SO could this Judges ruling be applied (as prior case law etc or whatever) in cases where someone is trying to subpoena the name of a telephone line subscriber due to silent or abusive calls? Or how about car ownership information of a car that tried to run them down?
ISPs aren't liable for the content of traffic from subscribers, but how does that become "ISPs aren't liable for knowing who their subscribers are and allowing a legal action to be passed on to them"?
When this ruling was first handed down, I thought it was a load of crap as well - you can subpoena a telephone line subscribers information based on the number, you can subpoena a name based on an address, you can subpoena a car ownership information from its registration plate, so why can't you subpoena an ISPs subscriber details from the IP address?
No one here is trying to bring legal action against the ISP itself, but I certainly think that the ISP should be legitimately open to having its customer records subpoenaed.
No, we didn't "find out last week", it was always known that Dropbox did centralised encryption - it was only the idiots that came to that realisation "last week", every other user with a hint of intelligence knew it from the moment they signed up to the service.
It was yet another example of news by stupid, for stupid.
Every time an OSX beta is leaked onto the web, its as a dmg or iso file, and its typically larger than a 4.3GB DVD-R. You know how people who download that beta get to install it? They use Disk Utility to write it to a USB disk as a bootable image and boot from it. I've done it multiple times - it will be the same deal here.
The fact that their security structure is poor does not excuse nor does it change the fact that someone exploited that poor security - Sony deserves some blame here, but that doesn't absolve the attacker from blame either.
Not to support Bin Laden in any way, but doesn't your comment apply equally to any high ranking military commander, or any civilian head of the military?
If you have an unlimited data plan, then you do not "pay by usage", you pay a flat rate...
Usage patterns do affect the network, so there is a tangible difference to the carrier as to whether you are using the data directly on the device, or via tethering.
To you and the other posters that made the same comment - go to my original post, click "Parent" and read the post I replied to for the context of my reply.
Its quite enlightening - in it, you will find this little sentence:
They even bundle "media apps" with the OS. So "what gives" with trying to ignore today's most common high definition video format?
See how the post that I replied to used the term "video format". See how that puts my comment in context? The mistake was made, but it was not made by me.
I'm pretty sure that H.264 is todays most common high definition video format, not BluRay, and I'm pretty sure that there is a significant proportion of the population getting along fine without BD-ROM functionality.
Not saying it wouldn't be a nice-to-have, but its far from required. Infact, in any of the PCs I have built or bought in the past three years, not once did a thought occur to me to even consider BluRay as a capability to include.
Apple don't give a damn about BluRay, they have iTunes - thats the direction they want you to go in....
"Open sourcing" Concorde (whatever that means) would be akin to Microsoft open sourcing DOS 2 - its nice and all, but everyones moved on, including the home build aircraft scene. There is literally nothing in Concorde which would be of benefit to todays aircraft builder, commercial or otherwise.
What needs to be open sourced about Concorde? The principles are well known, its the economics that are the deal breaker. Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, Embraer and Bombardier could all produce a supersonic civil aircraft if they so wished - but it would have such a small market, it wouldn't make financial or business sense for them to do so.
However, I feel inclined to point out that Apple did NOT deliver a sub-par experience on the older, 3G device. Apple did not release iOS4 for the 2G and 3G models (the summary says you have to jailbreak the device to install iOS4). Therefore, Apple simply released newer software that it knew the older device could not handle, and chose not to release it for that hardware
Hate to break it to you, but Apple most certainly did release IOS4.x for the iPhone 3G, and you did not have to jailbreak it to install it - I take it you do not remember the outcry about IOS4.x not supporting multitasking on older phones, not supporting various home screen animations on older phones and not supporting certain features on older phones? Hell, they even specifically released a new IOS4.x version to try and address speed and stability concerns....
So yes, Apple did release newer software that the older kit simply couldn't handle, and they even tried to mitigate it with a lower feature set than newer hardware (both the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 had a comparable feature set with the first releases of IOS4.x, it was the 3G that had a reduced feature set) but even then they got it horribly wrong - my iPhone 3G slowed down considerably when I upgraded (non-jailbroken, completely legitimate upgrade), and nothing I did, nothing Apple did, could return the phone to its prior state of smoothness and responsiveness. I haven't tried a downgrade, because it was known then that a downgrade was a hugely messy affair - instead, I acquired a HTC Desire and haven't looked back since.
