Software that's suppressed with the DMCA won't "be gone in a few days." It'll just be downloadable on P2P networks with all the other suppressed software like DeCSS, bnetd, etc.
Sure, it's fine for use in internal communications. But as we've seen, internal communications don't always stay internal. Who can deny that it would have been better for that.sig to have not been used?
I'm sure some low level brokerage employees would find it amusing to make fun of small investors at the bottom of their internal email messages. Do you think that would be tolerated? If it were, and the messages were leaked, do you think that Eliot Spitzer wouldn't seize upon that in the press?
OK, I know it's not consistent with professional courtesy for a fellow troll to bite, but Expose is nothing like Tile/Cascade in Windows 3.x and later. Have a look here to see what it actually does.
Patience, though; it'll be on Longhorn, or maybe even the $129 "Windows XP Second Edition."
The Do Not Call list was the work of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FCC would have only been involved in its enforcement as a temporary workaround to the erroneous rulings of a couple of federal judges.
Thanks to Adobe's jackbooted treatment of Sklyarov, I've spoken at conferences to people who would have bought Distiller and taught them how to create PDFs with Ghostscript and Ghostview.
True--I just don't like hearing the variety of choices in PC hardware and software configurations being blamed for crappy ports of Mac software to the Windows platform. I don't consider iTunes a crappy port:).
I suspect that the decryption keys for the AAC files are cached on the iPod, not that the DRM is being ignored. While I haven't been interested (or skilled) enough to verify this, it appears that once songs are on an iPod, it's perpetually "authorized," meaning that they keys stay on board. The authorization/deauthorization of individual machines probably also involves caching of keys. I can play DRMd AAC files on an authorized computer when it is disconnected from the Internet, but I don't know if it will zeroize its keys after a period of time.
Poor QA effort? Do you realize how many permutations of machines there are running Windows XP and 2000?
That doesn't seem to stop Adobe, Metroworks, and others from releasing quality software across platforms. While I'm sure it's nice having three or four base, proprietary hardware platforms to which to code, it doesn't reflect reality in the Wintel space.
When did Apple start using its Monopolistic power to lock people into a particular technology?
How about with OSX? Granted it's a small monopoly, but only Apple makes the Mac. (Tired analogies about only Toyota making Camrys to/dev/null--Toyota doesn't make a Camry that can't use the gasoline in a Chevy.)
Since you are some kind of crazy MS zealot, you were blinded by the fact that I didn't even say it was OK for Apple to do what they did. Instead, you have an unhealthy protective reflex for your MS leaders.
Since you're some kind of Jobs worshipping, black turtleneck wearing, smug nutcase Mac fanatic (see how productive name calling is?), you didn't get that it's ironic for the usual legion of faithful Apple apologists to be blind to the fact that Apple is doing exactly the same thing that Microsoft would be virtually tarred and feathered here for.
That said, I haven't seen where it says that the AAC format will be kept secret. It looks to me like AAC is just as proprietary as any other MPEG format. Also consider that it's a major feat to store every song in multiple formats, just so that windows people will be happy, especially when AAC has been shown to be of a superior quality.
Both MPEG layer 3 and AAC are standards that are open (for a fee). What's not open, and not likely to be open, given that analysts have reported that Apple's intent is to leverage iTunes is to sell iPods, is the DRM associated with AAC. Why would Apple, unless legally compelled, license its proprietary DRM extensions to AAC to Creative or the like and damage its (yes, it is) lockin?
Actually, MS does have a point--the AAC format won't play on any portable device but an iPod. If that isn't vendor lockin, I don't know what it is. Of course, since it's Apple doing it, it must be OK . . .
Of course... but we are talking something very important here: money.
Right! And a paper receipt would facilitate vote buying, by allowing the purchaser to verify the voter voted "appropriately." There should be a paper ballot, but it should be dropped into the ballot box at the poll.
Concur. I'm especially horrified by the potential for people who aren't willing to move from their couches to be able to cast ballots without having done so.
