The other providers were not mentioned in the court order and so they decide not to implement the block unless ordered by court...
Well, at least they will way to see how the appeal works out before they start blocking anything. There's a fair change this ruling is reversed in the appeal in which case implementing a block right now is simply a waste of time for the other providers. But if the order sticks in the appeal I expect other providers to implement the block as well. If they don't they will be sued and loose as well, there's no point in going to court when there is clear jurisprudence.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other though. Maybe somewhat Minority Report-ish, but what if he actually WAS planning on trying to make a bomb? Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
You watch him, to prevent whatever crime he might be planning. Why, because you care so much about society that you rather let a criminal go free than punish an innocent man. Innocent util *proven* guilty, that should be the basis of the law. And frankly, I'd rather risk the occasional terrorist attack, they are few and far between (and usually fail), then risk regularly punishing innocent people. If the latter starts happening there will be far more victims...
Having said that, I can live with cases where someone is clearly guilty even though he hasn't done anything yet. Attempted murder is generally considered a crime as well, even when nobody got hurt in the attempt. But it's a tricky business, so it better be really clear and really guilty. As far as I can see this case really doesn't get close to that.
No, they generally don't go as planned, which is why having a countdown clock helps. "Sorry to interrupt you dad, but the clock says...". And if thing get delayed too much you have an excuse to do the kiss anyway, regardless of everything else:-)
If you're willing to spend money on adding actual electronics a countdown clock would be cool. Preferably counting down to the exact time you're going to kiss the bride. That way you're making sure the ceremony is strictly time limited as well.
Let me guess, you live in the USA? Not every turbocharger is the same. Yeah, a rally spec high-pressure turbo will lag (although still far less then 5 seconds), but modern properly build turbocharged engine manage to avoid turbo-lag just fine. This has been the case for about ten years now.
The only way your GTI gets 31 mpg is if the stoplight in question is at the top of the mountain and you coast the rest of the way down. Sheesh!
When driven properly I could do 33 mpg in a Peugeot 205 GTI from 1987(!). Surely a modern car should be able to do better. Top Gear did a nice demonstration of that using a Prius and a BMW M3. How you drive a car makes more difference then anything else. (And of course you don't own a fast car do drive it economically...)
True, I attended a demo event when the first Prius was launched, when Hybrid was all brand new and the where pretty upfront about the mileage number then. But indeed, they aren't allowed to publish different numbers. There is an other benefit of hybrids though, besides the mileage the get they do tend to run cleaner compared to normal cars. So even if the mileage is the same there should be benefit to the environment (although there still reason to doubt if all the benefits actually offset the 'cost' of battery production).
That's the point really, I'm fine with Apple controlling what does and does not go into their appstore. There is actual value in having a 'trusted' source of applications, no problem there. The issue starts when Apple starts controlling what I can and cannot run on my phone. Choosing to run only 'official' apps on your device is a valid choice (one I regularly make with Debian installations), but it should by a choice which is made by the owner of the device, not the manufacturer.
They where, but they where only the people who enabled general purpose computing, not the ones who made it happen. Computers are what they are today because people payed money for them so they could use them for their own non-geek purpose.
In the Netherlands red-light camera's are often combined with speed camera's. This makes speeding pressing the throttle instead of the brakes when the light turns yellow (or orange over here) a really bad idea. I'm not sure how things are in the US, but I guess drivers won't be that different. If you keep the yellow long enough but add a speed camera people will loose the habit of rushing to a yellow light pretty quickly.
So far it only works for Apple on the iPhone, not on their desktop systems. I guess it might work for consumers, but not for bussiness systems. The MSDN article already mentions that side loading is available for enterprises and developers. So there will at least be a professional edition which allows bypassing the store, which makes it likely a way to do so on the consumer edition will surface pretty quickly.
Buying a phone with a signed kernel is a way for you to be sure the kernel running on it is approved, tested and malware free (according to whoever signed it). Buying a phone which will only run a signed kernel is a reason to return it. It's not the signing which is the issue.
18 weeks for merely upsetting someone is excessive, particularly for a first conviction.
According to the article in the Guardian was cautioned for something similar before. So it's like he did get his fair warning, so he should have known.
