In the case of Internet Explorer 7, there are reasons not to upgrade to it over version 6. I use IE6 only for the websites that don't work properly in Firefox and I am not interested in the additional integration that IE7 provides. A person concerned with security wouldn't use an integrated browser in the first place.
By the way, Microsoft does remind me that IE6 is out of date every chance that it gets.
Actually, if they want to use his statement against him, they needed to have read him his Miranda rights at the moment he was arrested. I don't know what exactly the guy said, but since it doesn't sound like he actually committed a crime, I don't know how his statement can be used against him.
I suspect the charge against him is solely to give the Police Department some leverage at the negotiating table. They will probably agree to expunge the charge and his arrest record in return for him dropping his civil suit (or something like that.) I don't think the PD has that much leverage, but what they have is slightly better than nothing.
It seems that the proper focus should be on TV tuner cards and not PCs. Almost all of the reason to have a TV tuner card involve watching televsion, but most PCs are used for other purposes (especially the ones without TV tuner cards.) Obviously, one could have a TV tuner card to record programs from a video camera, but the same could be said of a TV which needn't use its tuner, although they generally are equipped with one. In so far as the idea is to also cover live streaming video, this could cover any PC, but there have to be better ways to monitor this activity than to lump all PCs into the same category.
The problem is that the backdoor will exists whether the FBI is using it or not. Even if the FBI can only use it when it has a valid wiretap warrant, every user of the system is more vulnerable then they need to be so that occasionally some users can be spied on. That's the real problem.
Basically, the FBI is saying that it can't hack the encryption (or at least shouldn't have to). Basically, I don't think that we should have to trust that the government will use this power only for good. There is always an inherent risk with any 3rd party software. Since you didn't write it, you can't be sure that there aren't any backdoors. Presumably, this is mitigated by independent verification and open source. In this case, we will know for a fact that there is at least one backdoor, but we would have no way of knowing if it secure.
I propose as a solution that there should be a little red light (or pop-up) that indicates when a wiretap is in progress.
I just read the demo of the software, and it doesn't know what music is illegal and isn't. Basically, it informs the user about all of the media files present on the machine and gives the user the option of deleting any or all of the media. It's main feature seems to be propaganda. Presumably a clueless employer or parent, will say, "This software told me that this program or media might be illegal so I guess I'd better do what the nice program says."
If I understand this correctly, they are freely providing software that will go through your system and make modification that the software's author thinks are best for the author. Isn't that called a trojan horse program?
Apple has to realize that there is a demand for their software of the x86 PC. Obviously, there would be problems if they had to support all the varieties of x86 PC hardware, but they could at least try to provide a version that works for the customers willing to use it.
Is running Mac OS X within a virtual machine really that big a deal? If VMware properly simulated Mac hardware, then the operating system believed that it was running on Mac hardware. This is great for VMware, but this isn't the same thing as popping a CD in my x86 computer and installing Mac OS X.
Ultimately, this will raise the price of peripherals, and discourage their purchase. As I understand the model, they should try everything possible to get the hardware in your hands so that you will buy more games. Especially for those people that buy accessories at the time of the system purchase, it will give them a lot of reasons to consider whether to buy it at all.
Technically, your credit card number is associated with you and not really owned. Furthermore, it would be legal for someone to know it, it wouldn't be legal for someone to use it without your authorization.
Your genetic material contains information that isn't encrypted or otherwise access restricted. It is one thing to use the information, but it is another to just look at the information that it contains.
Just by way of analogy. If I find a book in a trash can, you are free to read it, but you are not free to duplicate it. Admittedly, people aren't copyrighted, but we do have a right to our own image and likeness which would be infringed by a clone. Presumably identical twins fall under some sort of inadvertant exception or an evidentiary problem [Who is the original? Who is the clone?]
People are leaving genetic material all over the place all the time. From a practical standpoint this is like anything else that you discard, it doesn't belong to you any more. That being said, I wouldn't appreciate someone using my blood, sweat and tears (always available at work) for testing purposes, but what can I do?
If I were being cloned that would be different. However, I don't think ethical rules cover any of these situations.
The way that Amazon could really gain an advantage is if they could find a way to combine buying other items with DVD rental. If I could buy a book, and get it shipped free with my incoming DVD that would be something. Otherwise, I don't see how they can compete except on price or name regonition.
Actually there are rules regulating the ways in which non-profits can raise revenues. For example, one couldn't start a non-profit clothing store for the purpose of saving pandas without some sort of negative tax consequence. I can't remember what the consequence is, but it is bad. Frankly, I don't know how starting a corporation helps, but I do know that there is a reason, even if I don't know what the reason is.
