If its illegal, then Microsoft can never ever make their OS secure, because it will always be under threat of businesses relying on the insecurities to make money. Microsoft is simply carrying out a multipronged attack on the security issue, better coding for Vista and applications to bridge the gap.
If Microsoft got their act together and made it impossible for viruses to spread on Windows, and secured the OS totally against external threats, would Symantic have a case against them? Doesnt Symantic depend on a business model that could concievably be made redundant at any point in Microsofts development cycle?
They are rounding down, the Mac Mini advertised specs reflect the origional specs, not the new ones, so if a customer is comparing based on advertised specs, they are doing so on the lower specs.
What might be a problem is when the owner needs warranty work doing, and their receipt doesnt match the system - how do you tell the difference between one of these systems and an overclocked system?
When you consider that all of the UKs major ISPs have signed up, and the 10% that havent mainly include smaller, none national ISPs, the figure is going to be a lot less than 1 in 10 users affected.
Quite simply, because the BBC peering offer is not limited to certain ISPs, but is open to all of them - its non selected, its just a matter of whether or not your ISP has signed up. The BBC already host content on these restricted content servers already, and last I heard something like 90% of UK ISPs had a peering arrangement that also allowed them access to the content servers.
So basically Apple has to spend out on reoccuring costs, additional bandwidth usage and tracking your purchases for you because you cant be arsed to backup your data? Go away.
Thats interesting, because I just did a traceroute on the IP my copy of iMP connects to to login and get initial content, and the seed and login servers are on the private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs networks. Trying to access this IP address from a server in Canada and I get no return from it. They may use Geo IP for the p2p part, but for authentication and initial content they most certainly use content servers on the private peering only.
They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.
No, they wont. They will use the internal peering arrangements that they have currently setup with a large number of UK ISPs. When you gain access to BBC content through one of these ISPs, you dont actually go out onto the internet but you are routed through private peering directly onto a BBC network with content servers. You cant access these content servers any other way (currently), they are not 'public'.
THe BBC provides highspeed peering for a large number of businesses and reasons, tehy have a pretty impressive network.
I can't see how distributing huge DRM-infected files, using bandwidth from the BBC's own servers, that then destroys itself in 7 days is efficient use of resources. Add to that the obvious cost of the delivery technology from Microsoft and we're looking at a potential waste of money.
I think its a great use of my money, why? Simple:
Frees up airtime for new shows rather than second chance viewing, cuts down on repeats during the same week which seems to be catching on on a lot of networks
Allows the BBC a much better idea of what people want to watch - rather than relying on proportional figures from viewership boxes, they can directly access what people are watching
Allows me to view the programs when I want during that 7 day period, which is great when I want to go out on the same night as my favourite show, I dont have to mess around setting the video recorder.
Even the BBC is required to protect its content, as it may not own the full rights to all its shows, since the production of those shows are often subletted to other production companies. Thus it shouldnt 'risk unencrypted files' just because you want them to. Opensource is not a be all end all solution.
I think that this is only the case if you are the developer of the original open source application.
No, so long as you take the fork from the codebase before the license change, you get the origional license. This is exactly what recently happened with Xfree and Xorg - the license changed to one that people didnt like, so a fork was made of the last known codebase with the acceptable license and further developments have been done on that, becoming the dominent fork.
What worries me personally about this amendment to the GPL is that it ceases to be a distribution license only and adds in limitations as to what you can change in the source code. The Gnu Documentation License tried doing this with invariant sections and this was declared to be nonfree by many linux distributions who then refused to carry those documents.
From what I can tell, his leaving the company was trigered by the other owners making his life hell.
In the UK this is called constructive dismissal, and can be taken to a tribuneral for compensation. Businesses cant wipe their hands of you by forcing you to quit by making your worklife hell.
The real kicker is that the Russian space program has been mostly funded by the West (US & Allies) during the past decade while it has been really taking off.
You do realise that the US has been legally prevented from doing this very funding for 5 years due to the Iran Nonpoliferation Act of 2000, yet they have been launching US astronauts and resupplying the ISS for the past 2 and a half years for no funding. Indeed the Russian Space Station recently had its funding from the Russian government increased by $50million for ISS maintenance alone. Russia isnt doing so bad with regard to funding its own space program, the recent tourists being one inventive methods of raising cash.
Yes, Freedom was supposed to be in a different orbit that the Russians cannot reach, but it would have been disasterous after the Columbia accident, as either the Shuttle fleet would have had to have been flown with a known (and now highly public) flaw or grounded and the station abandoned for the interim period. Could NASA have gotten away with flying Shuttles after Columbia?
