But that STILL means that the Australian government is mandating that all businesses MUST purchase a Microsoft product under the threat of being fined if they don't.
I suspect you can submit on paper if you want to, lots of small businesses don't have any PCs. But there are probably incentives for online submissions; later deadlines, etc. However small businesses usually pay an accountant to submit for them, and they will certainly have PCs. My brother is a sole-proprieter tradesman in Australia, he has an accountant do his tax. He just gives them his data, which he could do with any kind of PC, or the traditional shoebox of receipts.
You don't have to take Gates' word for it. Just try to find a citation of when and where he's supposed to have said it. No one has ever documented the source. No interview, journal, letter, book; it's just a quote that is copied and pasted forever.
PS: but more importantly than hard- vs soft- ware, "bricking" is permanent. Unfixable without swapping out hardware. To tell people their PC has been bricked and they'll throw it away. Instead of just reformattnig or reloading the OS.
Do you only apply the word "bug" to hardware issues, or have you accepted the change in usage of that word to include software problems?
Yes, the meaning of words changes. Doesn;t mean you can redefine any word regardless. And while overloading "bug" to mean software is not a great stretch, using "brick" to mean a software errors is pretty dumb. If you want to be colourful, say "hoses Windows" or a dozen other phrases. Don't imply the hardware has been damaged.
Notwithstanding its actual existing specific meaning, "bricked" is fairly obviously now a slang term for when something electronic is, temporarily or permanently, inoperative.
No, it is being used by some headline writers like that. But not anyone knowledgeable. It still means "permanently" , not "temporarily" fucked. In this article, for instance, the post by the "hacker" who found this never uses the word "brick". Only the sensationalist headline writer.
Let's not make sure they can use a tool that is a requirement in almost EVERY job. Everyone from factory line staff to auto repair shops have to use computers. Let's just make sure they can draw pretty pictures...like "Will paint for food"
Teach kids to type, sure. That will always be useful. But nothing else they learn in school computer classes will be relevant or useful by the time they graduate. My daughter is 10, she's learnt how to use wordprocessors, paint programs, and is now making a Flash Xmas card. It really did not take long for her to pick this up. But she knows little about "safe" computing, and what she does know is from what I've told her, not what she learned at school. She complains because I've banned her from using IE or chat programs. Very few teachers are competent at teaching computing skills. I'd much rather she learnt how to read, write and do music and art and maths that screwing around on a PC at school. She can pick up any computer skills she needs by reading a book or doing a focused course. Learning art and music is something they have to learn young or not at all. Not many have the skill to be a professional artist, but many jobs are open to those with some talent. (My brother makes a good living as a signwriter, for instance.) Learning to think is what kids need if they're going to have a decent job.
I don't think it's the best way to deal with the problem, but I can see logic in taking down the post. The less people who know about this the better. The only thing a thread would achieve is a) People all going "WTF LULZ APPLE FIX DIS IMMEDIATELY" which would have no effect on Apple's speed in providing a solution, or b) "Wow that's a cool trick, I'm going to try it at my local net cafe" - not something we want.
Apple can't take it down from anywhere else, (eg, here) so all it does is make them look like assholes, it protects no one. Any malicious types will know about this now, people are vulnerable and may not know it because of this.
A guy was selling "Mutant of Omaha's Mutant Kingdom" t-shirts, which were upon close examination not associated with Mutual of Omaha insurance. The court found likelihood of confusion, and the First Amendment parody defense didn't work
Yeah, it's arguable, but the Omaha case involved copying a graphic, "a side view of a feather-bonneted, emaciated human head". The shirt also used the word "Insurance", the field of business Mutual was involved in. The Best Buy logo is a more generic "tag" shape that I think is only distinctively "Best Buy" if it includes the words, which the shirt did not. The shirt was just a shirt, it did not advertise any business or say anything about Best Buy at all.
Also the document you listed has several dissenting views by judges. So if someone had a few million dollars to spend on lawyers, I think they would have a good chance of defending this case. That's the real reason companies are able to prevail even when they are obviously overstepping their claims, as when they tried to stop bloggers simply reporting the case.
If this went to court, the odds of a judge granting an injunction are quite good.
Sorry, I understand your point, but I still disagree. You still fail to differentiate between the person selling the shirt (I maintain, completely legal) and the person wearing it (depending on his actions and how he presents himself, possibly not). This is somewhat like differentiating between gun manufacturers and gun users.
Best Buy is really primarily concerned with trademark dilution. They have an affirmative duty to police their trademarks
Yes, but the shirts in question did not have "Best Buy" trademarks. The BB trademark has the words "Best Buy" on a tag shape. The shirts had a similar shaped tag, (and I'm sure I could find many logos and trademarks using that shape) with the words "Improv Everywhere". Obviously meant to resemble BB, but equally obviously not the same. If they had been operating a similar store, maybe the trademark could have been considered an attempt to confuse customers. But as Best Buy does not (as far as I know) sell their own shirts, there is no confusion. You mention that
Will they think people wearing the shirts are Best Buy employees, representing Best Buy?
