The reality was that it was doing this every night as it had something going with a cute Ford Focus, it just decided to risk it in the day and got caught. Exactly the same as any teenager, just with more lubricants.
Huh? Since when do teenagers have sex with Ford Focus?
Now, I have no idea how complex the actual procedure that would have to crawl on its hands and knees through.
Simple. The corporation's assets are sold off and given to the creditors and shareholders. This punishment was used quite frequently back in 1800's if the corporation was deemed to be operating counter to the public good.
Rambus probably would still exist even without these patents, simply because of the inane deal that Intel upper management signed a few years ago.
Uhhm, no. Intel signed this deal precisely because Rambus had these patents. You see, if Rambus's patents were to hold, they'd be able to charge an exorbitant licensing on DDR, which would effectively kill it and allow them to make RDRAM the de-facto standard (Rambus executive confirmed this hypothesis). Thus, Rambus would have been able to monopolize the memory market. What does Intel get out of it? Well, Intel owns a large amount of stock warrants in Rambus, which they'd be able to cash in when RDRAM reaches a certain market share. It appears that the warrants are now worthless, and Intel lost pretty penny on the whole affair. Serves them well!
On the one hand they support Linux, on the other they support the laws that would effectively kill it. The biggest irony is that Disney now uses the "evil hacker operating system" it worked so hard to condemn. What's even more ironic, is that the only way to watch Disney DVDs on Linux is by using DeCSS -- the "evil hacker digital crowbar" that Disney tried to outlaw. Somebody at Disney needs to get a clue.
I can't stand the expression "copy protection". It is the propaganda slogan dreamed up by the RIAA/MPAA. You see, the so-called "copy protection" does not atually "protect" anything -- it prevents you from copying. The proper term, then, is copy control. Of course the word "control" doesn't have nice ring to it. RIAA/MPAA much prefers the word "protection", just like mafia likes to call their racket and extortion a "protection".
I personally call it copy prevention since it describes the technology in question and has the same acronym. Every time I read the term "copy protection", I cringe. Just count the number of times it's been used in the article...
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa [mensa.org] member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
And yet your comment shows that you are remarkably stupid.
Big Business is policing itself and the quality of our environment is improving constantly.
I want what it is you're smoking. Perhaps you've been sniffing car exhaust a bit too much. Hey, come to think of it, is that what it takes to get into mensa?
But this EULA business is pretty important - after all, isn't the GPL just a EULA, in a certain sense?
No it's not. The so-called EULAs require you to accept their terms as a condition of using the software. They start off with the presumption that you have no rights whatsoever and they "grant" you the right to use the software on very restrictive conditions. That of course is nonsense -- you have the right to use the software by the virtue of having bought a copy of it, so in reality, these EULAs take away the rights you normally have.
GPL does no such thing. You are not required to agree to anything if you want to use the software. GPL starts off with the (correct) presumption that you already have this right. However, you do not normally have the right to distribute the software if you do not hold the copyright on it. GPL grants you this right, provided that you agree to its conditions.
This decision will have no effect on the enforcibility of the GPL. The so-called EULAs, however, have always been on a shaky legal ground. It remains to be seen what effect this decision will have.
The aricle's author(s) complain that you now have to read an agreement before agreeing to it. Well, no shit einstein! That has always been the case, so this ruling adds nothing new in this regard. What is more interesting is that the EULA was upheld as a whole.
The article doesn't make it clear whether it was the "license" for the service or the actual software that was upheld. The difference is important. I never played whatever game Mythic was producing, but I do know that if you play Diablo, you need to agree to the terms of use of Battle.net separately, if you choose to use it.
Having the terms of use of an online service upheld is reasonable since you have the ability to read the agreement and agree to it prior to using/subscribing to the service, or disagree with it and choose not to use it.
The same is not true for shrink-wrap "licenses". You cannot read the agreement prior to buying the software. By opening the box and installing the software you automatically agree to the "license"... oh, but to see the "license" you need to open the box and install the software! Now, supposedly if you disagree, you can take the software back to the store and get a refund -- but we all know how well that works... So, in effect, you are coerced into accepting whatever terms the software vendor feels like putting in the "license".
