Ok but can we have exFAT support in the kernel now without having to download legally dubious Fuse support?
If the only legal issues are MS patents then the rhetorical answer is a qualified yes; as someone would have to make a convincing argument to add it to the kernel. OTOH, the developers / copyright owners to fuse can become an OIN licensee and remove any legal impediments to using MS patents.
This doesn't pass the smell test. They definitely have an angle here, we just don't know what it is.
It only applies to Linux, and gives MS the opportunity to develop anything they want base don Linux without worrying about a patent infringement suit; plus could partner with OIN to fight patent trolls. A plus is invalidating a troll's claim would apply across any possible infringement, protecting their closed source business as well. They aren't going to get into a patent fight over Linux; so why not join forces to enhance your ability to destroy trolls?
It also reduces any concerns someone using an MS Linux product that they may get embroiled in a patent suit.
The money is in the support, so anything that eases that transition is useful.
Each PS has a unique serial number. Require that for any account changes; and ty the account to the serial number to keep it working. They could also add a second number to the box to allow for getting a replacement PS if the original one dies. If it gets stolen, send a copy of the police report. Not perfect, but it adds a layer of complexity to stealing an account while keeping the information needed to legitimately do so available.
Years ago I happened to stumble upon stories about how some of these "pirate" stations took up residence in offshore military installations left over from World War II. I spent the better part of a day reading about ingenuity and innovation of those stations in particular. To my knowledge we never had anything comparable in the USA, which is a big shame; apparently after the Revolutionary War we ceded our revolutionary mindsets back to British citizens?
Actually, we did and still do, but they are mostly low power stations that broadcast over a very narrow area.
Right to repair will force apple to give this software out to 3rd party shops.
Right to repair will force apple to give this software out to 3rd party shops.
Hardly. Most proposed laws require them to make it available, but at what price? The same thing with parts. Sure you can order them, but manufacturers cans imply price them at a point where a 3rd party repair is as expensive as the manufacturer's. If you look at car repairs, you can buy tools to diagnose issues. Some are affordable, around $500; but a mechanic can spread that around a lot of work. How many Mac repairs will a shop get? Apple could produce a special mac version that runs the software and sell it as a single device, much like many car diagnostic tools are. Will a shop drop 2K for such a device hoping to get enough repairs to make a profit?
In addition, right o repair does not address the issue of a 3rd party part or repair from causing other damage which would not be covered by a warranty.
I like the concept of right to repair and would like to see a law with teeth; but the reality probably will not be what most people expect.
You mean Apple has your money and you have a brick? Hope you bought it with a credit card and can file a chargeback/complaint about Crapple.
I find his post hard to believe. The last time Apple tried and couldn't repair a 5 year old MBP under an extended warranty the simply replaced it with a new one.
Haven't they learned anything from cases such as Boaty-McBoatface, Taylor Swifts Biggest Fan,or sending her to a school for the deaf, or sending Pitbull to Alaska
Leaving the choice up to the Internet, or even just Netflix subscribers isn't going to result in the best storylines, or even the storylines that necessarily reflect what actual people want to see.
I agree, they will present a limited number of choices scripted in advance, with viewers voting on which one to follow. It is intended to be a hook to draw viewers in, although the losing voters may lose interest as well. Personally, I refer a story to be well written and engaging, and not merely another version of Colossal Cave.
True in general, but not in this case since they are asking for a universal rule across the US. Having per-state laws is worse for small competitors and restricts their ability to grow.
So, having consistent federal not-too-strict laws are better for businesses selling user information (your first point I think) but actually also better for small competitors who want to grow.
Some big companies spend a lot in lobbying to increase complexity of their own field because they know they can handle it better than the small actors. They are doing the opposite here : they want their job to be easier (and more importantly less regulated), but they're not trying to prevent competition.
Now, I haven't seen any company complain against GDPR. Some say it's a lot of constraints (like, it really protects users), but all seem to agree it is fair, so no company could publicly fight GDPR without clearly being anti-privacy -- and most Companies always publicly say they are pro-privacy, especially when their business model is selling user's data. I believe those laws should be like the internet : world-wide.