And offending people just for the sake off the offending (which was *clearly* the case here) should not be included in freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not a goal in itself, although lots of people seem to have lost the bigger picture there. Freedom of expression exists because it is required to keep a society balanced, this kind of 'expression' doesn't really help towards that goal.
Security isn't the issue most of the time. It's about proof of transmission, for your fax call a billing record is created which you can use to prove you actually send 'something' which arrived on the other side. When dealing with contracts the other party at least can't claim they never received anything (although you can still argue about the contents). That makes a big difference, with email the other party could simply delete the mail and claim they never heard anything from you at all.
I'm kind of perplexed by the *.*.com certificate, is there any use in having such a cert? Realistically there is no (legitimate) reason for such a certificate to exist. Is there any software around that will actually accept certificates which are that broad? I mean, if there ever is a clear giveaway for a MITM attack it would be a certificate like that.
Ok, I admit, I was much easier to impress with "computer stuff" than the kids these days. "Animations" that basically consisted of lines of text being added and the screen scrolling to "animate" it was already something. But the true fascination was that I could dictate what this machine should do. Not just within the confinements of some program that allowed me to, say, steer a figure or move a cursor, but full control over the box in front of me. I told it what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
That's the crucial part, and that still true today. The first step is to take the 'magic' out of it and show those kids it is actually something you could understand and control. I think I might actually start by with taking a computer apart a reassembling it. Those kids might be way more familiar with computer compared to us at the same age, but I bet most of them have never seen the inside a PC and believe you will surely break is if you even try to open the case. Showing then it's just parts, each with their own function will trigger at least some of them.
And don't forget to encourage them to try the same at home *grin*
Well, I'm not going to defend Real-Player, but a Dutch new article about the issue suggests Real initially assumed the site was actively distributing the software. They came back on that in court, so now there is just linking left. It makes them look kind of stupid, complaining about illegal software but not being able to determine where the actual download is from.
My gut feeling is Real will loose this (and they should), and in the Netherlands this means REAL will most likely have to cough up the the legal fees for this bloke.
Samsung did loose the photo patent, but only because the gesture was *exactly* identical. I took a look at the ruling (available online for those who can read Dutch). The judge basically narrowed the patent beyond what Apple claimed it covers. This is why the phone are infringing and the tablets are not, even though Apple claimed they are infringing as well. Because of the narrow interpretation it's trivial to avoid violation of the patent. So even there it's hardly a win for Apple, since it's now documented and widely published how you avoid this patent.
I also liked the reasoning for dropping the design class. Basically the judge agreed with Samsung that the similarities are functionality related, not strict design choices, e.g. you want a plate of glass wider than the screen to avoid an edge which will smudge when using the tablet, you want small bezels to maximize screen size and rounded corners because sharp corners are unpleasant and might cause wear on clothing etc. Once those things where eliminated from the model design Apple was basically left with a round button below the screen as an unique feature (on the front of the tablet) which is square on the Samsung devices. And the back of the devices isn't similar enough (by far) to violate a model registration. This is also a big loss for Apple because basically sticking a logo on the back and avoiding a round button below the screen is now officially[1] enough to make sure your tablet doesn't look like an iPad.
[1] This is ruling is only a preliminary injunction, a full case might still follow and the judges in Germany might rule differently. And of course, IANAL.
I've been thinking the same, however Apple does have a advantages over android vendors and others. The obvious one is their huge brand recognition and a few verdor lock-in tricks their dock connector. But mostly they have a pricing advantage, they can put lots of pressure on their suppliers, they have the advantage of scale while the android market is split between several players. But more importantly, they can afford to take a lower margin on the iPad sales because all those iPad's out there will generate revenue through iTunes and the app store. The android vendors will have to make a high enough margin on the sale of the hardware, because after that it won't be generating any revenue anymore. So I guess it might actually not be so easy to compete with the iPad on price without drastically compromising the hardware.
But who knows, if somebody does pull it off I'd be first in line.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously they still won't be able to get actors as talented as Shia LaBeouf to play the roles...
Well, in a world without huge blockbusters he's likely to be looking for a job :)
The other providers were not mentioned in the court order and so they decide not to implement the block unless ordered by court...
