Well, here's the quote. I got it from
this
page at the
eff.
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
If someone hacks my *private* network or illegally obtains my private encryption keys, then *that's* an invasion of my privacy.
I must be missing something, because it seems to me that its an invasion of privacy either way. Just because it happens all the time and many people haven't protected themselves against, and many don't even know that they need to protect themselves against it, doesn't make it OK. Somebody straighten me out about how this is different.
...as it is 3:21am and I only had 5 hours of sleep in the last 40...
Sleep? You had sleep? Why, when we were reviewing the original Star Wars back in the day, we didn't have any sleep at all. You see, back then we used to wear an onion on our belt. That was the style. And we would [ramble filter: rambling post clipped]
Actually, just a few of the profs at my University would have done an adequate job of teaching Operating Systems using Linux (or BSD or Darwin) source code. My operating systems class used a lot of pseudo-code and, even then, the feeling I got was that only a few in the department would have felt comfortable teaching it. How many high school or grade school teachers do you think have that kind of training/ability?
Come to think of it, I'm not sure that a first class in operating system concepts really benefits all that much from using real (production) code instead of pseudo-code [ducks]. Sure, you should be introduced to it sometime, but in a first class you want to understand the concepts and I think you could get bogged down in confusing and irrelevant details.
Disclaimer: I am not a systems programmer and my University was very math/theory oriented (which I think is a good thing). In addition, I think Microsoft's business practices are despicable.
Let's not take the easy route and dump all the blame in one place.
If I leave my keys in the car while I run in the Kwik-E-Mart, it may be stupid but it doesn't make it OK to steal my car.
While I agree with the idea that people should be more careful with their personal information, that's not the point. All the blame should be dumped in one place - unscrupulous (sp?) companies playing free and loose with privacy. Stupid consumers don't get them off the hook. I ought not leave my keys in the car, but the blame is still squarely on the car theif.
I wasn't equating Macs to high-level languages, although I can see how you might infer that. I was attempting to refute, with a little style, the idea that being able to do x is somehow an argument to do it that way. Apparently I didn't succeed:(
You may not want to buy a Mac and your reasons may be valid, but the fact that you can do the same things with a PC that you can with a Mac is not a reason to buy one over the other, just as the fact that I can do anything with assembly that I can with *insert favorite language* is not a reason to migrate all your company's apps to assembly.
There are occasional engineering failures, but none as widespread as programming errors.
While I agree in principle that software should be less bug ridden, I have to disagree with the point you are making above. In my experience, rarely do "crashing software" stories have a relation to people loosing their life. And coversely (contrapositively? I don't know), software which is used in applications where their failure causes almost assured death are not using operating systems prone to the "blue screen of death". Contrast that with the examples used in the engineering analogies. Bridges collapsing cause death. Buildings collapsing cause death. MS Outlook freezing up for the umpteenth time is annoying and unprofessional, but does not normally cause death.
I know Kaiser-Permanente [...] just recently swtiched from MS Exchange...
Is that the guy from "The Usual Suspects"? If so, I'm switching over too. That guy is scary.
Sign up for passport... sign up for passport...
on
Windows XP is Listening
·
· Score: 5, Funny
After further analysis, it was discovered that the seemingly random words were all variations on "sign up for passport". Microsoft has called it an "amazing coincidence" and has distributed instructions for a fix.
Step (1). Sign up for passport.
Step (2). Reboot.
No further problems have been reported after using this technique. Microsoft credits it's new security initiative for the speed and efficacy of this fix, and reminds you to sign up for passport.
Democrats and leftists assume that the Bush Justice Dept. is just in the pocket of Big Business, but that's as simplistic as most of their theories.
Republicans and the right assume that everyone who disagrees with them is simplistic, but that's as simplistic as most of their theories.
Sorry to offend the Republicans out there who don't make pompus statements like that, but I thought saying it this way was more effective. Not all Republicans are idiots, just as not all Democrats are idiots. As to your other points:
One does not have to believe that the government runs the economy to believe that monopolies can be dangerous.