You make some good points but I disagree on two points:
1. They are doing the opposite here : they want their job to be easier (and more importantly less regulated), but they're not trying to prevent competition.I think they are trying to craft laws that give them an advantage as an incumbent. The know what is easy to do , what costs money and what is valuable and thus can make laws that setup barriers they have hurdled but are hard for a new entry to meet. In addition, they eliminate the possibility a state would have no privacy protections, thus letting a local competitor to start and grow locally before deciding if they want to grow beyond their state. They may not like CA's laws but you can be assured they will rig the game in their favor.
2. I believe those laws should be like the internet : world-wide. Never happen because you'll never get agreement on what the law should be; some may even like lax laws to attract companies.
Not exactly true. Startups will have more issues complying with GDPR, California laws, and any local laws. That's what preventing them from going world-wide, while large companies can absorb that pretty easily.
The US should go for something that is as close to GDPR as possible. That way, it would incur NO cost for companies (*) since they already implement GDPR (and most of the time for all users so that it's simpler for them) while effectively improving user's privacy.
(*) Except for companies which business model is based on selling users information, obviously.
You missed my point, which was regulations are often used by the regulated to create barriers to entry; in this case they would apply all through the US so a company could not find a state with lax protections to setup in and simply avoid doing business in highly regulated ones.
AT&T, Apple, Charter and Google used their time in the Senate to call on lawmakers to introduce new federal privacy legislation. translates to "We are worried states will setup tougher standards, such as CA is doing, and we want the feds to step in and preempt state laws with federal rules that we can influence cheaper by buying key congress members rather than having to buy legislatures in 50 states. In addition, strict, but not to strict, rules will make it harder for competitors since it will cost money to setup the structures to comply with them, creating more barriers to entry and less of a threat of a new company disrupting our thing."
If you want to start your own company someday, being an engineer is probably a better career choice than being in sales.
I would say it depends on what you are selling. The greatest product in the world is useless unless you can sell it. Engineers can get too enamored with the engineering and forget that the end goal is to make something people will buy and makes the company a profit. Anyone can start a company but to be successful at it you need many different talents.
If you click on 'cancel my subscription' online, you just get a phone # to call. That is the only way to cancel. I assume because they want to try to talk you out of it.
Yup. Each time I got a trial with a car I had to call and keep saying "No, just cancel my subscription" to some droid that kept upping the ante until I said "what part of cancel is hard to understand?" I feel sorry for their CS reps, they've off shored it and obviously the reps are pressed to avoid cancellation at all costs.
They could use an angle grinder to damage/remove the faulty B pillar in a way that could not be covered up. The reason for fully scrapping (if that's really the plan) must be more complicated.
The problem is a good body and fender person could easily "fix" it so it would look like new; leaving Subaru with liability for a known defective vehicle. In addition, there is the cost of storing, grinding and then giving away the vehicles to some school for use as a training tool. It's simply simpler to scrap them and take the write-off for the full cost. I think the reason for scraping is really that simple - it's a known cost and leaves no liability for the bad vehicles.
Surely they should go to a breakers where the engines should be dropped out of them and the faulty shell crushed. Seems like a massive waste to just crush the whole of a brand new vehicle.
Liability and tax concerns. While the parts are perfectly good, if they sent them elsewhere there's always the concern that a vehicle somehow get sold rather than stripped and leave Subaru liable; or simply a BS lawsuit because the part came from a defective vehicle. In addition, if they scrap the entire vehicle it's a loss write off, if they sell part of it then they have to account for the sale which is more trouble than it is worth.
I know the men and women of our government are oblivious and at least 1.5 decades behind any technological curve, but do they really have to be told this?
While many certainly are, there are a lot of them who regularly use the latest technology and are frustrated by the government's "Yesterday's Technology Deployed Tomorrow" approach to systems. It's quicker and easier to send a text from your own phone than to find a desktop to send an Outlook Webmail email; not to mention the "so an so is a real ass" comments you don't want archived forever.