Im going to be pounced on for this, but I want security on my mobile phone, as much as humanly possible. The potential for me to lose money through an unsecure mobile phone is a lot more than that of a desktop or laptop computer since you cant unplug a mobile phone after use. It would be trivial to have an app dial a premium rate number on an unsecured phone, running up bills of hundreds of pounds or dollars and that is something I cannot afford to have and if TPM or DRM can prevent that, then Im willing to allow it in that environment. TPM has its place, and this is it - protecting me.
Its the other way round, they tried to sue the responsable adult, ie the mother, and the court said No. Nothing in that ruling says they are prevented from bringing another suit against the actual person infringing, ie the child. Read the article sometime:)
To actually lighten the mystery a little, only the outer blocks and casing blocks are large (3 ton), the internal structure is mostly made up of blocks 1 ton or less in weight. Since the vast majority of the blocks were cut on site from the local stone quarries, they wouldnt even hve had to cart them far.
The reason Soyuz is being replaced is not because its outdated, far from it its proved to be a good airframe thats adaptable to new advances time after time, but its because the contract to build them runs out soon and due to political issues it cant be renewed or extended anymore. So they get to build the Klipper.
Old Russian space capsules? You mean the ones that have been supplying the ISS for the past 2 and a half years? Oh those ones eh? Just because they have the same name doesnt mean they use the same technology, the current generation of Soyuz, the TM, first flew in 1986 and has had several updates since then. These are far from 1960s relics.
Thing is, bestiality porn and bestiality acts aren't illegal everywhere in the country.
Cruelty to animals is tho. I mean, some of these people have faces only their mothers could love, have you SEEN them?! Because, uhm, er, I certainly havent!
At last someone on the GPL 3 team has said something that belays my fears about Services and the GPL version 3. The fear was that they would force you to give users access to GPLed code you use when you provide a service - for example forum software. From the article, they talk about developers including an ability to have the service software offer the sourcecode, and the GPL protecting this particular part of the program but not forcing developers to include it in the first place. While this does stop the fears that you would have to provide the sourcecode for every bit of GPL code you use in your service, it does open the door for limitations on modifications in GPLed programs, similiar to invariant sections in the Gnu Documentation License, and Im not decided if this is a good approach or not.
Microsofts 'conviction' happened several years ago, 1999 if I remember correctly. Has the world stayed the same since then? No. Things change, Microsoft was called a monopoly 6 years ago and that may not be the case today. Labels dont stay attached forever just because you want them to.
Most of those 65,000 bugs were things like spelling mistakes, formatting mistakes, spacing issues etc in dialog boxes, nothing really interesting. Thats the difference between bugfree and generally bugfree.
Slashdot Mirror
If its illegal, then Microsoft can never ever make their OS secure, because it will always be under threat of businesses relying on the insecurities to make money. Microsoft is simply carrying out a multipronged attack on the security issue, better coding for Vista and applications to bridge the gap.
If Microsoft got their act together and made it impossible for viruses to spread on Windows, and secured the OS totally against external threats, would Symantic have a case against them? Doesnt Symantic depend on a business model that could concievably be made redundant at any point in Microsofts development cycle?
They are rounding down, the Mac Mini advertised specs reflect the origional specs, not the new ones, so if a customer is comparing based on advertised specs, they are doing so on the lower specs.
What might be a problem is when the owner needs warranty work doing, and their receipt doesnt match the system - how do you tell the difference between one of these systems and an overclocked system?
Its pretty easy to have a 'fairly reasonable take' on copyright when its not your creations or works you are applying that take to.
Whenever it deals with something under the GPL being infringed. Apparently. Well, according to certain vocal slashdotters anyway.
When you consider that all of the UKs major ISPs have signed up, and the 10% that havent mainly include smaller, none national ISPs, the figure is going to be a lot less than 1 in 10 users affected.
Quite simply, because the BBC peering offer is not limited to certain ISPs, but is open to all of them - its non selected, its just a matter of whether or not your ISP has signed up. The BBC already host content on these restricted content servers already, and last I heard something like 90% of UK ISPs had a peering arrangement that also allowed them access to the content servers.
So basically Apple has to spend out on reoccuring costs, additional bandwidth usage and tracking your purchases for you because you cant be arsed to backup your data? Go away.
Thats interesting, because I just did a traceroute on the IP my copy of iMP connects to to login and get initial content, and the seed and login servers are on the private peered network, which is only accessable from within certain UK ISPs networks. Trying to access this IP address from a server in Canada and I get no return from it. They may use Geo IP for the p2p part, but for authentication and initial content they most certainly use content servers on the private peering only.
They'll use current (imperfect) IP geolocation stuff like everyone else.
No, they wont. They will use the internal peering arrangements that they have currently setup with a large number of UK ISPs. When you gain access to BBC content through one of these ISPs, you dont actually go out onto the internet but you are routed through private peering directly onto a BBC network with content servers. You cant access these content servers any other way (currently), they are not 'public'.
THe BBC provides highspeed peering for a large number of businesses and reasons, tehy have a pretty impressive network.
