They banned the synthetic drug with the first mix of chemicals then when the second mix came along, they seized it pending the outcome of tests to make sure it didn't contain the banned chemicals (i.e. if it didn't, they would return it to the people it was seized from). Of course, by the time the test was complete, whatever new chemicals were in it were already on the banned list.
I haven't heard any media reports since then so either they gave up (realizing that anything they tried to sell would be seized and banned) or its not being reported on by the media for some reason (maybe the cops dont want it reported on)
I have a big thick 1-volume edition of the Lord Of The Rings and it has a section at the front describing all the different editions and how different printings of the book contained different mistakes and things and how they ended up with the text as printed in that particular version.
Maybe if Hollywood made the content people want available through these services, it might decrease piracy. One of the big reasons services like iTunes and Spotify are so popular is that they have such a vast catalog of music available (and Apple in particular has been seeking out any music they dont already have the rights to so they can add it to iTunes).
Some examples of content I am interested in viewing but am unable to legally acquire in Australia (except possibly by acquiring Foxtel and paying a fortune for content I dont want just to get the small amount of content I do want) Reckless Kelly (with Yahoo Serious in it). Great film that I wish I could see again. Many interesting documentaries from The History Channel such as Modern Marvels. The Real Ghostbusters cartoon (I have Season 1 on DVD but whoever owns the rights is unwilling to release further seasons) Twins of Destiny (old cartoon) Hey Dad (other than a "best of" DVD, this is not available in any form, its a great show from a time when Australia used to produce TV that is actually funny) The $treet, interesting show about a Wall St brokerage that seemed to disappear for no reason sometime in late 2001.
Reading the information it looks like the plan is to get a small bootloader signed who's whole job is to launch GRUB. This small bootloader would be the only thing that needs signing and would not be something that would change very much (if at all)
So once its initially signed, it wont need to be re-signed unless something changes in the mini-loader (unlikely) or if a new key shows up.
IMO this is a good thing, especially if it means greater pressure on the likes of HTC and other Android vendors to be more proactive and release the kernel source for their devices when the devices and binaries are released instead of taking months and repeated prodding by the copyright holder to get code out there.
What is needed is for the people of New Zealand to grow some balls and elect a government that is going to stop kissing the ass of the United States on these kinds of issues.
Then again, the way the NZ people keep electing government after government that sucks up to the US government and to big US corporations, I wonder who is smarter over there, the people or the sheep...
I did a 6 month student internship with Motorola a few years back and saw how iDEN works under the hood and the protocol is a piece of crap. Sprint should have shut it down in favor of CDMA years ago.
I doubt the studios would allow an implementation of PlayReady/NetFlix on an OS where there is no way to be sure you are sending the decrypted content to an appropriately "protected" source.
On Windows its possible to verify that everything is secure (i.e. approved GPU, approved signed drivers, no hardware or software tampering, HDCP in place and functioning etc) through the "Protected Media Path" (and with the secure boot in Windows 8, the protection will become even stronger). I dont know how OSX works but I bet there is something similar.
Linux does not have this (and due to its nature could never have this)
If you think Tony Abbot wouldn't give the AFP and other law enforcement agencies the same deal (i.e. mandatory data retention by ISPs so they can catch the "bad guys"), you clearly dont know Australian politics.
One problem is that there are OS features that are supported by Visual C++ (and even supported by other compilers) but which have never been officially completly documented by Microsoft.
For example, can anyone show me official Microsoft documentation (e.g. in MSDN) explaining exactly how the __declspec(thread) keyword is implemented at the OS level? If it exists, I have never seen it (I once tried my hand at implementing __declspec(thread) in MingW GCC but gave up because there was no documentation and because it was too hard to get GCC to output the correct assembler instructions for accesses to the thread-local variables)
There is no official documentation on how SEH (at least win32 SEH) works either. (all the MSDN documentation will tell you is to use the __try, __finally and __except keywords but they dont give any official information on how the OS implements the underlying mechanism). They also dont publish the run time library source code for the SEH implementation (one of the few bits of the run time library Microsoft doesn't provide source code to for whatever reason)
So yes, it IS Microsoft's fault for not documenting these OS features and leaving 3rd party compilers like GCC to rely on reverse engineering to figure out how this stuff works.
The issue is that (due to artificial restrictions put in place by Microsoft), only Microsoft is allowed to have software on Windows RT that can execute dynamically generated code. This means that IE can have a JavaScript JIT compiler but Mozilla cant.
Having not seen the developer agreement for Windows RT, I dont know if it goes further and has a ban on interpreted languages as well (ala apple).