Part of the reason is also a broader cultural one; we have become so used to instant communication and using technology that the line between what is a personal and what is a business machine has become blurred.
As a member of the Republican administration, shouldn't Ajit Pai be happy that California is executing it's State's Rights to enact their own state specific legislation?
I mean... State's Rights is still part of the Republican platform, right? Or, has that been replaced by "whatever the highest Corporate bidder wants"?
You got it wrong. The are only for small government when it benefits them, but in favor of Federal intervention when a state does something they don't want.
You're wrong. Not least because if you perceive that as an insult, you're inherently a fuckwit.
I don't intend to insult you or call you a fuckwit, I'm just highlighting that your perception may prove you to be one, and blaming me for that would be incredibly fucking stupid.
Yes, perceptions matter. Yes, managing the responses of others to communications is a skill. But intent matters more.
I can cope with someone that's blunt and lacks the subtlety to massage my ego while telling me I'm wrong. Their intent is to help me understand that I'm wrong, and for that I'm potentially grateful. If I just go "Waah" because I've perceived it as an attack I lose out entirely on the opportunity to learn (or educate them why they're mistaken).
If someone has a repeated pattern of being blunt and using strong words then that's just all the more reason to understand that this is how they operate. Why the fuck are your feelings more important than their mode of expression? We can't all change everything we do for every interaction so that everybody we ever engage with perceives us as nice fluffy people. Fuck that.
What I find ironic is the number of responders who attack what I said based on tehi rperception without understanding my intent. I suspect the irony is lost on tehm as well.
Also, a hostile environment may actually be preferable, because it keeps the lowest common denominator higher.
, Perhaps, but it often does that by not only culling the bottom of the herd but by the really good ones leaving as well because they have options beyond putting up with such BS; often you wind up with the people who have no other choice.
If you go review his legendary rants, he almost never attacks a person... He attacks stupid things that people do.
Yep.
And problems ensue when someone on the receiving end automatically assumes that "This is a stupid thing to do" equals "You're a stupid person", which I don't believe is (usually!) his intention at all.
Intentions don't matter, perceptions do; if people feel they are being attacked they will rect as if they are being attacked, even if that is not the intent. It's draining. I worked for someone who was nicknamed Flash because he would go off over some stupid little thing and berate you; only to latter come by and apologize. I knew he really wasn't a jerk but that didn't matter after a while so I left as did others. You can explain why something isn't a good idea without going into a rant about it.
In his defense, when you are trying to drive a vision that may not have broad support you need a forceful personality that will not give up on the vision or let it be hijacked. That will often ruffle some feathers along the way. The hard challenge is realizing when that style is becoming counterproductive and adapting or ceding control to someone whose style is better suited to the project.
I would guess anyone eigh an email address with no numbers on a popular free service gets a lot of wrong person emails. I let the sender know they reached the wrong person since i would want the same courtesy. I only had one person insist they had the right address since minehad a period between the names and the one they were using. They were sending me a lot of personal information and finallyfixed it ehen i sent them sn email saying any disclaimers not withstanding any further emails became my property to use as i saw fit.
There'll always be slackers; but in my experience a good teach can weed out the slackers from those who need help and encouragement.
That's all I'm saying here,
I think we are in violent agreement here. Good teachers know how to do their job and help those that are trying.
and I'm being excoriated for it.
What, on/. people take exception and respond without understanding what is said? I am shocked, shocked...
Unfortunately, a lot of what passes for education today is simply letting kids get by so the parents don't complain.
Not at the higher-ed level. You see it in K-12, but not so much above that.
A lot of those A students are surprised when they discover they really are B and C students and don't understand why. Anecdotally, I've spoken with several college professors who have had kid's parents call and complain about grades. Sooner or later they'll get hit over the head with a clue by four...
Slashdot Mirror
Ok but can we have exFAT support in the kernel now without having to download legally dubious Fuse support?