This may be fine and good for some high-end applications, but I don't believe that a lot of places have upgraded to Gigabit Ethernet yet. For the home user whose main activity would be surfing the internet anywhere in the house, communicating with the router 10 time faster than 802.11g won't make the internet any faster.
I'm all in favor of the advance of technology, but the only use I can find for this is faster streaming of video on a local basis once Gigabit ethernet becomes the standard. For right now, the 540 Mb/s is not going to matter much over 100 Mb/s wires.
What exactly was CISCO suing over? It seems to me that CISCO didn't like what he had to say, but that doesn't give you a right to sue somebody. Obviously, they weren't alleging libel or slander, since everything he said was apparently true. I don't recall allegations that he misappropriated trade secrets or something. Did he just give up so that he didn't have to defend a baseless suit?
Was his disclosure good for the internet in the short term? Probably not. However, unless there is some law that I'm missing, describing how to use a bomb is not the same as advocating that it be used.
The problem is that examiners have to follow the law. It isn't enough that you know the idea is stupid, it has to be legally unpatentable, which are two seperate standards. Examiners aren't free to decide what "ideas" have merit and those that don't. Basically, they evaluate whether or not the description is adequate, has it been done before exactly, and whether or not it will most likely operate as claimed.
Speaking of "common sense," there are so many patents that are obvious in a common sense sort of way, but for purposes of a patent, "obvious" is measured relative to the village idiot.
If I understand this correctly, then this targets those that want to share dial-up access, but are unwilling or unable to get broadband. Afterall, a wireless router can be obtained for roughly $60.
I guess I don't understand the target market here. It is just people that don't have a modem, but would rather buy an access point, then a modem?
Assuming I could register a.mobi address for my phone, now what? Was something like [my phone number]@[wireless provider].[net or com] too difficult? It seems like a solution looking for a problem.
There is a big difference between writing software that supports AMDs products, and crippling software so that it doesn't work with AMDs products. This would be sort of like having a car that detects the brand of gas that you use and either refusing to work or switching into low gas mileage mode if the "wrong" brand is used.
Slashdot Mirror
Who knew that Budweiser was on to something by adding Lime to Bud Light?
This next Bud's for you, Earth.
In the case of Internet Explorer 7, there are reasons not to upgrade to it over version 6. I use IE6 only for the websites that don't work properly in Firefox and I am not interested in the additional integration that IE7 provides. A person concerned with security wouldn't use an integrated browser in the first place.
By the way, Microsoft does remind me that IE6 is out of date every chance that it gets.
Actually, if they want to use his statement against him, they needed to have read him his Miranda rights at the moment he was arrested. I don't know what exactly the guy said, but since it doesn't sound like he actually committed a crime, I don't know how his statement can be used against him.
I suspect the charge against him is solely to give the Police Department some leverage at the negotiating table. They will probably agree to expunge the charge and his arrest record in return for him dropping his civil suit (or something like that.) I don't think the PD has that much leverage, but what they have is slightly better than nothing.
It seems that the proper focus should be on TV tuner cards and not PCs. Almost all of the reason to have a TV tuner card involve watching televsion, but most PCs are used for other purposes (especially the ones without TV tuner cards.) Obviously, one could have a TV tuner card to record programs from a video camera, but the same could be said of a TV which needn't use its tuner, although they generally are equipped with one. In so far as the idea is to also cover live streaming video, this could cover any PC, but there have to be better ways to monitor this activity than to lump all PCs into the same category.
The problem is that the backdoor will exists whether the FBI is using it or not. Even if the FBI can only use it when it has a valid wiretap warrant, every user of the system is more vulnerable then they need to be so that occasionally some users can be spied on. That's the real problem.
Basically, the FBI is saying that it can't hack the encryption (or at least shouldn't have to). Basically, I don't think that we should have to trust that the government will use this power only for good. There is always an inherent risk with any 3rd party software. Since you didn't write it, you can't be sure that there aren't any backdoors. Presumably, this is mitigated by independent verification and open source. In this case, we will know for a fact that there is at least one backdoor, but we would have no way of knowing if it secure.
I propose as a solution that there should be a little red light (or pop-up) that indicates when a wiretap is in progress.
I just read the demo of the software, and it doesn't know what music is illegal and isn't. Basically, it informs the user about all of the media files present on the machine and gives the user the option of deleting any or all of the media. It's main feature seems to be propaganda. Presumably a clueless employer or parent, will say, "This software told me that this program or media might be illegal so I guess I'd better do what the nice program says."
If I understand this correctly, they are freely providing software that will go through your system and make modification that the software's author thinks are best for the author. Isn't that called a trojan horse program?