Thats the common folklore myth, but theres little grounding to it - the issues WordPerfect 5.1 (the first Windows version) was down to a poorly adaptable architecture internally and the fact that Windows superseded most of the advantages that WordPerfect had enjoyed up until then (a consistent internal character set which meant that WordPerfect 5.1 couldn't handle all of the languages that Windows did, and the fact that Windows entirely replaced the print subsystem that WordPerfect had used up until then, making its extensive print driver collection worthless).
Sure, like Netscape, Microsoft had a hand in its death, but the real story, again just like Netscape, was that the product lost its competitive edge and fell by the way side.
The question shouldn't be one of how quickly it was done, but rather how cost effectively was it done and how long was the technology viable for? The US has consistently thrown money at space projects that are short term, expensive jaunts and called them successes.
What Wikipedia doesn't reveal is that Redstone was known to be unreliable at the time (the shift to the Mercury programme saw a huge number of changes to the Redstone rocket to improve reliability and safety). Any satellite shot using the pre-Mercury booster would have been a crap shoot with the big money on a failure.
The last time Microsoft tried to include PDF functionality in one of its products as a shipped feature, Adobe threatened to sue under antitrust law (see the Microsoft Office 2007 and "Save as PDF" fiasco - Microsoft eventually dropped it as a shipped feature but released it as an installable addon). Do you think that this time its going to be any different?
I predict a repeat of the internet browser lawsuits, and Microsoft removing their PDF reader from future Windows 8 builds.
So it would seem that I have once again become a victim of the Slashdot moderator idiots - there is nothing wrong with my reasoning or my figures, despite what people replying to me say. You may not like what I have put up, but I don't really care about what you like or dislike.
The fact remains that Microsoft has supported Windows XP for longer than any Linux distribution has supported a release, and if you try and buy a support package that matches Microsofts duration, it will cost you more than the original Windows XP license.
Yes, you can upgrade to the latest Ubuntu LTS for free, but that doesn't solve the issue if you cannot upgrade for a variety of reasons - so in that case you have to find someone to support you, and more than likely that is going to cost you.
Yes, you can get Redhat Desktop, but you are still going to have to buy a self-support subscription for 10 years to get access to the support updates - and that costs more than the Windows XP license (its $49 a year).
Yes, you can use Centos, but again they only support a release for 7 years (Centos 5, released in 2007, EOL 2014) so to bring it up to the duration of Windows XP you again need a third party support package.
I am not comparing dissimilar packages, all of the above comparisons are correct - those replies to me stating I am comparing wrongly are themselves wrong.
But I have long held the view that, where FOSS and Linux is concerned, a balanced discussion is impossible these days on Slashdot.
Don't worry - Slashdot just did something similar. When I try and reply to comments through my accounts comments history page, its horribly horribly broken. Each attempt to click in the reply box loads a new comment further up in the comment tree, and scrolls the page to the newly loaded comment. Scroll back down, click in the box again and it loads anotehr comment and shunts me back up the page. It can get really fucking annoying when you are trying to reply to a comment thats quite a way down a long tree.
As a competent admin, so can I. However, a support package means I don't have to spend two days working out which version of glibc this package needs to build, plus its 150 other dependencies that I also need to find and build because they have also been deprecated in newer releases.
Firstly, let me say that the new Slashdot discussion system is a load of shite - seriously, I click on the comment box and it loads a new comment further up the tree, and scrolls the page to it? Fucking shit.
Secondly, I didn't compare production server support to desktop software upgrades - I compared support to support. Ubuntu LTS includes a desktop version, REL includes a desktop version. Windows XP will have had 12.75 years of support for the princely sum of 150GBP, neither REL nor Ubuntu LTS can come close to that, they both EOL versions before 12.75 years.
Slashdot Mirror
SO could this Judges ruling be applied (as prior case law etc or whatever) in cases where someone is trying to subpoena the name of a telephone line subscriber due to silent or abusive calls? Or how about car ownership information of a car that tried to run them down?