I have no problem with law enforcement monitoring specific people (or email addresses or Facebook accounts or whatever) on the internet IF they have a warrant to do so. I have a problem with laws that allow/require internet surveillance of people without a warrant.
Just because its now done "on the internet" doesn't mean that it should be possible to carry out surveillance without a warrant.
Bootloader unlocks on phones wont happen so long as carriers like AT&T, Verizon, Rogers, Telstra etc etc etc wont sell such unlocked phones (or in some cases wont even allow them on their network)
Your math is wrong. It doesn't factor the non-zero number of people who would drop HBO from the cable plan if they could buy the shows online.
If the total revenue from the streaming service is less than the total amount of lost revenue from people dropping HBO from their cable plan (both cable company payments and advertising dollars) then HBO looses money.
I basically gave up trying to follow shows like E.R. and CSI and now will watch them if they are on and there is nothing better but wont go out of my way to watch them. I DID buy all the seasons of E.R. on DVD and I have the first 4 seasons of CSI:NY on DVD. (I want to buy Season 5 but I just haven't gotten around to it yet plus I am waiting for a sale or discount on it as I refuse to pay the rip-off prices most DVDs are sold at in this country)
Some other shows I try to follow but have just about given up trying to specifically follow: Pawn Stars Hardcore Pawn American Pickers Family Guy American Dad Mythbusters Top Gear And others
And the networks wonder why the first thing people like me do when they find that they missed a show of their favorite series (because the network moved it around or aired a new episode instead of a repeat or whatever) is to go on Google to find a video-streaming site that will let them watch the episode they missed.
As for playing episodes out of order, just go ask anyone who tried to watch "My Name Is Earl" about the butchery done to it by Channel 7.
This case has nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA or slicing up content.
What it is about is that Telstra (biggest carrier in the country) has paid millions for the rights to broadcast AFL and NRL (2 of the most popular sports in the country) on mobile and now Telstra along with the sports leagues are annoyed that people can get these sports matches from another carrier without that carrier paying for it.
I think by far the biggest reason people pirate is that the content in question is not available legally in a form that they are happy with.
For example: 1.Not available to them at all (e.g. no download services in their country, download services dont have it etc) 2.Available but with restrictions (e.g. available in a way they can watch on the PC in the office but not available in a way they can watch on the big TV with the fancy speakers and comfy seats in the home theater room) 3.Available but only when bundled with lots of other content you dont want (i.e. the whole "you need cable to get Hulu" BS)
If the studios woke up, realized this "Internet" thing isn't going away and copied what the record companies did nearly 10 years ago when they created the iTunes store, piracy would go down (and the people who would stop pirating are those who would be happy to buy the content but cant).
There are 2 big reasons I can think of why Apple may not want to use GPLv3 GCC: 1.Patents. By using (and releasing) a GPLv3 version of GCC, the extremely patent grant in the GPLv3 kicks in. This would probably require Apple to grant patent rights for things it doesn't want to grant rights for.
and 2.GCC includes a number of libraries and pieces of code that gets hipped alongside gcc-compiled binaries, most notably libgcc and libstdc++
I dont know the official position and I am not a copyright lawyer but I suspect that legally shipping these libraries (libgcc, libstdc++ etc) requires following the GPLv3 including the anti-tivoization clause. This would mean that it would be impossible for Apple (or anyone else) to use the newer GPLv3 GCC and libraries to build any software for an Apple device (iPhone, iPad, iPod, Apple TV) that has software locks.
My digital camera (entry level Canon Point & Shoot) had a failed USB port and after asking a few repair places (one hole-in-the-wall place that just did repairs and a couple of high-high-end camera shops that sold the kind of camera gear you would only buy if you were making a living from photography) and they all said it wasnt worth fixing.
Ended up asking for (and getting) a newer better Canon P&S as an xmas present.
On the other hand, if my smartphone phone died, I would do everything possible to get it fixed before I went for a replacement (because a suitable replacement would cost a lot of money)
I see lots of posturing from military types in the US (or at least media reporting on military types) suggesting that its essential to be able to counter a threat from China yet I haven't seen any actual reasoning as to why China needs to be considered as a potential threat.
Why would china want to attack the US, America buys so much chinese crap that any attack would be disastrous for the Chinese economy (as people and companies in America and in countries friendly to America stop buying made-in-china products)
Slashdot Mirror
They banned the synthetic drug with the first mix of chemicals then when the second mix came along, they seized it pending the outcome of tests to make sure it didn't contain the banned chemicals (i.e. if it didn't, they would return it to the people it was seized from). Of course, by the time the test was complete, whatever new chemicals were in it were already on the banned list.
