What are you talking about? There's been lots of effort in combating the virus problem, namely the products of the major antivirus software vendors like Trend Micro, and Symantec. It's worked extremely well. More and more viruses and worms come out, and the vendors make more and more updates, and sell more licenses. They've become extremely profitable. Since profit = success, this virus problem is obviously well in hand.
I'm guessing that was sarcasm, in which case I totally agree ^^
The problem here is that the viral arms race is a cash cow. It's in Symantec/Trend/McAffee/et. al.'s best interest, financially, to make sure that viruses/worms/malware continue to propagate.
If virus/worm/malware activity suddenly stopped, there'd be little need for the services those companies provide. If, however, the threat multiplied over time, there would be an increased demand for thier services - which in turn would equate to more money in their pockets.
I'm not saying these firms are crooked - I'm also not saying they aren't. All I'm saying is that they have a vested interest in keeping the threat alive, or even increasing its magnitude. Whether they do so or not is neither here nor there.
MS, of course, shoulders a portion of the blame for the problem. OE, after all, is the most effective virus/worm/malware distribution engine *ever*. (Outlook itself not being far behind, but that's part of Office, which most folks actually have to pay for -- OE comes installed with the Windows OS that comes pre0nstalled on most new machines, and hence has a much greater distribution) But then again, if it were secure, given MS's overwhelming marketshare, how would *that* effect the bottom line for the AV companies?
A healthy skepticism about the industry is quite warranted, I think.
I'd wager instances of 'filename.ext', followed by more than one space (some folks might accidentally type one space - I've seen it happen), followed by a second extention (most likely executable) have a darned good chance of being malicious, and should be quarantined. The fact they aren't is *sad*.
I'd even be willing to take it a step further, and say there's little to no legitimate reason for bare executables to be passed around via email to begin with. But that's just me. ^^
If you have a Mac with iMovie you can use iMovie to convert the protected AAC file to an unprotected AIFF file in 1 easy step and save $0.25 on the CD....or use a CD-RW rather than a CD-R, and re-use it afterwards... Although I will admit, the iMovie way is definitely more efficient ^^
Let's say you currently pay $40 for your cable package. Then the cable company is mandated to offer a-la-carte. They break up the bill, and say infrastructure costs are $25, and programming is $15. They set a-la-carte channels at $2.50 each.
So, you drop your programming package (-$15), and pick up your 10 channels at $2.50 each (+$25).
Congratulations, your cable bill is now $10 higher!
They could price a-la-carte channels at prices *much* higher than the bundles, in order to discourage people from picking them, then turn around to the gov't and say "Hey look, people don't want a-la-carte -- see? They're not ordering it!"
Either that or they'll drop bundles entirely, and everyone's costs will go up.
Either way, they'll find a way to make us lose, until there's real competition in the space, and these local-gov't-sponsored monopolies get broken.
Indeed. IIRC the problem is that when a node goes down, the "lines" it feeds are rerouted to the working "lines" of the neighbor nodes -- but because everything is run at, or very, very close to capacity, the resulting surge in demand causes the neighbor nodes to trip...and thus it cascades down the line.
The entire system was designed around the notion that each node would have a signifigant surplus of available power, and would thus be able to "take over" for a faulty neighbor-node. Since the power companies, in an effort to maximize profit, simply used the existing surplus power to feed increased demand, instead of upgrading and/or adding new nodes (an expensive process, I'm sure), the system doesn't work as well as it should. That's how that debacle in NYC last year happened, IIRC.
I want a printer that lasts like an HP LaserJet 4 that was made this year.
Amen brother.
Still have a working 4L. Bought in 1993 or 1994, the thing just keeps chugging along. It's been through hell too -- college, one roach-infested apartment, two years in an un-insulated basement...you name it, it's been there, done that.
Sure, it's slow, B/W only, and gets quite loud when it's working - but the damn thing just refuses to die =) My only problem with it at the moment is that it's getting a bit harder to find toner carts for it these days.