ISPs aren't liable for the content of traffic from subscribers, but how does that become "ISPs aren't liable for knowing who their subscribers are and allowing a legal action to be passed on to them"?
When this ruling was first handed down, I thought it was a load of crap as well - you can subpoena a telephone line subscribers information based on the number, you can subpoena a name based on an address, you can subpoena a car ownership information from its registration plate, so why can't you subpoena an ISPs subscriber details from the IP address?
No one here is trying to bring legal action against the ISP itself, but I certainly think that the ISP should be legitimately open to having its customer records subpoenaed.
This ruling makes no fucking sense.
No, we didn't "find out last week", it was always known that Dropbox did centralised encryption - it was only the idiots that came to that realisation "last week", every other user with a hint of intelligence knew it from the moment they signed up to the service.
It was yet another example of news by stupid, for stupid.
Every time an OSX beta is leaked onto the web, its as a dmg or iso file, and its typically larger than a 4.3GB DVD-R. You know how people who download that beta get to install it? They use Disk Utility to write it to a USB disk as a bootable image and boot from it. I've done it multiple times - it will be the same deal here.
Microsoft Windows has had a software market place since Windows XP :)
The fact that their security structure is poor does not excuse nor does it change the fact that someone exploited that poor security - Sony deserves some blame here, but that doesn't absolve the attacker from blame either.
Not to support Bin Laden in any way, but doesn't your comment apply equally to any high ranking military commander, or any civilian head of the military?
If you have an unlimited data plan, then you do not "pay by usage", you pay a flat rate...
Usage patterns do affect the network, so there is a tangible difference to the carrier as to whether you are using the data directly on the device, or via tethering.
Usage patterns are different tho...
To you and the other posters that made the same comment - go to my original post, click "Parent" and read the post I replied to for the context of my reply.
Its quite enlightening - in it, you will find this little sentence:
See how the post that I replied to used the term "video format". See how that puts my comment in context? The mistake was made, but it was not made by me.
This is the third display port standard Apple have used in 4 years - I wonder if they are considering sticking with this one for any length of time?
I'm pretty sure that H.264 is todays most common high definition video format, not BluRay, and I'm pretty sure that there is a significant proportion of the population getting along fine without BD-ROM functionality.
Not saying it wouldn't be a nice-to-have, but its far from required. Infact, in any of the PCs I have built or bought in the past three years, not once did a thought occur to me to even consider BluRay as a capability to include.
Apple don't give a damn about BluRay, they have iTunes - thats the direction they want you to go in....
"Open sourcing" Concorde (whatever that means) would be akin to Microsoft open sourcing DOS 2 - its nice and all, but everyones moved on, including the home build aircraft scene. There is literally nothing in Concorde which would be of benefit to todays aircraft builder, commercial or otherwise.
What needs to be open sourced about Concorde? The principles are well known, its the economics that are the deal breaker. Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, Embraer and Bombardier could all produce a supersonic civil aircraft if they so wished - but it would have such a small market, it wouldn't make financial or business sense for them to do so.
However, I feel inclined to point out that Apple did NOT deliver a sub-par experience on the older, 3G device. Apple did not release iOS4 for the 2G and 3G models (the summary says you have to jailbreak the device to install iOS4). Therefore, Apple simply released newer software that it knew the older device could not handle, and chose not to release it for that hardware
Hate to break it to you, but Apple most certainly did release IOS4.x for the iPhone 3G, and you did not have to jailbreak it to install it - I take it you do not remember the outcry about IOS4.x not supporting multitasking on older phones, not supporting various home screen animations on older phones and not supporting certain features on older phones? Hell, they even specifically released a new IOS4.x version to try and address speed and stability concerns....
So yes, Apple did release newer software that the older kit simply couldn't handle, and they even tried to mitigate it with a lower feature set than newer hardware (both the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 had a comparable feature set with the first releases of IOS4.x, it was the 3G that had a reduced feature set) but even then they got it horribly wrong - my iPhone 3G slowed down considerably when I upgraded (non-jailbroken, completely legitimate upgrade), and nothing I did, nothing Apple did, could return the phone to its prior state of smoothness and responsiveness. I haven't tried a downgrade, because it was known then that a downgrade was a hugely messy affair - instead, I acquired a HTC Desire and haven't looked back since.