Well, at least they will way to see how the appeal works out before they start blocking anything. There's a fair change this ruling is reversed in the appeal in which case implementing a block right now is simply a waste of time for the other providers. But if the order sticks in the appeal I expect other providers to implement the block as well. If they don't they will be sued and loose as well, there's no point in going to court when there is clear jurisprudence.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other though. Maybe somewhat Minority Report-ish, but what if he actually WAS planning on trying to make a bomb? Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
You watch him, to prevent whatever crime he might be planning. Why, because you care so much about society that you rather let a criminal go free than punish an innocent man. Innocent util *proven* guilty, that should be the basis of the law. And frankly, I'd rather risk the occasional terrorist attack, they are few and far between (and usually fail), then risk regularly punishing innocent people. If the latter starts happening there will be far more victims...
Having said that, I can live with cases where someone is clearly guilty even though he hasn't done anything yet. Attempted murder is generally considered a crime as well, even when nobody got hurt in the attempt. But it's a tricky business, so it better be really clear and really guilty. As far as I can see this case really doesn't get close to that.
No, they generally don't go as planned, which is why having a countdown clock helps. "Sorry to interrupt you dad, but the clock says...". And if thing get delayed too much you have an excuse to do the kiss anyway, regardless of everything else :-)
If you're willing to spend money on adding actual electronics a countdown clock would be cool. Preferably counting down to the exact time you're going to kiss the bride. That way you're making sure the ceremony is strictly time limited as well.
Let me guess, you live in the USA? Not every turbocharger is the same. Yeah, a rally spec high-pressure turbo will lag (although still far less then 5 seconds), but modern properly build turbocharged engine manage to avoid turbo-lag just fine. This has been the case for about ten years now.
Open Source is very much about copyright what gives its the strong protection. GPL wouldn't exist without strong copyright.
True, because it wouldn't be needed without strong copyright...
True, but you do need hills to benefit from that. I doubt building extra hills will actually help the environment ;)
The only way your GTI gets 31 mpg is if the stoplight in question is at the top of the mountain and you coast the rest of the way down. Sheesh!
When driven properly I could do 33 mpg in a Peugeot 205 GTI from 1987(!). Surely a modern car should be able to do better. Top Gear did a nice demonstration of that using a Prius and a BMW M3. How you drive a car makes more difference then anything else. (And of course you don't own a fast car do drive it economically...)
True, I attended a demo event when the first Prius was launched, when Hybrid was all brand new and the where pretty upfront about the mileage number then. But indeed, they aren't allowed to publish different numbers. There is an other benefit of hybrids though, besides the mileage the get they do tend to run cleaner compared to normal cars. So even if the mileage is the same there should be benefit to the environment (although there still reason to doubt if all the benefits actually offset the 'cost' of battery production).
That's the point really, I'm fine with Apple controlling what does and does not go into their appstore. There is actual value in having a 'trusted' source of applications, no problem there. The issue starts when Apple starts controlling what I can and cannot run on my phone. Choosing to run only 'official' apps on your device is a valid choice (one I regularly make with Debian installations), but it should by a choice which is made by the owner of the device, not the manufacturer.
They where, but they where only the people who enabled general purpose computing, not the ones who made it happen. Computers are what they are today because people payed money for them so they could use them for their own non-geek purpose.
In the Netherlands red-light camera's are often combined with speed camera's. This makes speeding pressing the throttle instead of the brakes when the light turns yellow (or orange over here) a really bad idea. I'm not sure how things are in the US, but I guess drivers won't be that different. If you keep the yellow long enough but add a speed camera people will loose the habit of rushing to a yellow light pretty quickly.
So far it only works for Apple on the iPhone, not on their desktop systems. I guess it might work for consumers, but not for bussiness systems. The MSDN article already mentions that side loading is available for enterprises and developers. So there will at least be a professional edition which allows bypassing the store, which makes it likely a way to do so on the consumer edition will surface pretty quickly.
Buying a phone with a signed kernel is a way for you to be sure the kernel running on it is approved, tested and malware free (according to whoever signed it). Buying a phone which will only run a signed kernel is a reason to return it. It's not the signing which is the issue.
Well in that case, fuck you.
18 weeks for merely upsetting someone is excessive, particularly for a first conviction.
According to the article in the Guardian was cautioned for something similar before. So it's like he did get his fair warning, so he should have known.