Popping up a window which says "This is an EXECUTABLE FILE, not a document. If you don't know what that means, then this is almost certainly an EVIL VIRUS. Only click "open" if you are prepared to LOSE ALL YOUR DATA" - and then provides a big button saying "I'm scared, let's not do this", and a tiny button saying "open" - would be a better solution....and it'd never get read. The ONLY thing most users read is the button that says "Open", or "OK". They don't want to know what you're saying, they want to open the file.
This is the reason that the only way to stop users from opening executable attachments is to block their ability to do so entirely. Joe User doesn't know the difference between a Word doc, a Zip file, and a.scr. All he knows is it says the CEO sent it to him, so it must be important! Click-click!
*This* is why it's best to at least require the user (by default) to save any attachments they want to open, rather than allowing them to open directly. It *does* provide slightly more security in the fact that the user *must* take action to save the file, and run it, rather than just running it directly. This gives time for that little voice in the back of their head to say "Hey, didn't that pushy Admin fellow tell me never to open these sorts of things?", before they go ahead and open it anyway.
Hopefully they're running updated AV software to catch their mistake before their comp is infected. (Note that this multi-layered approach worked well to contain the previous round of zip-password-protected worms -- before the AV software could detect the encrypted Zip file, it could detect the files once they were unzipped by the user. Now, of course, there are generic ways of detecting these server-side, but that extra line of defense prevented one rather nasty crop from getting through.)
Now for you and me, who know better and/or run a slightly less vulnerable OS, it'd be nice to be able to turn that off -- but make it a concious decision, rather than a default, to turn it off.
(And if you're wondering why the virus is encrypted, it's so it passes through filters. Encrypting with a random password has the nice side effect of randomizing the data. So there are no known strings to filter on. Pretty clever.)
Indeed...except the email itself (the text portion) sent by the virus seems to follow a set pattern, which is how they're cathing them. Admittedly, it took a few days for the virus detection folks to figure out how to spot 'em, but they did.
It's all an arms race. The virus-writers come up with a new, clever method of delivery, and the virus-detection folks come up with a new, clever way of detecting and eliminating them... If it wasn't so annoying, it'd be fascinating.
I'd LOVE to have the ability to choose between different hardware architectures and still run the same operating system. This is one place where linux is beautiful. Unfortunately, it's just not ready for a lot of users yet. No support for Photoshop, Dreamweaver and many of the other applications that I use daily.
I think you're placing the blame on the wrong side of the equation here.
Saying "[Linux has] No support for Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and many of the other applications I use daily" makes it seem like this is a failing of linux - that somehow linux is supposed to "support" these applications.
Linux is an operating system. It doesn't provide support for a given program. A given program is written with the intention of running on linux. Or not. The decision here is not one that Linus and the linux community make - but one that Adobe, Macromedia, and the companies that make the applications make.
So the better thing to do, rather than rail on linux for "not supporting" your chosen apps, is to rail on the companies that make those apps for not supporting linux. The more people who complain, the more interest is shown in the vendor porting their apps to linux, the more chance there is of those apps actually *being* ported.
So, email Adobe, Macromedia, and the rest, and express interest in linux ports of their apps. Chances are you'll get a stale form letter in return thanking you for your interest, but saying the market isn't there yet. But...if enough folks show interest, maybe they'll catch on that there *is* a market, and eventually port their apps over.
I agree, however, that the next few years should be rather interesting. =)
Mods - *please* mod parent post as Insightful/Informative. It's the honest truth.
I've been in exactly this situation before. It was quite a few years back. My fiancee and I had just started living together, and we ended up working at the same place (a little retail shop) for a little over 6 months. Luckily, neither of us was above the other in the chain of command.
With one car, and work 45 minutes away from home, we ended up spending pretty much all day every day together. (The shop was small, and had one employee "on" from open to close, except on weekends. Generally she would work the morning shift, and I would work the afternoon/evening). Needless to say, the strain on our relationship was almost unbearable. It was a blessing in disguise when the company went under (the "fad" product we sold wasn't popular enough to support the business anymore, and the owner didn't want to admit it and move on to something different).
Every little thing - the things you normally let slide because you love so much more about the person - will start to become an issue. You'll stop really knowing the meaning of the word "alone". It's draining on body and mind, and something I would *strongly* advise anyone to avoid if at all possible.