Apple has to realize that there is a demand for their software of the x86 PC. Obviously, there would be problems if they had to support all the varieties of x86 PC hardware, but they could at least try to provide a version that works for the customers willing to use it.
At least Microsoft provides the same level of security to it own hardware as its does yours. You can't accuse Microsoft of playing favorites.
Is running Mac OS X within a virtual machine really that big a deal? If VMware properly simulated Mac hardware, then the operating system believed that it was running on Mac hardware. This is great for VMware, but this isn't the same thing as popping a CD in my x86 computer and installing Mac OS X.
Ultimately, this will raise the price of peripherals, and discourage their purchase. As I understand the model, they should try everything possible to get the hardware in your hands so that you will buy more games. Especially for those people that buy accessories at the time of the system purchase, it will give them a lot of reasons to consider whether to buy it at all.
Technically, your credit card number is associated with you and not really owned. Furthermore, it would be legal for someone to know it, it wouldn't be legal for someone to use it without your authorization.
Your genetic material contains information that isn't encrypted or otherwise access restricted. It is one thing to use the information, but it is another to just look at the information that it contains.
Just by way of analogy. If I find a book in a trash can, you are free to read it, but you are not free to duplicate it. Admittedly, people aren't copyrighted, but we do have a right to our own image and likeness which would be infringed by a clone. Presumably identical twins fall under some sort of inadvertant exception or an evidentiary problem [Who is the original? Who is the clone?]
People are leaving genetic material all over the place all the time. From a practical standpoint this is like anything else that you discard, it doesn't belong to you any more. That being said, I wouldn't appreciate someone using my blood, sweat and tears (always available at work) for testing purposes, but what can I do?
If I were being cloned that would be different. However, I don't think ethical rules cover any of these situations.
The way that Amazon could really gain an advantage is if they could find a way to combine buying other items with DVD rental. If I could buy a book, and get it shipped free with my incoming DVD that would be something. Otherwise, I don't see how they can compete except on price or name regonition.
Actually there are rules regulating the ways in which non-profits can raise revenues. For example, one couldn't start a non-profit clothing store for the purpose of saving pandas without some sort of negative tax consequence. I can't remember what the consequence is, but it is bad. Frankly, I don't know how starting a corporation helps, but I do know that there is a reason, even if I don't know what the reason is.
This may be fine and good for some high-end applications, but I don't believe that a lot of places have upgraded to Gigabit Ethernet yet. For the home user whose main activity would be surfing the internet anywhere in the house, communicating with the router 10 time faster than 802.11g won't make the internet any faster.
I'm all in favor of the advance of technology, but the only use I can find for this is faster streaming of video on a local basis once Gigabit ethernet becomes the standard. For right now, the 540 Mb/s is not going to matter much over 100 Mb/s wires.
Nevermind. I see that there was a case of misappropration.
What exactly was CISCO suing over? It seems to me that CISCO didn't like what he had to say, but that doesn't give you a right to sue somebody. Obviously, they weren't alleging libel or slander, since everything he said was apparently true. I don't recall allegations that he misappropriated trade secrets or something. Did he just give up so that he didn't have to defend a baseless suit?
Was his disclosure good for the internet in the short term? Probably not. However, unless there is some law that I'm missing, describing how to use a bomb is not the same as advocating that it be used.
The problem is that examiners have to follow the law. It isn't enough that you know the idea is stupid, it has to be legally unpatentable, which are two seperate standards. Examiners aren't free to decide what "ideas" have merit and those that don't. Basically, they evaluate whether or not the description is adequate, has it been done before exactly, and whether or not it will most likely operate as claimed.
Speaking of "common sense," there are so many patents that are obvious in a common sense sort of way, but for purposes of a patent, "obvious" is measured relative to the village idiot.
If I understand this correctly, then this targets those that want to share dial-up access, but are unwilling or unable to get broadband. Afterall, a wireless router can be obtained for roughly $60.
I guess I don't understand the target market here. It is just people that don't have a modem, but would rather buy an access point, then a modem?
You could install a keyboard game like Whack-a-mole, and the user unwittingly types in code to destroy their own system.
Assuming I could register a .mobi address for my phone, now what? Was something like [my phone number]@[wireless provider].[net or com] too difficult? It seems like a solution looking for a problem.
There is a big difference between writing software that supports AMDs products, and crippling software so that it doesn't work with AMDs products. This would be sort of like having a car that detects the brand of gas that you use and either refusing to work or switching into low gas mileage mode if the "wrong" brand is used.
'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'"
Both he and his lawyer would be dead. A judgment is just a piece of paper unless you have the power to enforce it.