An interesting question, but irrelevant. In most places you can buy facsimile police or army uniforms freely. Should a shop have greater protection? If the person wearing the "uniform" so attempts to pass himself off as a BB employee, he would be in trouble, but not the person selling him the pseudo-uniform. In the original Improv event they took care never to explicitly claim to be BB employees. And while the police were called, they could take no action, as no laws were broken.
e. As with most copyright violations, including GPL, a violation of the terms terminates the rights to use the work.
Except with copyright, the "terms" are not solely at the discretion of the producer. The user/purchaser has rights (eg, fair use) regardless of small print or what the producer says are "terms" unless the purchaser/user has actually signed some more restrictive contract, NDA, etc. GPL is different, as it grants MORE rights to the user than copyright alone does. Thus rejecting GPL means you revert to the more restrictive normal copyright restrictions.
Except for the part where it's a completely different engine
Oh really? Originally, "Maxthon" was called "MYIE2", basically a skin on IE. As far as I can determine, it DOES still use the same engine as IE. And is vulnerable to all IE exploits. Please correct me if this has changed.
That my friend is a screwup of massive scope, with huge consequences, because for people who are not geeks- that computer is a "brick".
Yes, it's a screw up. But no, it's not a brick. A brick is irreparable without replacing hardware. Not "irreparable by someone who doesn't understand how to boot from a CD/floppy". And there are numerous posts in the forums linked explaining exactly how to fix this, even for the technically challenged. It's just a misleading exaggeration to call it a brick, because that, if taken seriously, might lead to people junking the whole PC because of one file being deleted.
People with one machine and w/o a Linux live CD (probably 90% of windows users) would have a bricked machine barring any outside assistance.
No. "Bricked" means dead, irreparably, an ex-PC. This is just "pining for the fjords". All you have to do is boot, from a floppy, a CD (such as the Windows installer PC) and restore a single text file, boot.ini. Is my TV "bricked" when I lose the remote control?
Read the FAQ - the editors specifically deny any attempts at fact checking.
So a small print disclaimer makes it all right to be incompetent and careless?
Well, the real question then is why they call themselves "editors".
If they just called themselves "webmasters", moderators", etc, they would not raise any expectations. Even so, if one does press the publish button, and your name appears below it, one does endorse it in some way. And one thing the Slashdot "editors" quite often do is rewrite the headline, often making it more sensational and misleading.
I think the point is that the ISO stamp doesn't really change that much
If PDF was an obfuscated and ad hoc "standard" like MS's it wouldn't have been certified, so the ISO does mean something about interoperability. PDF was designed from the beginning to be an open standard. Adobe has tried to control markets by obscuring file formats -- eg, Type 1 fonts in the 80s, but that just ended up in driving people away (in that case, it led to TrueType).
'm glad the.pdf is now a documented standard, but this doesn't really mean TOO much in the document world.
By itself it doesn't, but if you work in DTP, PDF is used by just about every prepress application until it's rendered down to pixels/dots on the page. It's made my life a lot easier, I can use just about any layout app I want, print to PS, distill to PDF and send the file off, secure in knowing that it will print exactly as I intend. And to emphasise, you don't have to pay Adobe or sign an NDA to include that functionality. I'm less concerned with using forms and such, but I see these often enough on government sites to assume they work as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect you can submit on paper if you want to, lots of small businesses don't have any PCs. But there are probably incentives for online submissions; later deadlines, etc. However small businesses usually pay an accountant to submit for them, and they will certainly have PCs. My brother is a sole-proprieter tradesman in Australia, he has an accountant do his tax. He just gives them his data, which he could do with any kind of PC, or the traditional shoebox of receipts.
You don't have to take Gates' word for it. Just try to find a citation of when and where he's supposed to have said it. No one has ever documented the source. No interview, journal, letter, book; it's just a quote that is copied and pasted forever.
PS: but more importantly than hard- vs soft- ware, "bricking" is permanent. Unfixable without swapping out hardware. To tell people their PC has been bricked and they'll throw it away. Instead of just reformattnig or reloading the OS.
Yes, the meaning of words changes. Doesn;t mean you can redefine any word regardless. And while overloading "bug" to mean software is not a great stretch, using "brick" to mean a software errors is pretty dumb. If you want to be colourful, say "hoses Windows" or a dozen other phrases. Don't imply the hardware has been damaged.
No, it is being used by some headline writers like that. But not anyone knowledgeable. It still means "permanently" , not "temporarily" fucked. In this article, for instance, the post by the "hacker" who found this never uses the word "brick". Only the sensationalist headline writer.
Teach kids to type, sure. That will always be useful. But nothing else they learn in school computer classes will be relevant or useful by the time they graduate. My daughter is 10, she's learnt how to use wordprocessors, paint programs, and is now making a Flash Xmas card. It really did not take long for her to pick this up. But she knows little about "safe" computing, and what she does know is from what I've told her, not what she learned at school. She complains because I've banned her from using IE or chat programs. Very few teachers are competent at teaching computing skills. I'd much rather she learnt how to read, write and do music and art and maths that screwing around on a PC at school. She can pick up any computer skills she needs by reading a book or doing a focused course. Learning art and music is something they have to learn young or not at all. Not many have the skill to be a professional artist, but many jobs are open to those with some talent. (My brother makes a good living as a signwriter, for instance.) Learning to think is what kids need if they're going to have a decent job.