Thats the common folklore myth, but theres little grounding to it - the issues WordPerfect 5.1 (the first Windows version) was down to a poorly adaptable architecture internally and the fact that Windows superseded most of the advantages that WordPerfect had enjoyed up until then (a consistent internal character set which meant that WordPerfect 5.1 couldn't handle all of the languages that Windows did, and the fact that Windows entirely replaced the print subsystem that WordPerfect had used up until then, making its extensive print driver collection worthless).
Sure, like Netscape, Microsoft had a hand in its death, but the real story, again just like Netscape, was that the product lost its competitive edge and fell by the way side.
The question shouldn't be one of how quickly it was done, but rather how cost effectively was it done and how long was the technology viable for? The US has consistently thrown money at space projects that are short term, expensive jaunts and called them successes.
What Wikipedia doesn't reveal is that Redstone was known to be unreliable at the time (the shift to the Mercury programme saw a huge number of changes to the Redstone rocket to improve reliability and safety). Any satellite shot using the pre-Mercury booster would have been a crap shoot with the big money on a failure.
OS X also comes with built in PDF creation - any print dialog has a "PDF" button which allows you to output to PDF...
The last time Microsoft tried to include PDF functionality in one of its products as a shipped feature, Adobe threatened to sue under antitrust law (see the Microsoft Office 2007 and "Save as PDF" fiasco - Microsoft eventually dropped it as a shipped feature but released it as an installable addon). Do you think that this time its going to be any different?
I predict a repeat of the internet browser lawsuits, and Microsoft removing their PDF reader from future Windows 8 builds.
So it would seem that I have once again become a victim of the Slashdot moderator idiots - there is nothing wrong with my reasoning or my figures, despite what people replying to me say. You may not like what I have put up, but I don't really care about what you like or dislike.
The fact remains that Microsoft has supported Windows XP for longer than any Linux distribution has supported a release, and if you try and buy a support package that matches Microsofts duration, it will cost you more than the original Windows XP license.
Yes, you can upgrade to the latest Ubuntu LTS for free, but that doesn't solve the issue if you cannot upgrade for a variety of reasons - so in that case you have to find someone to support you, and more than likely that is going to cost you.
Yes, you can get Redhat Desktop, but you are still going to have to buy a self-support subscription for 10 years to get access to the support updates - and that costs more than the Windows XP license (its $49 a year).
Yes, you can use Centos, but again they only support a release for 7 years (Centos 5, released in 2007, EOL 2014) so to bring it up to the duration of Windows XP you again need a third party support package.
I am not comparing dissimilar packages, all of the above comparisons are correct - those replies to me stating I am comparing wrongly are themselves wrong.
But I have long held the view that, where FOSS and Linux is concerned, a balanced discussion is impossible these days on Slashdot.
Don't worry - Slashdot just did something similar. When I try and reply to comments through my accounts comments history page, its horribly horribly broken. Each attempt to click in the reply box loads a new comment further up in the comment tree, and scrolls the page to the newly loaded comment. Scroll back down, click in the box again and it loads anotehr comment and shunts me back up the page. It can get really fucking annoying when you are trying to reply to a comment thats quite a way down a long tree.
As a competent admin, so can I. However, a support package means I don't have to spend two days working out which version of glibc this package needs to build, plus its 150 other dependencies that I also need to find and build because they have also been deprecated in newer releases.
IE has never been a required upgrade for Windows XP - you can apply each and every XP service pack and still have IE6 at the end of it.
Firstly, let me say that the new Slashdot discussion system is a load of shite - seriously, I click on the comment box and it loads a new comment further up the tree, and scrolls the page to it? Fucking shit.
Secondly, I didn't compare production server support to desktop software upgrades - I compared support to support. Ubuntu LTS includes a desktop version, REL includes a desktop version. Windows XP will have had 12.75 years of support for the princely sum of 150GBP, neither REL nor Ubuntu LTS can come close to that, they both EOL versions before 12.75 years.