If the only legal issues are MS patents then the rhetorical answer is a qualified yes; as someone would have to make a convincing argument to add it to the kernel. OTOH, the developers / copyright owners to fuse can become an OIN licensee and remove any legal impediments to using MS patents.
- The Music Industry wants to scold us commoners, and yet THEY are far worse at screwing the musicians than we are.
Isn't that why you get into playing music in the first place? To get screwed. It just didn't work out as planned...
This doesn't pass the smell test. They definitely have an angle here, we just don't know what it is.
It only applies to Linux, and gives MS the opportunity to develop anything they want base don Linux without worrying about a patent infringement suit; plus could partner with OIN to fight patent trolls. A plus is invalidating a troll's claim would apply across any possible infringement, protecting their closed source business as well. They aren't going to get into a patent fight over Linux; so why not join forces to enhance your ability to destroy trolls?
It also reduces any concerns someone using an MS Linux product that they may get embroiled in a patent suit.
The money is in the support, so anything that eases that transition is useful.
So yea, I agree they have an angle.
Each PS has a unique serial number. Require that for any account changes; and ty the account to the serial number to keep it working. They could also add a second number to the box to allow for getting a replacement PS if the original one dies. If it gets stolen, send a copy of the police report. Not perfect, but it adds a layer of complexity to stealing an account while keeping the information needed to legitimately do so available.
Years ago I happened to stumble upon stories about how some of these "pirate" stations took up residence in offshore military installations left over from World War II. I spent the better part of a day reading about ingenuity and innovation of those stations in particular. To my knowledge we never had anything comparable in the USA, which is a big shame; apparently after the Revolutionary War we ceded our revolutionary mindsets back to British citizens?
Actually, we did and still do, but they are mostly low power stations that broadcast over a very narrow area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Right to repair will force apple to give this software out to 3rd party shops.
Right to repair will force apple to give this software out to 3rd party shops. Hardly. Most proposed laws require them to make it available, but at what price? The same thing with parts. Sure you can order them, but manufacturers cans imply price them at a point where a 3rd party repair is as expensive as the manufacturer's. If you look at car repairs, you can buy tools to diagnose issues. Some are affordable, around $500; but a mechanic can spread that around a lot of work. How many Mac repairs will a shop get? Apple could produce a special mac version that runs the software and sell it as a single device, much like many car diagnostic tools are. Will a shop drop 2K for such a device hoping to get enough repairs to make a profit? In addition, right o repair does not address the issue of a 3rd party part or repair from causing other damage which would not be covered by a warranty. I like the concept of right to repair and would like to see a law with teeth; but the reality probably will not be what most people expect.
You mean Apple has your money and you have a brick? Hope you bought it with a credit card and can file a chargeback/complaint about Crapple.
I find his post hard to believe. The last time Apple tried and couldn't repair a 5 year old MBP under an extended warranty the simply replaced it with a new one.
Haven't they learned anything from cases such as Boaty-McBoatface, Taylor Swifts Biggest Fan,or sending her to a school for the deaf, or sending Pitbull to Alaska
Leaving the choice up to the Internet, or even just Netflix subscribers isn't going to result in the best storylines, or even the storylines that necessarily reflect what actual people want to see.
I agree, they will present a limited number of choices scripted in advance, with viewers voting on which one to follow. It is intended to be a hook to draw viewers in, although the losing voters may lose interest as well. Personally, I refer a story to be well written and engaging, and not merely another version of Colossal Cave.
True in general, but not in this case since they are asking for a universal rule across the US. Having per-state laws is worse for small competitors and restricts their ability to grow.
So, having consistent federal not-too-strict laws are better for businesses selling user information (your first point I think) but actually also better for small competitors who want to grow.
Some big companies spend a lot in lobbying to increase complexity of their own field because they know they can handle it better than the small actors. They are doing the opposite here : they want their job to be easier (and more importantly less regulated), but they're not trying to prevent competition.
Now, I haven't seen any company complain against GDPR. Some say it's a lot of constraints (like, it really protects users), but all seem to agree it is fair, so no company could publicly fight GDPR without clearly being anti-privacy -- and most Companies always publicly say they are pro-privacy, especially when their business model is selling user's data. I believe those laws should be like the internet : world-wide.