"...with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note,or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued..."
Intent is the key -- if the intent isn't to make the bill "unfit", the defacement is perfectly legal. This is why the "Where's George" folks can write their URL in the margin of a $1 without a problem. The bill is still perfectly usable.
Now, writing "VOID" over it, or blacking out the denomination -- that would most likely fall under the 'unfit' definition (although unless you tried to pass one, I can't see where the suits would come knocking)
Unless you're a lawyer who has had judgements for copyright suits, you dont know diddly.
Reason is that the idea of "Fair Use" must ALWAYS be tested in court. There isn't a hard and fast definition of that idea.
I can't disagree with the fact that only IP laywers would really know ALL the ins and outs of copyright law...but I disagree with your statemet that ALL cases must be tested in court for validity. In our current (corp-friendly) legal climate, validity isn't exactly a good measure of what's "legal";P
Case in point: I just (finally) bought a copy of Icewind Dale II (long live the memory of BIS!). In the manual it states (and I paraphrase, as I don't have the manual) in part of the legalese:
"You are allowed to use this on one computer...you are allowed to make one copy of the game CDs for backup purposes..."
It states that I am allowed to make a backup. I don't think anyone could argue that it's not within "Fair Use" to make a copy of that CD -- they explicitly *state* that it's allowed. This isn't something that needs to be tested in court -- it's right there.
Now, admittedly I haven't *tried* to copy it yet, but my suspicion, based on previous experience with trying to backup CRPGs, is that there's some form of copy protection on the CD, to prevent any copy that I would make from being recognized by the game as a "proper" CD.
Therefore, by adding the copy protection to the CD, they effectively prevent me from exercising the right that they themselves granted me. This is a problem.
Never fear, however, for enterprising individuals have "fixed" the problem by making a "no-cd" or "cd-copy" patch, which when applied removes the CD checks, and/or allows my copy to work as a fully "proper" CD. Right? Wrong...using these constitutes a violation of the DMCA, and is thus illegal...
Does that stop people from using them to remove the CD checks from games they legally own, or allow them to have a working backup copy, so they can keep the originals in a safe place? Nope. They do it anyway. Does it allow people to make unauthorized, illegal copies of the game? Yes it does.
Now, this "Games X Copy" software appears to do something roughly similar -- to allow you to make a working backup copy (although in a different way, instead of modifying the game's files, it modifies the way the CD is read and burned...but the function is similar). Does it allow for the (completely legal, granted) backup of legally purchased games? Yep. Does it allow unauthorized, illegal copies? Most likely it does.
The same arguments can be made in meatspace about a common tool, such as a crowbar. The crowbar can be used for the completely legal opening of crates, boxes, doors, etc... It can also be used to illegally gain entrance to a building or storage container. Does this make the crowbar inherantly illegal? No it doesn't. The crowbar's intended purpose is not to do illegal things, but legal ones. This is why you could walk down to your local hardware store and buy one right now. Owning a crowbar does not make one a felon, nor does it cause people to break into other people's stuff.
In copyright terms, I believe this is generally referred to as "substantial, non-infringing use", or something similar.
I'd argue that a commercially marketed (or even freely available - commercial intent has no real bearing here) piece of software, with the specified intent of creating legal, authorized backup copies of games (or other software) would fall into the same category as the afore-mentioned crowbar. Sure, it can be used for good or ill, but it's intended purpose was not to infringe, regardless of the other ways it could be used.
Unfortunately, in our (US) current legal environment, it's unlikely the courts would see it that way, even in light of the explicit backup provision.
Additionally, it's apparent that the corporate types don't really understand the "pirates" -- the "pirates" are going to
No -- the sugar intake isn't *technically* the problem. The real problem (as I understand it) is body fat. To make a long story short, fat inhibits insulin. The more fat you have, the less efficiently your body's insulin works.
So...consume mass ammounts of sugar, and don't burn it off via exercise, and your body converts those sugars to fats. Continue this over a long period of time, and you may build up enough fat that your body's insulin no longer works to counteract/process the sugars - ergo, Type II Diabetes.