Apple can't take it down from anywhere else, (eg, here) so all it does is make them look like assholes, it protects no one. Any malicious types will know about this now, people are vulnerable and may not know it because of this.
I wish you were being ironic. But I fear you actually mean this.
Yeah, it's arguable, but the Omaha case involved copying a graphic, "a side view of a feather-bonneted, emaciated human head". The shirt also used the word "Insurance", the field of business Mutual was involved in. The Best Buy logo is a more generic "tag" shape that I think is only distinctively "Best Buy" if it includes the words, which the shirt did not. The shirt was just a shirt, it did not advertise any business or say anything about Best Buy at all.
Also the document you listed has several dissenting views by judges. So if someone had a few million dollars to spend on lawyers, I think they would have a good chance of defending this case. That's the real reason companies are able to prevail even when they are obviously overstepping their claims, as when they tried to stop bloggers simply reporting the case.
Sorry, I understand your point, but I still disagree. You still fail to differentiate between the person selling the shirt (I maintain, completely legal) and the person wearing it (depending on his actions and how he presents himself, possibly not). This is somewhat like differentiating between gun manufacturers and gun users.
Since this isn't going to court we'll never know.
Yes, but the shirts in question did not have "Best Buy" trademarks. The BB trademark has the words "Best Buy" on a tag shape. The shirts had a similar shaped tag, (and I'm sure I could find many logos and trademarks using that shape) with the words "Improv Everywhere". Obviously meant to resemble BB, but equally obviously not the same. If they had been operating a similar store, maybe the trademark could have been considered an attempt to confuse customers. But as Best Buy does not (as far as I know) sell their own shirts, there is no confusion. You mention that
Will they think people wearing the shirts are Best Buy employees, representing Best Buy?
An interesting question, but irrelevant. In most places you can buy facsimile police or army uniforms freely. Should a shop have greater protection? If the person wearing the "uniform" so attempts to pass himself off as a BB employee, he would be in trouble, but not the person selling him the pseudo-uniform. In the original Improv event they took care never to explicitly claim to be BB employees. And while the police were called, they could take no action, as no laws were broken.
Except with copyright, the "terms" are not solely at the discretion of the producer. The user/purchaser has rights (eg, fair use) regardless of small print or what the producer says are "terms" unless the purchaser/user has actually signed some more restrictive contract, NDA, etc. GPL is different, as it grants MORE rights to the user than copyright alone does. Thus rejecting GPL means you revert to the more restrictive normal copyright restrictions.
It was when you saw it. Not when I replied.
I don't blame you for this;
Big of you. Idiot.
Why don't you click the "parent" link on my post and see what I was replying to? And then see who the idiot is.
Oh really? Originally, "Maxthon" was called "MYIE2", basically a skin on IE. As far as I can determine, it DOES still use the same engine as IE. And is vulnerable to all IE exploits. Please correct me if this has changed.
? Both Adobe and Microsoft are US companies.
I was under the impression that murdering children was already a crime. But in any case, what does that have to do with this bill?
Yes, it's a screw up. But no, it's not a brick. A brick is irreparable without replacing hardware. Not "irreparable by someone who doesn't understand how to boot from a CD/floppy". And there are numerous posts in the forums linked explaining exactly how to fix this, even for the technically challenged. It's just a misleading exaggeration to call it a brick, because that, if taken seriously, might lead to people junking the whole PC because of one file being deleted.
No. "Bricked" means dead, irreparably, an ex-PC. This is just "pining for the fjords". All you have to do is boot, from a floppy, a CD (such as the Windows installer PC) and restore a single text file, boot.ini. Is my TV "bricked" when I lose the remote control?
It also suggests that ISO certification is actually based on merit, not just the power of the proposer.
So a small print disclaimer makes it all right to be incompetent and careless?
Well, the real question then is why they call themselves "editors".
If they just called themselves "webmasters", moderators", etc, they would not raise any expectations. Even so, if one does press the publish button, and your name appears below it, one does endorse it in some way. And one thing the Slashdot "editors" quite often do is rewrite the headline, often making it more sensational and misleading.
Lots of breeches listed here.
If PDF was an obfuscated and ad hoc "standard" like MS's it wouldn't have been certified, so the ISO does mean something about interoperability. PDF was designed from the beginning to be an open standard. Adobe has tried to control markets by obscuring file formats -- eg, Type 1 fonts in the 80s, but that just ended up in driving people away (in that case, it led to TrueType).
By itself it doesn't, but if you work in DTP, PDF is used by just about every prepress application until it's rendered down to pixels/dots on the page. It's made my life a lot easier, I can use just about any layout app I want, print to PS, distill to PDF and send the file off, secure in knowing that it will print exactly as I intend. And to emphasise, you don't have to pay Adobe or sign an NDA to include that functionality. I'm less concerned with using forms and such, but I see these often enough on government sites to assume they work as well.
The Therac-25 really did kill patients.