The really sad thing is that most Mac zealots actually expect to have an updated 0.1+ release every couple of years
Vista was delivered years behind schedule and missing promised features. This is not a virtue.
and don't mind to pay the $130 for it
Windows 2000=NT 5 Windows XP=NT 5.1, upgrade RRP $199, the full version is $299 (which of these is less than $130?) Windows Vista=NT 6, but it's so popular they need to add more keys to XP.
There you have it, conclusive proof that you totally lack any form of clue about version numbers, mathematics, or proficient trolling.
A bit like a certain project called Copland from another computer company I know...
Copland, a completely new code base, was abandoned as too ambitious after two years. Vista is a continuation of the NT code base, took five years to deliver, and still didn't meet the targets set.
So in other words, Microsoft didn't learn anything from Apple's failings over a decade ago and can't match their current performance despite having vastly greater resources. Why am I still unimpressed?
A race to the North Pole in a Toyota pick-up? That man's got balls. You don't do that in a little electric golf-cart.
You could do it in a golf cart, as long as you're not a brass monkey. And on the contrary, since the Toyota is designed for off-road conditions it's the pansy's choice. Real men go by dog sled (low carbon, but the methane emissions are lethal).
So some blowhard self-important jackass "security researcher" harassed a little kid and made him cry.
What a fucking loser.
Who, the researcher or the kid? Actions have consequences, and maybe this seems a bit harsh but the kid set himself up for it.
The simple moral is if you don't want people getting mad at you, don't be a jerk. Is that really so unreasonable?
The REAL virus writers/blackhats, the ones infiltrating multi-billion dollar corps, are working for the russian mob.
And how many of them would be doing it now if someone had tracked them down scared the shits out of them in their teens? I'm not saying that's the ideal approach to security, but then there is no single ideal approach; a spectrum of methods is necessary.
Go after them, I double dog dare you.
When the police start taking online fraud more seriously that might be an option. Going after the Russian mafia single handedly would be proof of utter stupidity.
If you search for "windows+malware+death+threat" you'll find thousands of them. In the Macintosh world*, however, this is actually news.
*Sounds like a theme park where everything is white plastic and the attendants never admit when a ride is broken. Still cheaper than Disneyland, though.
if what you're saying is correct, then the whole section 6 of GPLv3 (a.k.a. "the anti-tivoization clause") is for all practical purposes void and null...
You're still failing to make the distinction between the "work" and the "format". It's similar to the difference between "source" and "binary". The compiled binaries on different platforms are completely different, but the rights are still owned by the person who owns the source code; that is because the source is the "work", the binary is the "format" that embodies the work (that's not entirely accurate, but it'll do).
If you take GPLv3 code (the work) and modify it's functionality to include DRM you have created a derivative work because you have substantially changed the nature of the work, and this is indeed a violation of the terms of the GPLv3.
However, as I pointed out, adding DRM to an MP3 does not change the nature of the work embodied in the MP3. The song itself (the source) remains the same, only the format (the binary) has changed, so unlike your modified GPLv3 code example it doesn't meet the established legal definition of "derivative work". The sequence of notes and lyrics that reaches your ears has not been changed by DRM (regardless of audio quality or other technical concerns), and that is what copyright covers (copyright also applies to sheet music, BTW; it's the same information, notes and words, in another format).
Another analogy: I write you a letter, which you then OCR and encrypt without changing. I still own the rights precisely because you haven't changed the content; it is not a derivative work, because the information contained in the letter is the same as the original. Encryption (=DRM) and OCR (=format shifting) does not change the content, only who can access it and how. See how content=content and format=format, but content!=format?
The user asked for the file 'haha.mp3' to be sent. Microsoft itself, by automated means, decided to not send the file 'haha.mp3' as is, but to edit it, "compiling" a new into 'haha.drm', and sending this 'haha.drm' itself instead of the file the user asked it to send.
Which is irrelevant: the "work" in this case is "haha" by $artist, the.mp3 or.drm is merely the wrapper that contains the work, and that's the critical difference. Unless you substantially change the nature of "haha", regardless of whether it's encoded as mp3,.drm, PCM or a groove on a disc, it isn't derivative, it's the same work; it is not "edited" in any way, only the wrapper has been changed.
That's the point you're not grasping here: it doesn't matter what format you shift a work to, unless you're significantly changing the nature of the work (ie: lyrics, tempo, melody for music, function for software) it is still the same work; for example, the GPL applies to source (content), even though the final binaries are completely different on Linux and Windows (format). That is how copyright works, and there's a wealth of jurisprudence behind this interpretation (I even provided an actual example, but if a real court finding isn't enough to convince you you're wrong I don't see any way I can succeed).