You make some good points but I disagree on two points:
1. They are doing the opposite here : they want their job to be easier (and more importantly less regulated), but they're not trying to prevent competition.I think they are trying to craft laws that give them an advantage as an incumbent. The know what is easy to do , what costs money and what is valuable and thus can make laws that setup barriers they have hurdled but are hard for a new entry to meet. In addition, they eliminate the possibility a state would have no privacy protections, thus letting a local competitor to start and grow locally before deciding if they want to grow beyond their state. They may not like CA's laws but you can be assured they will rig the game in their favor.
2. I believe those laws should be like the internet : world-wide. Never happen because you'll never get agreement on what the law should be; some may even like lax laws to attract companies.
Not exactly true. Startups will have more issues complying with GDPR, California laws, and any local laws. That's what preventing them from going world-wide, while large companies can absorb that pretty easily.
The US should go for something that is as close to GDPR as possible. That way, it would incur NO cost for companies (*) since they already implement GDPR (and most of the time for all users so that it's simpler for them) while effectively improving user's privacy.
(*) Except for companies which business model is based on selling users information, obviously.
You missed my point, which was regulations are often used by the regulated to create barriers to entry; in this case they would apply all through the US so a company could not find a state with lax protections to setup in and simply avoid doing business in highly regulated ones.
AT&T, Apple, Charter and Google used their time in the Senate to call on lawmakers to introduce new federal privacy legislation. translates to "We are worried states will setup tougher standards, such as CA is doing, and we want the feds to step in and preempt state laws with federal rules that we can influence cheaper by buying key congress members rather than having to buy legislatures in 50 states. In addition, strict, but not to strict, rules will make it harder for competitors since it will cost money to setup the structures to comply with them, creating more barriers to entry and less of a threat of a new company disrupting our thing."
If you want to start your own company someday, being an engineer is probably a better career choice than being in sales.
I would say it depends on what you are selling. The greatest product in the world is useless unless you can sell it. Engineers can get too enamored with the engineering and forget that the end goal is to make something people will buy and makes the company a profit. Anyone can start a company but to be successful at it you need many different talents.
If you click on 'cancel my subscription' online, you just get a phone # to call. That is the only way to cancel. I assume because they want to try to talk you out of it.
Yup. Each time I got a trial with a car I had to call and keep saying "No, just cancel my subscription" to some droid that kept upping the ante until I said "what part of cancel is hard to understand?" I feel sorry for their CS reps, they've off shored it and obviously the reps are pressed to avoid cancellation at all costs.
They could use an angle grinder to damage/remove the faulty B pillar in a way that could not be covered up. The reason for fully scrapping (if that's really the plan) must be more complicated.
The problem is a good body and fender person could easily "fix" it so it would look like new; leaving Subaru with liability for a known defective vehicle. In addition, there is the cost of storing, grinding and then giving away the vehicles to some school for use as a training tool. It's simply simpler to scrap them and take the write-off for the full cost. I think the reason for scraping is really that simple - it's a known cost and leaves no liability for the bad vehicles.
Or use as the classroom vehicle at Subaru training. I'm sure high school automotive shop classes would welcome them.
Yes, but if some dimwit takes one for a spin and gets in an accident then Subaru is looking at a lawsuit.
Surely they should go to a breakers where the engines should be dropped out of them and the faulty shell crushed. Seems like a massive waste to just crush the whole of a brand new vehicle.
Liability and tax concerns. While the parts are perfectly good, if they sent them elsewhere there's always the concern that a vehicle somehow get sold rather than stripped and leave Subaru liable; or simply a BS lawsuit because the part came from a defective vehicle. In addition, if they scrap the entire vehicle it's a loss write off, if they sell part of it then they have to account for the sale which is more trouble than it is worth.
I know the men and women of our government are oblivious and at least 1.5 decades behind any technological curve, but do they really have to be told this?
