Heck, you have to buy special versions of MS OS to even get 64 bit support on your new "double the processing power" 64 bit processor.
Umm... I'm running at 64 bits right now, and I don't even HAVE an MS OS (assuming you mean MS == Microsoft). Nor did I have to buy any special OS at all. I just downloaded it. Legally, even.
Get off the Internets and turn off your hard drive before you hurt yourself.
So, in your analogy, is your neighbor supposed to be MicroSoft, or everyone running IE? Who are the people who suffer if the door is unlocked? And who has the capability to lock the door?
A better analogy would be: Your neighborhood all gets their locks from one vendor. You find out that someone can make a key that works in every one of those locks. You inform your vendor of the problem. Meanwhile, someone could be running around stealing things from people's homes because of these locks. Your vendor sits on it, doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. What do you do?
Personally, I would tell everyone "Hey, your locks aren't secure! Change them now!" and hope people change to minimize the damage rather than just sit and hope nobody's already using that key.
It doesn't really say in the article whether or not he's disclosing the DETAILS of the vulnerability, which would be like saying "Hey, if you make a key that looks like this, you can get in every house in the neibghborhood." and now everyone knows how to get into everyone else's house.
If it's going to take 2+ months to fix an exploit due to the large amount of code involved, is it right to leave your customers running vulnerable software just because you can't fix it fast enough?
I would love to add Safari support to our web pages, but the problem is I just don't have any easy way to test it. Nobody I know owns any Macs (with the exception of my dad's company: a printing press that uses Macs for layouts), and I can't just install OS X or a standalone Safari on any of my computers. I've heard some things about running it under VMWare, but I got the impression that the legality was still dodgy. (i.e. you can't just go out and buy a disc with OS X on it and expect it to install)
I was looking at that and wondering why exactly you had a \m in there... What character is that? I know ctrl-m is enter, is that what \m is supposed to mean? Then I remembered that Windows/DOS uses backslashes for directory seperators instead of as an escape character. Silly me. I've been using Linux for too long. And Macs. And the internet. And just about anything else that isn't Microsoft. Those boys at MS just like to march to their own drummer, I guess.
DMCA and encryption aside, format shifting (at least in the US) is considered "fair use". So you should be able to convert your HD-DVD to whatever else you want and play it where you want. If I remember right, the whole iTMS v. France thing started because iTMS prevents you from using your music in ways that fall under fair use.
Except, if someone wants to make a camera that accepts your 35mm film, they can. If someone wants to make a device that uses D cell devices instead of AAA batteries, they can. If someone wants to make a laptop that can use Dell laptop batteries, they can. If someone wants to make a music player that can play iTMS music... wait, they can't. I would liken this more to someone wanting to play xbox games on a different platform, except there are no real technical limitations to playing iTMS music on another player except that Apple doesn't want them to.
They do that because they think if you claim you don't know what it was you did wrong, then you must have done more than one thing wrong and they want you to admit it.
If I mow my neighbor's lawn... surprise! I'm not taxed. But if I make a backup copy of my CD for myself... I'm taxed. Non-infringing activities should be considered part of the original cost. Hence "non-infringing". I bought it, now I get to use it. What's next? Taxing people with TV's just in case your friends come over to watch yours?
I think it's more along the lines of how his latest book was received by people who believe it to be accurate. The whole thing about how GWB et al bring up State of Fear as being a good case against global warming. When people start putting forth fiction as truth, then it becomes necessary to remind people that it's fiction. The more vocal the proponents, the more vocal the opposition needs to be.
At this point, are you bound by the EULA? I would be inclined to say you can't be, since you have neither agreed to the EULA nor broken any agreed terms or any laws.
I've always wondered this exact same thing. Also, what if I'm running the software in an emulated environment (like WINE) which will check to see what happens if you click Agree or Don't Agree, and then switches them, or even just skips the EULA completely? You didn't modify the software at all, only the environment it was running in was modified, and they have absolutely NO say over your operating environment. Sure, they could put "You may only run this software in MS Windows" but if I never agreed to the license, how does it apply to me?
Also: A quick summary of the difference between EULA and GPL that I've heard before. EULAs limit rights you already have. GPL grants you rights you don't already have. If you don't agree to the EULA, then you still have all the rights you had before (limited personal backup, ability to do nearly whatever you want with it in your own home, etc.) If you don't agree with the GPL, then you simply don't get the rights it grants you (being able to redistribute the software, etc.).
No, the Microsoft ruling supported competition, not competitors... And competition is good for consumers. In this case, he had failed to show any anti-competitive behavior. His main complaint was that people were giving away software for free, and he couldn't compete with that, so they must be anti-competitive. The judge ruled that simply giving away software was not anti-competitive, it's just giving the consumers what they want.
Just drag it to your share, check the access with your browser and put that url in your email. So... basically everyone runs their own web server. What about people who don't leave their computers running all the time?
So you're saying you would have to manually give people access to a file if you wanted to share it with them? This would never fly, it's just far too inconvenient.
I've searched all over the net for the quote in your sig, but I can't find it anywhere. Could you please site your source? I'm interested in learning more about this out-of-control president whom I respected for so long.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... I'm running at 64 bits right now, and I don't even HAVE an MS OS (assuming you mean MS == Microsoft). Nor did I have to buy any special OS at all. I just downloaded it. Legally, even.
Get off the Internets and turn off your hard drive before you hurt yourself.