I haven't heard any media reports since then so either they gave up (realizing that anything they tried to sell would be seized and banned) or its not being reported on by the media for some reason (maybe the cops dont want it reported on)
I have a big thick 1-volume edition of the Lord Of The Rings and it has a section at the front describing all the different editions and how different printings of the book contained different mistakes and things and how they ended up with the text as printed in that particular version.
Maybe if Hollywood made the content people want available through these services, it might decrease piracy. One of the big reasons services like iTunes and Spotify are so popular is that they have such a vast catalog of music available (and Apple in particular has been seeking out any music they dont already have the rights to so they can add it to iTunes).
Some examples of content I am interested in viewing but am unable to legally acquire in Australia (except possibly by acquiring Foxtel and paying a fortune for content I dont want just to get the small amount of content I do want)
Reckless Kelly (with Yahoo Serious in it). Great film that I wish I could see again.
Many interesting documentaries from The History Channel such as Modern Marvels.
The Real Ghostbusters cartoon (I have Season 1 on DVD but whoever owns the rights is unwilling to release further seasons)
Twins of Destiny (old cartoon)
Hey Dad (other than a "best of" DVD, this is not available in any form, its a great show from a time when Australia used to produce TV that is actually funny)
The $treet, interesting show about a Wall St brokerage that seemed to disappear for no reason sometime in late 2001.
All the CFLs I have seen (and bought) come in cardboard boxes.
Reading the information it looks like the plan is to get a small bootloader signed who's whole job is to launch GRUB. This small bootloader would be the only thing that needs signing and would not be something that would change very much (if at all)
So once its initially signed, it wont need to be re-signed unless something changes in the mini-loader (unlikely) or if a new key shows up.
Or will Google have to make changes to Android in order to satisfy the end result of all these court rulings?
IMO this is a good thing, especially if it means greater pressure on the likes of HTC and other Android vendors to be more proactive and release the kernel source for their devices when the devices and binaries are released instead of taking months and repeated prodding by the copyright holder to get code out there.
What is needed is for the people of New Zealand to grow some balls and elect a government that is going to stop kissing the ass of the United States on these kinds of issues.
Then again, the way the NZ people keep electing government after government that sucks up to the US government and to big US corporations, I wonder who is smarter over there, the people or the sheep...
I did a 6 month student internship with Motorola a few years back and saw how iDEN works under the hood and the protocol is a piece of crap. Sprint should have shut it down in favor of CDMA years ago.
I doubt the studios would allow an implementation of PlayReady/NetFlix on an OS where there is no way to be sure you are sending the decrypted content to an appropriately "protected" source.
On Windows its possible to verify that everything is secure (i.e. approved GPU, approved signed drivers, no hardware or software tampering, HDCP in place and functioning etc) through the "Protected Media Path" (and with the secure boot in Windows 8, the protection will become even stronger). I dont know how OSX works but I bet there is something similar.
Linux does not have this (and due to its nature could never have this)
Everyone knows the so-called "Fossils" are actually fakes put in by the creator(s) of Earth when the planet was made.
If you think Tony Abbot wouldn't give the AFP and other law enforcement agencies the same deal (i.e. mandatory data retention by ISPs so they can catch the "bad guys"), you clearly dont know Australian politics.
One problem is that there are OS features that are supported by Visual C++ (and even supported by other compilers) but which have never been officially completly documented by Microsoft.
For example, can anyone show me official Microsoft documentation (e.g. in MSDN) explaining exactly how the __declspec(thread) keyword is implemented at the OS level?
If it exists, I have never seen it (I once tried my hand at implementing __declspec(thread) in MingW GCC but gave up because there was no documentation and because it was too hard to get GCC to output the correct assembler instructions for accesses to the thread-local variables)
There is no official documentation on how SEH (at least win32 SEH) works either. (all the MSDN documentation will tell you is to use the __try, __finally and __except keywords but they dont give any official information on how the OS implements the underlying mechanism). They also dont publish the run time library source code for the SEH implementation (one of the few bits of the run time library Microsoft doesn't provide source code to for whatever reason)
So yes, it IS Microsoft's fault for not documenting these OS features and leaving 3rd party compilers like GCC to rely on reverse engineering to figure out how this stuff works.
I dont remember details but IIRC it was actually Borland who held the patent that made the MingW/GCC guys not want to support SEH.
The issue is that (due to artificial restrictions put in place by Microsoft), only Microsoft is allowed to have software on Windows RT that can execute dynamically generated code. This means that IE can have a JavaScript JIT compiler but Mozilla cant.