The DOJ decided not to pursue a breakup nor to proceed on the tying count
prior to
September 11th.
I just know there's a kiwi out there itching to make a hybrid of this case and this
jet-powered beer cooler. There should be plenty of room for that monster in the shed or garage.
The fact is that a lot (not all mind you) of the respondents are either companies that have a vested interest in the destruction of Microsoft (AOL, Oracle, Sun, etc.) or anti-Microsoft zealots.
Sounds to me like you are saying anyone who disagrees with the settlement wants destruction or is a zealot, and therefore doesn't count. You're entitled to your opinion. Not a very persuasive argument, though. Your complaints vs. complements argument might have more merit, but this paragraph only serves to lessen its impact.
Many companies, not just the ones you list there, have a vested interest all right. The have a vested interest in not being further harmed by the illegal actions of a monopoly. There is no issue of whether the actions were illegal - a federal appeals court, en banc, unanimously upheld the fact that their actions were illegal.
Lets say I am held up at gunpoint and the criminal is captured and convicted. Then there is a proposed settlement before sentencing. The criminal agrees not to rob again. The government allows him to go free and keep his gun. I have a vested interest in not allowing the settlement to go through. There is nothing strange about me wanting to be involved.
Rueters is reporting that several residents of the trailer park in the area where the storms are expected to collide are ignoring warnings from the Jovian authorities. "I rode out the storm in aught-5 and I'm riding it out again. Those weather reporters are never right anyway." said one area resident. "Even that Shoefixer-Levi's comet thing was just a ploy to get me to leave my house. I've gone to the hypermarket and stocked up on bread, milk, water, and eggs. What do I have to worry about?..."
I realize that its not a typo. I was just thinking that (1*damages) is probably pretty big so (3*damages) would be a pretty nice sum. Microsoft probably has (damages^3) tucked away, though.
In addition to the lack of exposure, I think that the intended audience can be reluctant to give it a chance here in the USA. "Claymation" is associated with children's fare, but I think adults are really the intended audience.
I was lucky enough to catch "The Wrong Trousers" on PBS (public television) along with a documentary on claymation film-making and the making of the short many years ago (it feels like 10 but it must not have been since it was only released in '93). I loved it and I still think its the best of the three, but it has always been a struggle to convince fellow adults to even watch it. Almost everyone that gave it a chance loved it, however.
Slashdot Mirror
`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
I must be missing something, because it seems to me that its an invasion of privacy either way. Just because it happens all the time and many people haven't protected themselves against, and many don't even know that they need to protect themselves against it, doesn't make it OK. Somebody straighten me out about how this is different.
Sleep? You had sleep? Why, when we were reviewing the original Star Wars back in the day, we didn't have any sleep at all. You see, back then we used to wear an onion on our belt. That was the style. And we would [ramble filter: rambling post clipped]
Didn't see any mention of it here, but apple has splashed it on their homepage and has added marketroid/tech-specs pages.
Actually, I need a polo (a.k.a. "golf shirt") so I can wear it to work.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure that a first class in operating system concepts really benefits all that much from using real (production) code instead of pseudo-code [ducks]. Sure, you should be introduced to it sometime, but in a first class you want to understand the concepts and I think you could get bogged down in confusing and irrelevant details.
Disclaimer: I am not a systems programmer and my University was very math/theory oriented (which I think is a good thing). In addition, I think Microsoft's business practices are despicable.
OK, you can flame me now.
You're welcome. *rimshot*
If I leave my keys in the car while I run in the Kwik-E-Mart, it may be stupid but it doesn't make it OK to steal my car.
While I agree with the idea that people should be more careful with their personal information, that's not the point. All the blame should be dumped in one place - unscrupulous (sp?) companies playing free and loose with privacy. Stupid consumers don't get them off the hook. I ought not leave my keys in the car, but the blame is still squarely on the car theif.
I don't know if "asymptoting" is a word or not, but it sounds vaguely illegal.