Did this to me too - very strange. At first I thought a worm or something might have snuck through (trying to deliver *something* via Messenger), but Norton comes up empty on the virus/worm front, and Adaware/SpyBot didn't find anything out of the ordinary.
So, I nipped the problem by renaming msnmsgs.exe. Now whatever Windows *thinks* needs Messenger won't be able to start it. Don't get any errors about it either. Since I don't actually *use* Messenger for anything, this has pretty much solved my problem.
i>But, if you already have Playstation controllers lying around, I can see how the adapters would be economical. My only question is, do they support Vibration/Force Feedback?
With the right drivers, yes. Under Windows, the support is a bit buggy with certain games (FFXI for one), but *does* work. Haven't found anything under linux that supports it yet...then again, I haven't been looking all that hard. I'm sure someone will elaborate.
I am reminded of the Linksys router debunkle. TiVo is REQUIRED to give out the source code, if somebody asks for it. If you want to use the free source code, you have to follow GPL's rules.
Right, but they're under no such obligation with regards to the binaries. I doubt the images they're having a problem with are source-based...so I'm not sure how far the GPL would go in a situation like this. Then again, IANAL either ^^
TiVo better hope that they aren't trying to hide any "security by obsurity" subroutines.
Access to the GPL'd source may not tell you everything either...they (conceivably) could link into a binary-only non-GPL'd kernel module or library that does something...and aside from reverse-engineering it,l we wouldn't be able to tell what it was doing in there.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, as the original poster noted, nobody has been fired for not training their replacement.
;P
--
What would Cthulhu do?
Most likely eat his "replacement", after causing it to go insane simply by being there?
I wish I could find a Perl module to auto dial these number and leave supper long messages with an electornic voice.
Even better, have it read the spammers own spam back to them over the phone, until their answering machine fills up. ^^
What are you talking about? There's been lots of effort in combating the virus problem, namely the products of the major antivirus software vendors like Trend Micro, and Symantec. It's worked extremely well. More and more viruses and worms come out, and the vendors make more and more updates, and sell more licenses. They've become extremely profitable. Since profit = success, this virus problem is obviously well in hand.
I'm guessing that was sarcasm, in which case I totally agree ^^
The problem here is that the viral arms race is a cash cow. It's in Symantec/Trend/McAffee/et. al.'s best interest, financially, to make sure that viruses/worms/malware continue to propagate.
If virus/worm/malware activity suddenly stopped, there'd be little need for the services those companies provide. If, however, the threat multiplied over time, there would be an increased demand for thier services - which in turn would equate to more money in their pockets.
I'm not saying these firms are crooked - I'm also not saying they aren't. All I'm saying is that they have a vested interest in keeping the threat alive, or even increasing its magnitude. Whether they do so or not is neither here nor there.
MS, of course, shoulders a portion of the blame for the problem. OE, after all, is the most effective virus/worm/malware distribution engine *ever*. (Outlook itself not being far behind, but that's part of Office, which most folks actually have to pay for -- OE comes installed with the Windows OS that comes pre0nstalled on most new machines, and hence has a much greater distribution) But then again, if it were secure, given MS's overwhelming marketshare, how would *that* effect the bottom line for the AV companies?
A healthy skepticism about the industry is quite warranted, I think.
Indeed.
I'd wager instances of 'filename.ext', followed by more than one space (some folks might accidentally type one space - I've seen it happen), followed by a second extention (most likely executable) have a darned good chance of being malicious, and should be quarantined. The fact they aren't is *sad*.
I'd even be willing to take it a step further, and say there's little to no legitimate reason for bare executables to be passed around via email to begin with. But that's just me. ^^
If you have a Mac with iMovie you can use iMovie to convert the protected AAC file to an unprotected AIFF file in 1 easy step and save $0.25 on the CD. ...or use a CD-RW rather than a CD-R, and re-use it afterwards... Although I will admit, the iMovie way is definitely more efficient ^^
Let's say you currently pay $40 for your cable package. Then the cable company is mandated to offer a-la-carte. They break up the bill, and say infrastructure costs are $25, and programming is $15. They set a-la-carte channels at $2.50 each.
So, you drop your programming package (-$15), and pick up your 10 channels at $2.50 each (+$25).