The courts have traditionally been sceptical when it comes to enforcing the so-called EULAs. The two supporting cases that I know of are Step-Saver v. Wyse Technology and ARS v. Software Link. There is, to my knowledge, only one case where EULA was upheld outright, "provided that its terms are reasonable" -- ProCD v. Zeidenberg. Interestingly though, that case involved not software but a telephone book on CD. Had the court not held the EULA enforcible, anyone would be free to copy the CD, since, according to the US copyright law, public data (such as names and telephone numbers) cannot be copyrighted.
most proprietary Unixes support ACLs. I know for sure Solaris does. ACL support is also planned in linux 2.6. In the mean time, use the ugly solution posted above.
Bush Sr. Apologizes To Son For Funding Bin Laden In '80s
MIDLAND, TX-- Former president George Bush issued an apology to his son Monday for advocating the CIA's mid-'80s funding of Osama bin Laden, who at the time was resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "I'm sorry, son," Bush told President George W. Bush. "We thought it was a good idea at the time because he was part of a group fighting communism in Central Asia. We called them 'freedom fighters' back then. I know it sounds weird. You sort of had to be there." Bush is still deliberating over whether to tell his son about the whole supporting-Saddam Hussein-against-Iran thing.
Could a giant arise amidst
today's insecure and constantly patched linux world that could
hold the title of Unbreakable Linux? I doubt it, but it will be fun
to try, what are your thoughts?
My thoughts are that you are a troll. Who the fuck is this guy? Do slashdot editor ever think before posting? (yes, that's a rhetorical question...)
Does Linux support TV tuners with built-in MPEG2 encoders? Receiving an MPEG2 stream from the card would certainly be a lot more efficient. You could even put multiple cards in the box and be able to receive several channels at once. How much power do you need to encode in software? I expect it would be very problematic with 2 or more TV cards due to the limited PCI bus bandwidth if nothing else.
It's quite simple, really -- not once did you ever see the agreement, and therefore you couldn't possibly have agreed to it.
There is a legal concept called "willful blindness". When you are intentially "blind" to the facts, you can still be held accountable, since it can be shown that you knew or should have known what's going on. The keyword is intentionally, as is clearly the case with your suggestion.
but I've yet to hear of a jurisdiction which would consider you bound to an agreement you didn't see or agree to whatsoever.
I can name two: Virginia and Mariland. Those are the two states that passed UCITA -- a law that legalizes exactly that. Of course this law is so blatantly unconstitutional that it will be struck down by the first judge who looks at it. But hey -- so is DMCA:-)
But you need to decrypt the key to bill someone. You need the number 1234-1234-1234-1234 to bill, not abracadabra. One-way hashing works great for password precisely because you never need to decrypt them so you don't need to store the key. However, one-way encryption is not appropriate for stuff that you actually want to decrypt.
Well, just to expand on that thought: you could store the key on a floppy (or CD, or that funky USB keychain, or whatever...) and require the disk to be inserted and mounted while starting the server. Then take the disk out, carry it with you, and guard it with your life:-)
They are actually really cool. You stick the card in (I think they once called it a "java card"), log in and start working. Open a bunch of terminals, vi, debugger, etc., then pull out the card. It goes back to the login screen. Take the card to another terminal and plug it in. The desktop is restored to *exact same* state you left it: vi is still running with your file loaded, the gdb is still waiting at the same step, netscape shows the same page -- everything is *exacly* in the state you left it. And it takes about 2 seconds for it to "boot". The terminals apparently support sound too, though I've never tried it.
It would be even cooler if it worked reliably though. The server that ran the lab full of SunRays had to be rebooted every night because of memory leaks. Apparently the login screen was the culprit. As far as I know they are still rebooting it.:-)
But basically, if they got the reliability problems fixed (and I assume they did), then this box is probably worth the money. The terminal, monitor, keyboard and mouse will essentially last forever. All the code runs on a server, so you don't need to worry about upgrading it. Yet at the same time, they are basically expendable: if one breaks, plug another one in and you're back to work in 1 minute. Plus you have the extreme mobility I mentioned above. Plus you have centralized data storage and easy backups....