I can't see how distributing huge DRM-infected files, using bandwidth from the BBC's own servers, that then destroys itself in 7 days is efficient use of resources. Add to that the obvious cost of the delivery technology from Microsoft and we're looking at a potential waste of money.
I think its a great use of my money, why? Simple:
Even the BBC is required to protect its content, as it may not own the full rights to all its shows, since the production of those shows are often subletted to other production companies. Thus it shouldnt 'risk unencrypted files' just because you want them to. Opensource is not a be all end all solution.
Mmmm interactive porn.
I think that this is only the case if you are the developer of the original open source application.
No, so long as you take the fork from the codebase before the license change, you get the origional license. This is exactly what recently happened with Xfree and Xorg - the license changed to one that people didnt like, so a fork was made of the last known codebase with the acceptable license and further developments have been done on that, becoming the dominent fork.
What worries me personally about this amendment to the GPL is that it ceases to be a distribution license only and adds in limitations as to what you can change in the source code. The Gnu Documentation License tried doing this with invariant sections and this was declared to be nonfree by many linux distributions who then refused to carry those documents.
From what I can tell, his leaving the company was trigered by the other owners making his life hell.
In the UK this is called constructive dismissal, and can be taken to a tribuneral for compensation. Businesses cant wipe their hands of you by forcing you to quit by making your worklife hell.
The real kicker is that the Russian space program has been mostly funded by the West (US & Allies) during the past decade while it has been really taking off.
You do realise that the US has been legally prevented from doing this very funding for 5 years due to the Iran Nonpoliferation Act of 2000, yet they have been launching US astronauts and resupplying the ISS for the past 2 and a half years for no funding. Indeed the Russian Space Station recently had its funding from the Russian government increased by $50million for ISS maintenance alone. Russia isnt doing so bad with regard to funding its own space program, the recent tourists being one inventive methods of raising cash.
Yes, Freedom was supposed to be in a different orbit that the Russians cannot reach, but it would have been disasterous after the Columbia accident, as either the Shuttle fleet would have had to have been flown with a known (and now highly public) flaw or grounded and the station abandoned for the interim period. Could NASA have gotten away with flying Shuttles after Columbia?
Im going to be pounced on for this, but I want security on my mobile phone, as much as humanly possible. The potential for me to lose money through an unsecure mobile phone is a lot more than that of a desktop or laptop computer since you cant unplug a mobile phone after use. It would be trivial to have an app dial a premium rate number on an unsecured phone, running up bills of hundreds of pounds or dollars and that is something I cannot afford to have and if TPM or DRM can prevent that, then Im willing to allow it in that environment. TPM has its place, and this is it - protecting me.
Its the other way round, they tried to sue the responsable adult, ie the mother, and the court said No. Nothing in that ruling says they are prevented from bringing another suit against the actual person infringing, ie the child. Read the article sometime :)
To actually lighten the mystery a little, only the outer blocks and casing blocks are large (3 ton), the internal structure is mostly made up of blocks 1 ton or less in weight. Since the vast majority of the blocks were cut on site from the local stone quarries, they wouldnt even hve had to cart them far.
The reason Soyuz is being replaced is not because its outdated, far from it its proved to be a good airframe thats adaptable to new advances time after time, but its because the contract to build them runs out soon and due to political issues it cant be renewed or extended anymore. So they get to build the Klipper.
Old Russian space capsules? You mean the ones that have been supplying the ISS for the past 2 and a half years? Oh those ones eh? Just because they have the same name doesnt mean they use the same technology, the current generation of Soyuz, the TM, first flew in 1986 and has had several updates since then. These are far from 1960s relics.
Thing is, bestiality porn and bestiality acts aren't illegal everywhere in the country.
Cruelty to animals is tho. I mean, some of these people have faces only their mothers could love, have you SEEN them?! Because, uhm, er, I certainly havent!
At last someone on the GPL 3 team has said something that belays my fears about Services and the GPL version 3. The fear was that they would force you to give users access to GPLed code you use when you provide a service - for example forum software. From the article, they talk about developers including an ability to have the service software offer the sourcecode, and the GPL protecting this particular part of the program but not forcing developers to include it in the first place. While this does stop the fears that you would have to provide the sourcecode for every bit of GPL code you use in your service, it does open the door for limitations on modifications in GPLed programs, similiar to invariant sections in the Gnu Documentation License, and Im not decided if this is a good approach or not.
Microsofts 'conviction' happened several years ago, 1999 if I remember correctly. Has the world stayed the same since then? No. Things change, Microsoft was called a monopoly 6 years ago and that may not be the case today. Labels dont stay attached forever just because you want them to.
Most of those 65,000 bugs were things like spelling mistakes, formatting mistakes, spacing issues etc in dialog boxes, nothing really interesting. Thats the difference between bugfree and generally bugfree.