Congratulations, your cable bill is now $10 higher!
They could price a-la-carte channels at prices *much* higher than the bundles, in order to discourage people from picking them, then turn around to the gov't and say "Hey look, people don't want a-la-carte -- see? They're not ordering it!"
Either that or they'll drop bundles entirely, and everyone's costs will go up.
Either way, they'll find a way to make us lose, until there's real competition in the space, and these local-gov't-sponsored monopolies get broken.
Indeed. IIRC the problem is that when a node goes down, the "lines" it feeds are rerouted to the working "lines" of the neighbor nodes -- but because everything is run at, or very, very close to capacity, the resulting surge in demand causes the neighbor nodes to trip...and thus it cascades down the line.
The entire system was designed around the notion that each node would have a signifigant surplus of available power, and would thus be able to "take over" for a faulty neighbor-node. Since the power companies, in an effort to maximize profit, simply used the existing surplus power to feed increased demand, instead of upgrading and/or adding new nodes (an expensive process, I'm sure), the system doesn't work as well as it should. That's how that debacle in NYC last year happened, IIRC.
"Here's the problem though, have you seen a P2P client that has a "no, don't use my entire bandwidth, I want to download at 2400bps" option?"
The better bittorrent clients let you do exactly that, specifying a limit to how much bandwidth it can consume. ^^
I want a printer that lasts like an HP LaserJet 4 that was made this year.
Amen brother.
Still have a working 4L. Bought in 1993 or 1994, the thing just keeps chugging along. It's been through hell too -- college, one roach-infested apartment, two years in an un-insulated basement...you name it, it's been there, done that.
Sure, it's slow, B/W only, and gets quite loud when it's working - but the damn thing just refuses to die =) My only problem with it at the moment is that it's getting a bit harder to find toner carts for it these days.
Popping up a window which says "This is an EXECUTABLE FILE, not a document. If you don't know what that means, then this is almost certainly an EVIL VIRUS. Only click "open" if you are prepared to LOSE ALL YOUR DATA" - and then provides a big button saying "I'm scared, let's not do this", and a tiny button saying "open" - would be a better solution. ...and it'd never get read. The ONLY thing most users read is the button that says "Open", or "OK". They don't want to know what you're saying, they want to open the file.
.scr. All he knows is it says the CEO sent it to him, so it must be important! Click-click!
This is the reason that the only way to stop users from opening executable attachments is to block their ability to do so entirely. Joe User doesn't know the difference between a Word doc, a Zip file, and a
*This* is why it's best to at least require the user (by default) to save any attachments they want to open, rather than allowing them to open directly. It *does* provide slightly more security in the fact that the user *must* take action to save the file, and run it, rather than just running it directly. This gives time for that little voice in the back of their head to say "Hey, didn't that pushy Admin fellow tell me never to open these sorts of things?", before they go ahead and open it anyway.
Hopefully they're running updated AV software to catch their mistake before their comp is infected. (Note that this multi-layered approach worked well to contain the previous round of zip-password-protected worms -- before the AV software could detect the encrypted Zip file, it could detect the files once they were unzipped by the user. Now, of course, there are generic ways of detecting these server-side, but that extra line of defense prevented one rather nasty crop from getting through.)
Now for you and me, who know better and/or run a slightly less vulnerable OS, it'd be nice to be able to turn that off -- but make it a concious decision, rather than a default, to turn it off.
(And if you're wondering why the virus is encrypted, it's so it passes through filters. Encrypting with a random password has the nice side effect of randomizing the data. So there are no known strings to filter on. Pretty clever.)
Indeed...except the email itself (the text portion) sent by the virus seems to follow a set pattern, which is how they're cathing them. Admittedly, it took a few days for the virus detection folks to figure out how to spot 'em, but they did.
It's all an arms race. The virus-writers come up with a new, clever method of delivery, and the virus-detection folks come up with a new, clever way of detecting and eliminating them... If it wasn't so annoying, it'd be fascinating.
I'd LOVE to have the ability to choose between different hardware architectures and still run the same operating system. This is one place where linux is beautiful. Unfortunately, it's just not ready for a lot of users yet. No support for Photoshop, Dreamweaver and many of the other applications that I use daily.