In contrast, PCs need to be upgraded every 2-3 years. They are tied to a particular user. They need to be supported and maintained. If there is a virus/HD breaks/fire/whatever you lose all the data stored on the PC. The cost of maintenance is very very high.
It's because half the people will be pointing out how ridiculous this "article" is, and the other half will reply "well, I like uhh *want* to know what the latest kernel patch is 'cause I'm like ehhh l33t and stuff". You have no idea just by how much it increases the ad revedue.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that this movie was made in USSR and has nothing to do with Hollywood, don't you?
Huh? Since when do teenagers have sex with Ford Focus?
Simple. The corporation's assets are sold off and given to the creditors and shareholders. This punishment was used quite frequently back in 1800's if the corporation was deemed to be operating counter to the public good.
Uhhm, no. Intel signed this deal precisely because Rambus had these patents. You see, if Rambus's patents were to hold, they'd be able to charge an exorbitant licensing on DDR, which would effectively kill it and allow them to make RDRAM the de-facto standard (Rambus executive confirmed this hypothesis). Thus, Rambus would have been able to monopolize the memory market. What does Intel get out of it? Well, Intel owns a large amount of stock warrants in Rambus, which they'd be able to cash in when RDRAM reaches a certain market share. It appears that the warrants are now worthless, and Intel lost pretty penny on the whole affair. Serves them well!
On the one hand they support Linux, on the other they support the laws that would effectively kill it. The biggest irony is that Disney now uses the "evil hacker operating system" it worked so hard to condemn. What's even more ironic, is that the only way to watch Disney DVDs on Linux is by using DeCSS -- the "evil hacker digital crowbar" that Disney tried to outlaw. Somebody at Disney needs to get a clue.
I personally call it copy prevention since it describes the technology in question and has the same acronym. Every time I read the term "copy protection", I cringe. Just count the number of times it's been used in the article...
Aha! So that's what they burgers are made of!
Big Business is policing itself and the quality of our environment is improving constantly.
I want what it is you're smoking. Perhaps you've been sniffing car exhaust a bit too much. Hey, come to think of it, is that what it takes to get into mensa?
No it's not. The so-called EULAs require you to accept their terms as a condition of using the software. They start off with the presumption that you have no rights whatsoever and they "grant" you the right to use the software on very restrictive conditions. That of course is nonsense -- you have the right to use the software by the virtue of having bought a copy of it, so in reality, these EULAs take away the rights you normally have.
GPL does no such thing. You are not required to agree to anything if you want to use the software. GPL starts off with the (correct) presumption that you already have this right. However, you do not normally have the right to distribute the software if you do not hold the copyright on it. GPL grants you this right, provided that you agree to its conditions.
This decision will have no effect on the enforcibility of the GPL. The so-called EULAs, however, have always been on a shaky legal ground. It remains to be seen what effect this decision will have.
The aricle's author(s) complain that you now have to read an agreement before agreeing to it. Well, no shit einstein! That has always been the case, so this ruling adds nothing new in this regard. What is more interesting is that the EULA was upheld as a whole.
The article doesn't make it clear whether it was the "license" for the service or the actual software that was upheld. The difference is important. I never played whatever game Mythic was producing, but I do know that if you play Diablo, you need to agree to the terms of use of Battle.net separately, if you choose to use it.
Having the terms of use of an online service upheld is reasonable since you have the ability to read the agreement and agree to it prior to using/subscribing to the service, or disagree with it and choose not to use it.
The same is not true for shrink-wrap "licenses". You cannot read the agreement prior to buying the software. By opening the box and installing the software you automatically agree to the "license"... oh, but to see the "license" you need to open the box and install the software! Now, supposedly if you disagree, you can take the software back to the store and get a refund -- but we all know how well that works... So, in effect, you are coerced into accepting whatever terms the software vendor feels like putting in the "license".
The courts have traditionally been sceptical when it comes to enforcing the so-called EULAs. The two supporting cases that I know of are Step-Saver v. Wyse Technology and ARS v. Software Link. There is, to my knowledge, only one case where EULA was upheld outright, "provided that its terms are reasonable" -- ProCD v. Zeidenberg. Interestingly though, that case involved not software but a telephone book on CD. Had the court not held the EULA enforcible, anyone would be free to copy the CD, since, according to the US copyright law, public data (such as names and telephone numbers) cannot be copyrighted.
most proprietary Unixes support ACLs. I know for sure Solaris does. ACL support is also planned in linux 2.6. In the mean time, use the ugly solution posted above.