So, in your analogy, is your neighbor supposed to be MicroSoft, or everyone running IE?
Who are the people who suffer if the door is unlocked? And who has the capability to lock the door?
A better analogy would be:
Your neighborhood all gets their locks from one vendor. You find out that someone can make a key that works in every one of those locks. You inform your vendor of the problem.
Meanwhile, someone could be running around stealing things from people's homes because of these locks. Your vendor sits on it, doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. What do you do?
Personally, I would tell everyone "Hey, your locks aren't secure! Change them now!" and hope people change to minimize the damage rather than just sit and hope nobody's already using that key.
It doesn't really say in the article whether or not he's disclosing the DETAILS of the vulnerability, which would be like saying "Hey, if you make a key that looks like this, you can get in every house in the neibghborhood." and now everyone knows how to get into everyone else's house.
If it's going to take 2+ months to fix an exploit due to the large amount of code involved, is it right to leave your customers running vulnerable software just because you can't fix it fast enough?
I would love to add Safari support to our web pages, but the problem is I just don't have any easy way to test it. Nobody I know owns any Macs (with the exception of my dad's company: a printing press that uses Macs for layouts), and I can't just install OS X or a standalone Safari on any of my computers. I've heard some things about running it under VMWare, but I got the impression that the legality was still dodgy. (i.e. you can't just go out and buy a disc with OS X on it and expect it to install)
Why SHOULDN'T the W3C set the standard?
I was looking at that and wondering why exactly you had a \m in there... What character is that? I know ctrl-m is enter, is that what \m is supposed to mean?
Then I remembered that Windows/DOS uses backslashes for directory seperators instead of as an escape character. Silly me. I've been using Linux for too long. And Macs. And the internet. And just about anything else that isn't Microsoft.
Those boys at MS just like to march to their own drummer, I guess.
That would be fair if you made $30,000 for parking at that hydrant.
They're only building permanent bases depending on your definition of "permanent."
DMCA and encryption aside, format shifting (at least in the US) is considered "fair use". So you should be able to convert your HD-DVD to whatever else you want and play it where you want. If I remember right, the whole iTMS v. France thing started because iTMS prevents you from using your music in ways that fall under fair use.
Except, if someone wants to make a camera that accepts your 35mm film, they can. If someone wants to make a device that uses D cell devices instead of AAA batteries, they can. If someone wants to make a laptop that can use Dell laptop batteries, they can. If someone wants to make a music player that can play iTMS music... wait, they can't.
I would liken this more to someone wanting to play xbox games on a different platform, except there are no real technical limitations to playing iTMS music on another player except that Apple doesn't want them to.
That was very informative. Thank you.
They do that because they think if you claim you don't know what it was you did wrong, then you must have done more than one thing wrong and they want you to admit it.
If I mow my neighbor's lawn... surprise! I'm not taxed.
But if I make a backup copy of my CD for myself... I'm taxed.
Non-infringing activities should be considered part of the original cost. Hence "non-infringing". I bought it, now I get to use it.
What's next? Taxing people with TV's just in case your friends come over to watch yours?
Oh, I see... ......
Pics?
Uh oh, you broke Slashdot Rule #4.
Never, under ANY circumstances, admit to being female.
What if your kid takes it out of your purse to verify online, then puts it back?
And what the hell are you doing with a purse anyway? Be a man!
No. They. Aren't.
Obviously, they WERE, at least in this instance.
You have to use the IPv6 Google.
I think it's more along the lines of how his latest book was received by people who believe it to be accurate. The whole thing about how GWB et al bring up State of Fear as being a good case against global warming. When people start putting forth fiction as truth, then it becomes necessary to remind people that it's fiction. The more vocal the proponents, the more vocal the opposition needs to be.
At this point, are you bound by the EULA? I would be inclined to say you can't be, since you have neither agreed to the EULA nor broken any agreed terms or any laws.
I've always wondered this exact same thing. Also, what if I'm running the software in an emulated environment (like WINE) which will check to see what happens if you click Agree or Don't Agree, and then switches them, or even just skips the EULA completely? You didn't modify the software at all, only the environment it was running in was modified, and they have absolutely NO say over your operating environment. Sure, they could put "You may only run this software in MS Windows" but if I never agreed to the license, how does it apply to me?
Also: A quick summary of the difference between EULA and GPL that I've heard before. EULAs limit rights you already have. GPL grants you rights you don't already have. If you don't agree to the EULA, then you still have all the rights you had before (limited personal backup, ability to do nearly whatever you want with it in your own home, etc.) If you don't agree with the GPL, then you simply don't get the rights it grants you (being able to redistribute the software, etc.).
No, the Microsoft ruling supported competition, not competitors... And competition is good for consumers.
In this case, he had failed to show any anti-competitive behavior. His main complaint was that people were giving away software for free, and he couldn't compete with that, so they must be anti-competitive. The judge ruled that simply giving away software was not anti-competitive, it's just giving the consumers what they want.
Just drag it to your share, check the access with your browser and put that url in your email.
So... basically everyone runs their own web server. What about people who don't leave their computers running all the time?
So you're saying you would have to manually give people access to a file if you wanted to share it with them? This would never fly, it's just far too inconvenient.
In Free America, Spammers legislate to get the shit beat out of angry citizens!
I've searched all over the net for the quote in your sig, but I can't find it anywhere. Could you please site your source? I'm interested in learning more about this out-of-control president whom I respected for so long.