I think you're placing the blame on the wrong side of the equation here.
Saying "[Linux has] No support for Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and many of the other applications I use daily" makes it seem like this is a failing of linux - that somehow linux is supposed to "support" these applications.
Linux is an operating system. It doesn't provide support for a given program. A given program is written with the intention of running on linux. Or not. The decision here is not one that Linus and the linux community make - but one that Adobe, Macromedia, and the companies that make the applications make.
So the better thing to do, rather than rail on linux for "not supporting" your chosen apps, is to rail on the companies that make those apps for not supporting linux. The more people who complain, the more interest is shown in the vendor porting their apps to linux, the more chance there is of those apps actually *being* ported.
So, email Adobe, Macromedia, and the rest, and express interest in linux ports of their apps. Chances are you'll get a stale form letter in return thanking you for your interest, but saying the market isn't there yet. But...if enough folks show interest, maybe they'll catch on that there *is* a market, and eventually port their apps over.
I agree, however, that the next few years should be rather interesting. =)
I'd just like to say that, combined with the 'Adblock' plugin, the above is *extremely* nice.
Use Adblock to block all known sources of ads, use Flash-click-to-view to catch the ones you didn't know about before they're in your face.
Mods - *please* mod parent post as Insightful/Informative. It's the honest truth.
I've been in exactly this situation before. It was quite a few years back. My fiancee and I had just started living together, and we ended up working at the same place (a little retail shop) for a little over 6 months. Luckily, neither of us was above the other in the chain of command.
With one car, and work 45 minutes away from home, we ended up spending pretty much all day every day together. (The shop was small, and had one employee "on" from open to close, except on weekends. Generally she would work the morning shift, and I would work the afternoon/evening). Needless to say, the strain on our relationship was almost unbearable. It was a blessing in disguise when the company went under (the "fad" product we sold wasn't popular enough to support the business anymore, and the owner didn't want to admit it and move on to something different).
Every little thing - the things you normally let slide because you love so much more about the person - will start to become an issue. You'll stop really knowing the meaning of the word "alone". It's draining on body and mind, and something I would *strongly* advise anyone to avoid if at all possible.
I think the most relevant section is this:
"...with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note,or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued..."
Intent is the key -- if the intent isn't to make the bill "unfit", the defacement is perfectly legal. This is why the "Where's George" folks can write their URL in the margin of a $1 without a problem. The bill is still perfectly usable.
Now, writing "VOID" over it, or blacking out the denomination -- that would most likely fall under the 'unfit' definition (although unless you tried to pass one, I can't see where the suits would come knocking)
But Weird Al said I could get a great tan that way... ;P
So what you're saying is that *real* gamers seeking a challenge rather than the easy win will play on something other than nVidia? ;P
So...make the man some #$*&@ french toast, for chrissakes! ;P
Ick...should have previewed. Sorry for the ill-closed italics.
Unless you're a lawyer who has had judgements for copyright suits, you dont know diddly.
;P
Reason is that the idea of "Fair Use" must ALWAYS be tested in court. There isn't a hard and fast definition of that idea.
I can't disagree with the fact that only IP laywers would really know ALL the ins and outs of copyright law...but I disagree with your statemet that ALL cases must be tested in court for validity. In our current (corp-friendly) legal climate, validity isn't exactly a good measure of what's "legal"
Case in point: I just (finally) bought a copy of Icewind Dale II (long live the memory of BIS!). In the manual it states (and I paraphrase, as I don't have the manual) in part of the legalese:
"You are allowed to use this on one computer...you are allowed to make one copy of the game CDs for backup purposes..."
It states that I am allowed to make a backup. I don't think anyone could argue that it's not within "Fair Use" to make a copy of that CD -- they explicitly *state* that it's allowed. This isn't something that needs to be tested in court -- it's right there.
Now, admittedly I haven't *tried* to copy it yet, but my suspicion, based on previous experience with trying to backup CRPGs, is that there's some form of copy protection on the CD, to prevent any copy that I would make from being recognized by the game as a "proper" CD.