Aha! Have they asked Britney Spears yet?
Bush Sr. Apologizes To Son For Funding Bin Laden In '80s MIDLAND, TX-- Former president George Bush issued an apology to his son Monday for advocating the CIA's mid-'80s funding of Osama bin Laden, who at the time was resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "I'm sorry, son," Bush told President George W. Bush. "We thought it was a good idea at the time because he was part of a group fighting communism in Central Asia. We called them 'freedom fighters' back then. I know it sounds weird. You sort of had to be there." Bush is still deliberating over whether to tell his son about the whole supporting-Saddam Hussein-against-Iran thing.
My thoughts are that you are a troll. Who the fuck is this guy? Do slashdot editor ever think before posting? (yes, that's a rhetorical question...)
Does Linux support TV tuners with built-in MPEG2 encoders? Receiving an MPEG2 stream from the card would certainly be a lot more efficient. You could even put multiple cards in the box and be able to receive several channels at once. How much power do you need to encode in software? I expect it would be very problematic with 2 or more TV cards due to the limited PCI bus bandwidth if nothing else.
There is a legal concept called "willful blindness". When you are intentially "blind" to the facts, you can still be held accountable, since it can be shown that you knew or should have known what's going on. The keyword is intentionally, as is clearly the case with your suggestion.
but I've yet to hear of a jurisdiction which would consider you bound to an agreement you didn't see or agree to whatsoever.
I can name two: Virginia and Mariland. Those are the two states that passed UCITA -- a law that legalizes exactly that. Of course this law is so blatantly unconstitutional that it will be struck down by the first judge who looks at it. But hey -- so is DMCA :-)
So if your conversations are so boring, why do you call her?
And what kind of a fuced up server you are running that needs to be rebooted all the time?
Yeah, let's transfer megabytes of data over a searial cable. Sure, that'll work!
But you need to decrypt the key to bill someone. You need the number 1234-1234-1234-1234 to bill, not abracadabra. One-way hashing works great for password precisely because you never need to decrypt them so you don't need to store the key. However, one-way encryption is not appropriate for stuff that you actually want to decrypt.
Well, just to expand on that thought: you could store the key on a floppy (or CD, or that funky USB keychain, or whatever...) and require the disk to be inserted and mounted while starting the server. Then take the disk out, carry it with you, and guard it with your life :-)
They are actually really cool. You stick the card in (I think they once called it a "java card"), log in and start working. Open a bunch of terminals, vi, debugger, etc., then pull out the card. It goes back to the login screen. Take the card to another terminal and plug it in. The desktop is restored to *exact same* state you left it: vi is still running with your file loaded, the gdb is still waiting at the same step, netscape shows the same page -- everything is *exacly* in the state you left it. And it takes about 2 seconds for it to "boot". The terminals apparently support sound too, though I've never tried it.
:-)
It would be even cooler if it worked reliably though. The server that ran the lab full of SunRays had to be rebooted every night because of memory leaks. Apparently the login screen was the culprit. As far as I know they are still rebooting it.
But basically, if they got the reliability problems fixed (and I assume they did), then this box is probably worth the money. The terminal, monitor, keyboard and mouse will essentially last forever. All the code runs on a server, so you don't need to worry about upgrading it. Yet at the same time, they are basically expendable: if one breaks, plug another one in and you're back to work in 1 minute. Plus you have the extreme mobility I mentioned above. Plus you have centralized data storage and easy backups....
In contrast, PCs need to be upgraded every 2-3 years. They are tied to a particular user. They need to be supported and maintained. If there is a virus/HD breaks/fire/whatever you lose all the data stored on the PC. The cost of maintenance is very very high.
And how exactly do you accomplish that? Perhaps you can reinstall windows in 15 minues too?
uhhh sure...
It's because half the people will be pointing out how ridiculous this "article" is, and the other half will reply "well, I like uhh *want* to know what the latest kernel patch is 'cause I'm like ehhh l33t and stuff". You have no idea just by how much it increases the ad revedue.