Do you drink your whiskey on emacs or... no...
Is this process GPLed or BSD... no...
Oh my god, I have nothing interesting to say.
My father programmed in assembly on PDP-11's years ago. He still says that that stuff I do isn't programming, it's writin' novels.
You may not want to buy a Mac and your reasons may be valid, but the fact that you can do the same things with a PC that you can with a Mac is not a reason to buy one over the other, just as the fact that I can do anything with assembly that I can with *insert favorite language* is not a reason to migrate all your company's apps to assembly.
You can do everything in assembly language that you can do in your favorite high-level language, too.
While I agree in principle that software should be less bug ridden, I have to disagree with the point you are making above. In my experience, rarely do "crashing software" stories have a relation to people loosing their life. And coversely (contrapositively? I don't know), software which is used in applications where their failure causes almost assured death are not using operating systems prone to the "blue screen of death". Contrast that with the examples used in the engineering analogies. Bridges collapsing cause death. Buildings collapsing cause death. MS Outlook freezing up for the umpteenth time is annoying and unprofessional, but does not normally cause death.
In short... good point, bad analogy.
Is that the guy from "The Usual Suspects"? If so, I'm switching over too. That guy is scary.
Step (1). Sign up for passport.
Step (2). Reboot.
No further problems have been reported after using this technique. Microsoft credits it's new security initiative for the speed and efficacy of this fix, and reminds you to sign up for passport.
Republicans and the right assume that everyone who disagrees with them is simplistic, but that's as simplistic as most of their theories.
Sorry to offend the Republicans out there who don't make pompus statements like that, but I thought saying it this way was more effective. Not all Republicans are idiots, just as not all Democrats are idiots. As to your other points:
One does not have to believe that the government runs the economy to believe that monopolies can be dangerous.
The DOJ decided not to pursue a breakup nor to proceed on the tying count prior to September 11th.
I just know there's a kiwi out there itching to make a hybrid of this case and this jet-powered beer cooler. There should be plenty of room for that monster in the shed or garage.
Sounds to me like you are saying anyone who disagrees with the settlement wants destruction or is a zealot, and therefore doesn't count. You're entitled to your opinion. Not a very persuasive argument, though. Your complaints vs. complements argument might have more merit, but this paragraph only serves to lessen its impact.
Many companies, not just the ones you list there, have a vested interest all right. The have a vested interest in not being further harmed by the illegal actions of a monopoly. There is no issue of whether the actions were illegal - a federal appeals court, en banc, unanimously upheld the fact that their actions were illegal.
Lets say I am held up at gunpoint and the criminal is captured and convicted. Then there is a proposed settlement before sentencing. The criminal agrees not to rob again. The government allows him to go free and keep his gun. I have a vested interest in not allowing the settlement to go through. There is nothing strange about me wanting to be involved.
I apologize if the links don't work. They may be tied to my amazon.com login in some way.
Rueters is reporting that several residents of the trailer park in the area where the storms are expected to collide are ignoring warnings from the Jovian authorities. "I rode out the storm in aught-5 and I'm riding it out again. Those weather reporters are never right anyway." said one area resident. "Even that Shoefixer-Levi's comet thing was just a ploy to get me to leave my house. I've gone to the hypermarket and stocked up on bread, milk, water, and eggs. What do I have to worry about?..."
What a waste it is to lose one's joke.
I realize that its not a typo. I was just thinking that (1*damages) is probably pretty big so (3*damages) would be a pretty nice sum. Microsoft probably has (damages^3) tucked away, though.
Damn, you submitted faster than I did. Anyway, here's the press release. I like the part about treble damages.
I was lucky enough to catch "The Wrong Trousers" on PBS (public television) along with a documentary on claymation film-making and the making of the short many years ago (it feels like 10 but it must not have been since it was only released in '93). I loved it and I still think its the best of the three, but it has always been a struggle to convince fellow adults to even watch it. Almost everyone that gave it a chance loved it, however.