Therefore, by adding the copy protection to the CD, they effectively prevent me from exercising the right that they themselves granted me. This is a problem.
Never fear, however, for enterprising individuals have "fixed" the problem by making a "no-cd" or "cd-copy" patch, which when applied removes the CD checks, and/or allows my copy to work as a fully "proper" CD. Right? Wrong...using these constitutes a violation of the DMCA, and is thus illegal...
Does that stop people from using them to remove the CD checks from games they legally own, or allow them to have a working backup copy, so they can keep the originals in a safe place? Nope. They do it anyway. Does it allow people to make unauthorized, illegal copies of the game? Yes it does.
Now, this "Games X Copy" software appears to do something roughly similar -- to allow you to make a working backup copy (although in a different way, instead of modifying the game's files, it modifies the way the CD is read and burned...but the function is similar). Does it allow for the (completely legal, granted) backup of legally purchased games? Yep. Does it allow unauthorized, illegal copies? Most likely it does.
The same arguments can be made in meatspace about a common tool, such as a crowbar. The crowbar can be used for the completely legal opening of crates, boxes, doors, etc... It can also be used to illegally gain entrance to a building or storage container. Does this make the crowbar inherantly illegal? No it doesn't. The crowbar's intended purpose is not to do illegal things, but legal ones. This is why you could walk down to your local hardware store and buy one right now. Owning a crowbar does not make one a felon, nor does it cause people to break into other people's stuff.
In copyright terms, I believe this is generally referred to as "substantial, non-infringing use", or something similar.
I'd argue that a commercially marketed (or even freely available - commercial intent has no real bearing here) piece of software, with the specified intent of creating legal, authorized backup copies of games (or other software) would fall into the same category as the afore-mentioned crowbar. Sure, it can be used for good or ill, but it's intended purpose was not to infringe, regardless of the other ways it could be used.
Unfortunately, in our (US) current legal environment, it's unlikely the courts would see it that way, even in light of the explicit backup provision.
Additionally, it's apparent that the corporate types don't really understand the "pirates" -- the "pirates" are going to
No -- the sugar intake isn't *technically* the problem. The real problem (as I understand it) is body fat. To make a long story short, fat inhibits insulin. The more fat you have, the less efficiently your body's insulin works.
So...consume mass ammounts of sugar, and don't burn it off via exercise, and your body converts those sugars to fats. Continue this over a long period of time, and you may build up enough fat that your body's insulin no longer works to counteract/process the sugars - ergo, Type II Diabetes.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Did this to me too - very strange. At first I thought a worm or something might have snuck through (trying to deliver *something* via Messenger), but Norton comes up empty on the virus/worm front, and Adaware/SpyBot didn't find anything out of the ordinary.
So, I nipped the problem by renaming msnmsgs.exe. Now whatever Windows *thinks* needs Messenger won't be able to start it. Don't get any errors about it either. Since I don't actually *use* Messenger for anything, this has pretty much solved my problem.
i>But, if you already have Playstation controllers lying around, I can see how the adapters would be economical. My only question is, do they support Vibration/Force Feedback?
With the right drivers, yes. Under Windows, the support is a bit buggy with certain games (FFXI for one), but *does* work. Haven't found anything under linux that supports it yet...then again, I haven't been looking all that hard. I'm sure someone will elaborate.
If our country was a giant game show with a fighting round followed by a quiz round, then we'd be all set.
::looks at CNN coverage of Iraq::
;P
Fighting round?
Quiz round? Well, there *is* an election next year...
Hmm...I'd say you've got it just about right there
I am reminded of the Linksys router debunkle. TiVo is REQUIRED to give out the source code, if somebody asks for it. If you want to use the free source code, you have to follow GPL's rules.
Right, but they're under no such obligation with regards to the binaries. I doubt the images they're having a problem with are source-based...so I'm not sure how far the GPL would go in a situation like this. Then again, IANAL either ^^
TiVo better hope that they aren't trying to hide any "security by obsurity" subroutines.
Access to the GPL'd source may not tell you everything either...they (conceivably) could link into a binary-only non-GPL'd kernel module or library that does something...and aside from reverse-engineering it,l we wouldn't be able to tell what it was doing in there.