And offending people just for the sake off the offending (which was *clearly* the case here) should not be included in freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not a goal in itself, although lots of people seem to have lost the bigger picture there. Freedom of expression exists because it is required to keep a society balanced, this kind of 'expression' doesn't really help towards that goal.
Security isn't the issue most of the time. It's about proof of transmission, for your fax call a billing record is created which you can use to prove you actually send 'something' which arrived on the other side. When dealing with contracts the other party at least can't claim they never received anything (although you can still argue about the contents). That makes a big difference, with email the other party could simply delete the mail and claim they never heard anything from you at all.
I'm kind of perplexed by the *.*.com certificate, is there any use in having such a cert? Realistically there is no (legitimate) reason for such a certificate to exist. Is there any software around that will actually accept certificates which are that broad? I mean, if there ever is a clear giveaway for a MITM attack it would be a certificate like that.
And according to TrendMicro 'someone' make rather heavy use of the diginotar certificates on ~40 different networks in Iran: http://blog.trendmicro.com/diginotar-iranians-the-real-target
Ok, I admit, I was much easier to impress with "computer stuff" than the kids these days. "Animations" that basically consisted of lines of text being added and the screen scrolling to "animate" it was already something. But the true fascination was that I could dictate what this machine should do. Not just within the confinements of some program that allowed me to, say, steer a figure or move a cursor, but full control over the box in front of me. I told it what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
That's the crucial part, and that still true today. The first step is to take the 'magic' out of it and show those kids it is actually something you could understand and control. I think I might actually start by with taking a computer apart a reassembling it. Those kids might be way more familiar with computer compared to us at the same age, but I bet most of them have never seen the inside a PC and believe you will surely break is if you even try to open the case. Showing then it's just parts, each with their own function will trigger at least some of them.
And don't forget to encourage them to try the same at home *grin*
Well, I'm not going to defend Real-Player, but a Dutch new article about the issue suggests Real initially assumed the site was actively distributing the software. They came back on that in court, so now there is just linking left. It makes them look kind of stupid, complaining about illegal software but not being able to determine where the actual download is from.
My gut feeling is Real will loose this (and they should), and in the Netherlands this means REAL will most likely have to cough up the the legal fees for this bloke.
Samsung did loose the photo patent, but only because the gesture was *exactly* identical. I took a look at the ruling (available online for those who can read Dutch). The judge basically narrowed the patent beyond what Apple claimed it covers. This is why the phone are infringing and the tablets are not, even though Apple claimed they are infringing as well. Because of the narrow interpretation it's trivial to avoid violation of the patent. So even there it's hardly a win for Apple, since it's now documented and widely published how you avoid this patent.
I also liked the reasoning for dropping the design class. Basically the judge agreed with Samsung that the similarities are functionality related, not strict design choices, e.g. you want a plate of glass wider than the screen to avoid an edge which will smudge when using the tablet, you want small bezels to maximize screen size and rounded corners because sharp corners are unpleasant and might cause wear on clothing etc. Once those things where eliminated from the model design Apple was basically left with a round button below the screen as an unique feature (on the front of the tablet) which is square on the Samsung devices. And the back of the devices isn't similar enough (by far) to violate a model registration. This is also a big loss for Apple because basically sticking a logo on the back and avoiding a round button below the screen is now officially[1] enough to make sure your tablet doesn't look like an iPad.
[1] This is ruling is only a preliminary injunction, a full case might still follow and the judges in Germany might rule differently. And of course, IANAL.
I've been thinking the same, however Apple does have a advantages over android vendors and others. The obvious one is their huge brand recognition and a few verdor lock-in tricks their dock connector. But mostly they have a pricing advantage, they can put lots of pressure on their suppliers, they have the advantage of scale while the android market is split between several players. But more importantly, they can afford to take a lower margin on the iPad sales because all those iPad's out there will generate revenue through iTunes and the app store. The android vendors will have to make a high enough margin on the sale of the hardware, because after that it won't be generating any revenue anymore. So I guess it might actually not be so easy to compete with the iPad on price without drastically compromising the hardware.
But who knows, if somebody does pull it off I'd be first in line.
so, it's probably information that's irrelevant to the FOIA request.
Could well be. But I can't help but wander what kind of request would be required to be able to check that.