Having not seen the developer agreement for Windows RT, I dont know if it goes further and has a ban on interpreted languages as well (ala apple).
I have no problem with law enforcement monitoring specific people (or email addresses or Facebook accounts or whatever) on the internet IF they have a warrant to do so. I have a problem with laws that allow/require internet surveillance of people without a warrant.
Just because its now done "on the internet" doesn't mean that it should be possible to carry out surveillance without a warrant.
Bootloader unlocks on phones wont happen so long as carriers like AT&T, Verizon, Rogers, Telstra etc etc etc wont sell such unlocked phones (or in some cases wont even allow them on their network)
Your math is wrong. It doesn't factor the non-zero number of people who would drop HBO from the cable plan if they could buy the shows online.
If the total revenue from the streaming service is less than the total amount of lost revenue from people dropping HBO from their cable plan (both cable company payments and advertising dollars) then HBO looses money.
I basically gave up trying to follow shows like E.R. and CSI and now will watch them if they are on and there is nothing better but wont go out of my way to watch them. I DID buy all the seasons of E.R. on DVD and I have the first 4 seasons of CSI:NY on DVD. (I want to buy Season 5 but I just haven't gotten around to it yet plus I am waiting for a sale or discount on it as I refuse to pay the rip-off prices most DVDs are sold at in this country)
Some other shows I try to follow but have just about given up trying to specifically follow:
Pawn Stars
Hardcore Pawn
American Pickers
Family Guy
American Dad
Mythbusters
Top Gear
And others
And the networks wonder why the first thing people like me do when they find that they missed a show of their favorite series (because the network moved it around or aired a new episode instead of a repeat or whatever) is to go on Google to find a video-streaming site that will let them watch the episode they missed.
As for playing episodes out of order, just go ask anyone who tried to watch "My Name Is Earl" about the butchery done to it by Channel 7.
This case has nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA or slicing up content.
What it is about is that Telstra (biggest carrier in the country) has paid millions for the rights to broadcast AFL and NRL (2 of the most popular sports in the country) on mobile and now Telstra along with the sports leagues are annoyed that people can get these sports matches from another carrier without that carrier paying for it.
I think by far the biggest reason people pirate is that the content in question is not available legally in a form that they are happy with.
For example:
1.Not available to them at all (e.g. no download services in their country, download services dont have it etc)
2.Available but with restrictions (e.g. available in a way they can watch on the PC in the office but not available in a way they can watch on the big TV with the fancy speakers and comfy seats in the home theater room)
3.Available but only when bundled with lots of other content you dont want (i.e. the whole "you need cable to get Hulu" BS)
If the studios woke up, realized this "Internet" thing isn't going away and copied what the record companies did nearly 10 years ago when they created the iTunes store, piracy would go down (and the people who would stop pirating are those who would be happy to buy the content but cant).
There are 2 big reasons I can think of why Apple may not want to use GPLv3 GCC:
1.Patents. By using (and releasing) a GPLv3 version of GCC, the extremely patent grant in the GPLv3 kicks in. This would probably require Apple to grant patent rights for things it doesn't want to grant rights for.
and 2.GCC includes a number of libraries and pieces of code that gets hipped alongside gcc-compiled binaries, most notably libgcc and libstdc++
I dont know the official position and I am not a copyright lawyer but I suspect that legally shipping these libraries (libgcc, libstdc++ etc) requires following the GPLv3 including the anti-tivoization clause. This would mean that it would be impossible for Apple (or anyone else) to use the newer GPLv3 GCC and libraries to build any software for an Apple device (iPhone, iPad, iPod, Apple TV) that has software locks.
Dealing with an incident in the passenger cabin is much easier than dealing with an incident in the cargo areas.
My digital camera (entry level Canon Point & Shoot) had a failed USB port and after asking a few repair places (one hole-in-the-wall place that just did repairs and a couple of high-high-end camera shops that sold the kind of camera gear you would only buy if you were making a living from photography) and they all said it wasnt worth fixing.
Ended up asking for (and getting) a newer better Canon P&S as an xmas present.
On the other hand, if my smartphone phone died, I would do everything possible to get it fixed before I went for a replacement (because a suitable replacement would cost a lot of money)
I see lots of posturing from military types in the US (or at least media reporting on military types) suggesting that its essential to be able to counter a threat from China yet I haven't seen any actual reasoning as to why China needs to be considered as a potential threat.
Why would china want to attack the US, America buys so much chinese crap that any attack would be disastrous for the Chinese economy (as people and companies in America and in countries friendly to America stop buying made-in-china products)