But the moment the Zune steps inside to force copyright-compliance on users, by not letting them freely share as they do with any normal WiFi device out there, then it must do this right, or it will be responsible for any copyright violation, not the user.
This is merely your opinion of how things should work, not an example of your understanding of how they do work.
Video DVDs attempt to force copyright compliance on users, but are DVD manufacturers liable for end users defeating the DRM? No, the DMCA clearly and unambiguously states otherwise, and copyright still applies regardless of DRM considerations; so what you're saying is entirely contrary to the relevant laws.
But please, google for any court finding stating that adding DRM shifts the liability for copyr
Slashdot Mirror
The really sad thing is that most Mac zealots actually expect to have an updated 0.1+ release every couple of years
Vista was delivered years behind schedule and missing promised features. This is not a virtue.
and don't mind to pay the $130 for it
Windows 2000=NT 5
Windows XP=NT 5.1, upgrade RRP $199, the full version is $299 (which of these is less than $130?)
Windows Vista=NT 6, but it's so popular they need to add more keys to XP.
There you have it, conclusive proof that you totally lack any form of clue about version numbers, mathematics, or proficient trolling.
The Mac OS update madness will never stop!
Vista isn't a sign of sanity either.
Don't F*** with the PENGUIN!
It always worked out for Batman. Well, usually.
And in smaller print: You will be hearing from us soon.
Do you think that was a threat?
The way things are going, it looks like just another lie.
The whole article had that misspelling of math as maths? How could a publisher misspell so badly throughout a whole article like that?
Because in Australia it is called maths, not math (if you consider that it's short for "mathematics" you'll see the logic).
We have other spelling differences as well; colour (indicating that it's pronounced differently from "colon"), for example.
A bit like a certain project called Copland from another computer company I know...
Copland, a completely new code base, was abandoned as too ambitious after two years. Vista is a continuation of the NT code base, took five years to deliver, and still didn't meet the targets set.
So in other words, Microsoft didn't learn anything from Apple's failings over a decade ago and can't match their current performance despite having vastly greater resources. Why am I still unimpressed?
Well, not with the second part anyway.
Exactly my point.
First part took them quite a few years, IIRC.
Time!=work. If it did, Vista would have all those improvements we were promised when Longhorn was announced.
Release new operating system, try and make the old one look bad.
Not a lot of work involved there.
Think about it from the spider's perspective: the bite might be fatal, but you'd have to bite Ben Affleck.
Perhaps we could test one out on Matt Damon while he's here, just to see if funnelwebs are that discerning.
Have you ever known something hidden underneath a cloak of black cloth to not be important?
Goths.
I like spiders; subjecting them to hard vaccuum and Affleck's feet would be cruel. Besides, black widows aren't toxic enough.
Get Ben Affleck's spacesuit ready.
OK, I've drilled holes in the helmet and emptied the oxygen tank...
"Hi, I'm a Mac"
"And I'm a PC. Hey Mac, I heard you don't get viruses. Congratulations."
*PC Shakes Mac's hand*
"That's right, PC. But I do have worms."
*PC starts wiping hand furiously*
"Goatse Wingding super font pack"
Every keystroke is a colon. Except the semicolon, and that's bad enough.
Oh, that's OK then. I was worried someone was sitting in their car in the summer sun and had forgotten to wind their windows down.
That means you'd have to buy a new battery every one or two years.
That's OK; as long as we don't have to send it to Apple and pay $29 for a loan car, nobody will sue.
(The article makes it sound like the Soviet Russian iPhone: you fit in mobile computing device's pocket).
A race to the North Pole in a Toyota pick-up? That man's got balls. You don't do that in a little electric golf-cart.
You could do it in a golf cart, as long as you're not a brass monkey. And on the contrary, since the Toyota is designed for off-road conditions it's the pansy's choice. Real men go by dog sled (low carbon, but the methane emissions are lethal).
Wizened is indeed a word. To use a synonym:
The consumer has generally shriveled up...
I just bought 72 condoms.
I just bought 144 condoms, and now I'm grossly oversexed.
Who would do it? At this point it just looks like a group that wants NASA to fail.
Who would benefit most from making space appear too dangerous for civilians, and coincidentally has common contractors with NASA?
Of course, this is utter paranoia: the current administration just isn't that subtle.
It doesn't affect your daily life, so what gives?
