maybe he meant he built sheep enclosures and stuff.
He does? Is this some sort of special "Bouncer Exclusion" to the normal assault laws?
That is amazing. I was sure your link would go to some rant-filled blog, but those are Verizon's actual words in the court filing. Unbelievable.