While many certainly are, there are a lot of them who regularly use the latest technology and are frustrated by the government's "Yesterday's Technology Deployed Tomorrow" approach to systems. It's quicker and easier to send a text from your own phone than to find a desktop to send an Outlook Webmail email; not to mention the "so an so is a real ass" comments you don't want archived forever.
Part of the reason is also a broader cultural one; we have become so used to instant communication and using technology that the line between what is a personal and what is a business machine has become blurred.
Increasingly Bring in Millenials
As a member of the Republican administration, shouldn't Ajit Pai be happy that California is executing it's State's Rights to enact their own state specific legislation?
I mean... State's Rights is still part of the Republican platform, right? Or, has that been replaced by "whatever the highest Corporate bidder wants"?
You got it wrong. The are only for small government when it benefits them, but in favor of Federal intervention when a state does something they don't want.
Intentions don't matter, perceptions do
You're wrong. Not least because if you perceive that as an insult, you're inherently a fuckwit.
I don't intend to insult you or call you a fuckwit, I'm just highlighting that your perception may prove you to be one, and blaming me for that would be incredibly fucking stupid.
Yes, perceptions matter. Yes, managing the responses of others to communications is a skill. But intent matters more.
I can cope with someone that's blunt and lacks the subtlety to massage my ego while telling me I'm wrong. Their intent is to help me understand that I'm wrong, and for that I'm potentially grateful. If I just go "Waah" because I've perceived it as an attack I lose out entirely on the opportunity to learn (or educate them why they're mistaken).
If someone has a repeated pattern of being blunt and using strong words then that's just all the more reason to understand that this is how they operate. Why the fuck are your feelings more important than their mode of expression? We can't all change everything we do for every interaction so that everybody we ever engage with perceives us as nice fluffy people. Fuck that.
What I find ironic is the number of responders who attack what I said based on tehi rperception without understanding my intent. I suspect the irony is lost on tehm as well.
Also, a hostile environment may actually be preferable, because it keeps the lowest common denominator higher.
, Perhaps, but it often does that by not only culling the bottom of the herd but by the really good ones leaving as well because they have options beyond putting up with such BS; often you wind up with the people who have no other choice.
If you go review his legendary rants, he almost never attacks a person... He attacks stupid things that people do.
Yep.
And problems ensue when someone on the receiving end automatically assumes that "This is a stupid thing to do" equals "You're a stupid person", which I don't believe is (usually!) his intention at all.
Intentions don't matter, perceptions do; if people feel they are being attacked they will rect as if they are being attacked, even if that is not the intent. It's draining. I worked for someone who was nicknamed Flash because he would go off over some stupid little thing and berate you; only to latter come by and apologize. I knew he really wasn't a jerk but that didn't matter after a while so I left as did others. You can explain why something isn't a good idea without going into a rant about it.
In his defense, when you are trying to drive a vision that may not have broad support you need a forceful personality that will not give up on the vision or let it be hijacked. That will often ruffle some feathers along the way. The hard challenge is realizing when that style is becoming counterproductive and adapting or ceding control to someone whose style is better suited to the project.
I would guess anyone eigh an email address with no numbers on a popular free service gets a lot of wrong person emails. I let the sender know they reached the wrong person since i would want the same courtesy. I only had one person insist they had the right address since minehad a period between the names and the one they were using. They were sending me a lot of personal information and finallyfixed it ehen i sent them sn email saying any disclaimers not withstanding any further emails became my property to use as i saw fit.
I get one or two calls a week from him despite repeatedly telling him I use Linux.
That's all I'm saying here,
I think we are in violent agreement here. Good teachers know how to do their job and help those that are trying.
and I'm being excoriated for it.
What, on /. people take exception and respond without understanding what is said? I am shocked, shocked...
Not at the higher-ed level. You see it in K-12, but not so much above that.
A lot of those A students are surprised when they discover they really are B and C students and don't understand why. Anecdotally, I've spoken with several college professors who have had kid's parents call and complain about grades. Sooner or later they'll get hit over the head with a clue by four...