I take it you don't use public transport.
People who are too thin and too pretty should be killed and eaten by regular looking thin people.
Like celery, it takes more energy to kill and eat a thin person than you get from eating them (they can run faster, makes 'em harder to catch).
Cannibals are my new peer group.
Live fast, die young and leave a tasty corpse?
So some blowhard self-important jackass "security researcher" harassed a little kid and made him cry.
What a fucking loser.
Who, the researcher or the kid? Actions have consequences, and maybe this seems a bit harsh but the kid set himself up for it.
The simple moral is if you don't want people getting mad at you, don't be a jerk. Is that really so unreasonable?
The REAL virus writers/blackhats, the ones infiltrating multi-billion dollar corps, are working for the russian mob.
And how many of them would be doing it now if someone had tracked them down scared the shits out of them in their teens? I'm not saying that's the ideal approach to security, but then there is no single ideal approach; a spectrum of methods is necessary.
Go after them, I double dog dare you.
When the police start taking online fraud more seriously that might be an option. Going after the Russian mafia single handedly would be proof of utter stupidity.
If you search for "windows+malware+death+threat" you'll find thousands of them. In the Macintosh world*, however, this is actually news.
*Sounds like a theme park where everything is white plastic and the attendants never admit when a ride is broken. Still cheaper than Disneyland, though.
I will fucking kill you. I've done it before and I'll do it again.
If you killed suv4x4 and he's still posting, you didn't do a very good job of it.
if what you're saying is correct, then the whole section 6 of GPLv3 (a.k.a. "the anti-tivoization clause") is for all practical purposes void and null...
.mp3 or .drm is merely the wrapper that contains the work, and that's the critical difference. Unless you substantially change the nature of "haha", regardless of whether it's encoded as mp3, .drm, PCM or a groove on a disc, it isn't derivative, it's the same work; it is not "edited" in any way, only the wrapper has been changed.
You're still failing to make the distinction between the "work" and the "format". It's similar to the difference between "source" and "binary". The compiled binaries on different platforms are completely different, but the rights are still owned by the person who owns the source code; that is because the source is the "work", the binary is the "format" that embodies the work (that's not entirely accurate, but it'll do).
If you take GPLv3 code (the work) and modify it's functionality to include DRM you have created a derivative work because you have substantially changed the nature of the work, and this is indeed a violation of the terms of the GPLv3.
However, as I pointed out, adding DRM to an MP3 does not change the nature of the work embodied in the MP3. The song itself (the source) remains the same, only the format (the binary) has changed, so unlike your modified GPLv3 code example it doesn't meet the established legal definition of "derivative work". The sequence of notes and lyrics that reaches your ears has not been changed by DRM (regardless of audio quality or other technical concerns), and that is what copyright covers (copyright also applies to sheet music, BTW; it's the same information, notes and words, in another format).
Another analogy: I write you a letter, which you then OCR and encrypt without changing. I still own the rights precisely because you haven't changed the content; it is not a derivative work, because the information contained in the letter is the same as the original. Encryption (=DRM) and OCR (=format shifting) does not change the content, only who can access it and how. See how content=content and format=format, but content!=format?
The user asked for the file 'haha.mp3' to be sent. Microsoft itself, by automated means, decided to not send the file 'haha.mp3' as is, but to edit it, "compiling" a new into 'haha.drm', and sending this 'haha.drm' itself instead of the file the user asked it to send.
Which is irrelevant: the "work" in this case is "haha" by $artist, the
That's the point you're not grasping here: it doesn't matter what format you shift a work to, unless you're significantly changing the nature of the work (ie: lyrics, tempo, melody for music, function for software) it is still the same work; for example, the GPL applies to source (content), even though the final binaries are completely different on Linux and Windows (format). That is how copyright works, and there's a wealth of jurisprudence behind this interpretation (I even provided an actual example, but if a real court finding isn't enough to convince you you're wrong I don't see any way I can succeed).
But the moment the Zune steps inside to force copyright-compliance on users, by not letting them freely share as they do with any normal WiFi device out there, then it must do this right, or it will be responsible for any copyright violation, not the user.
This is merely your opinion of how things should work, not an example of your understanding of how they do work.
Video DVDs attempt to force copyright compliance on users, but are DVD manufacturers liable for end users defeating the DRM? No, the DMCA clearly and unambiguously states otherwise, and copyright still applies regardless of DRM considerations; so what you're saying is entirely contrary to the relevant laws.
But please, google for any court finding stating that adding DRM shifts the liability for copyr