I agree that there were irregularities in Florida, but disagree with this statement:
. . . and also that voter registration seems to introduce quite a bias in who is eligible to vote.
Voter registration, per se, does not introduce any bias (abuses like erroneous felon lists in Florida notwithstanding). It does cause a self-selection--that is, those who vote are those willing to take the time to register. This is why I oppose laws like "Motor Voter" and other efforts to make registration automatic. I also vehemently oppose any effort to allow voting from home, except for the physically disabled or other situations in which absentee ballots are currently allowed. If one can't be bothered to register and come to the polls, I don't want that person helping run the country.
If people are put off by putting in a little effort, it's just fine with me that they don't vote. People who are willing to put forth effort will decide elections, and everyone will benefit.
Taking that a step further, it seems unreasonable to me that public entities, or entities funded substantially through tax revenue and/or donations should be able to hold any intellectual "property."
By fighting with a student obviously seeking publicity, they generate positive publicity for the student and negative publicity for UCSD. The student looks like David fighting the jackbooted UC System Goliath. Nice going, UCSD, and way to foster open and honest communication in the academy.
here are FAR more apps on the PC that crash under XP, just don't work, or are just poorly written.
Given that there are just plain orders of magnitude more applications for PCs than for Macs, that's not surprising. It's not, however, a general indictment of the relative quality of Windows XP to Mac OS. And at least MS doesn't charge $129 for patches.
Please recall that DMCA allegation are made under the onus of perjury.
The coporate enforcement agents^W^W^W copyright lawyers at the FBI argue that only the statement that the sender represents the copyright holder is under penalty of perjury.
This is of course, bullshit, but it also means we won't see any of these corporate jackbooted thugs justifiably tried for perjury.
Slashdot Mirror
Software that's suppressed with the DMCA won't "be gone in a few days." It'll just be downloadable on P2P networks with all the other suppressed software like DeCSS, bnetd, etc.
I'm sure some low level brokerage employees would find it amusing to make fun of small investors at the bottom of their internal email messages. Do you think that would be tolerated? If it were, and the messages were leaked, do you think that Eliot Spitzer wouldn't seize upon that in the press?
When the "other people" are representatives of the vendor, I think that's pretty legitimate.
Patience, though; it'll be on Longhorn, or maybe even the $129 "Windows XP Second Edition."
The Do Not Call list was the work of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FCC would have only been involved in its enforcement as a temporary workaround to the erroneous rulings of a couple of federal judges.
Probation? They ought to give him a medal.
Thanks to Adobe's jackbooted treatment of Sklyarov, I've spoken at conferences to people who would have bought Distiller and taught them how to create PDFs with Ghostscript and Ghostview.
Good idea--but in a dispute situation, there would have to be verification that the barcodes being counted matched the human readable text.
True--I just don't like hearing the variety of choices in PC hardware and software configurations being blamed for crappy ports of Mac software to the Windows platform. I don't consider iTunes a crappy port :).
I suspect that the decryption keys for the AAC files are cached on the iPod, not that the DRM is being ignored. While I haven't been interested (or skilled) enough to verify this, it appears that once songs are on an iPod, it's perpetually "authorized," meaning that they keys stay on board. The authorization/deauthorization of individual machines probably also involves caching of keys. I can play DRMd AAC files on an authorized computer when it is disconnected from the Internet, but I don't know if it will zeroize its keys after a period of time.
That doesn't seem to stop Adobe, Metroworks, and others from releasing quality software across platforms. While I'm sure it's nice having three or four base, proprietary hardware platforms to which to code, it doesn't reflect reality in the Wintel space.
How about with OSX? Granted it's a small monopoly, but only Apple makes the Mac. (Tired analogies about only Toyota making Camrys to /dev/null--Toyota doesn't make a Camry that can't use the gasoline in a Chevy.)
Since you are some kind of crazy MS zealot, you were blinded by the fact that I didn't even say it was OK for Apple to do what they did. Instead, you have an unhealthy protective reflex for your MS leaders.
Since you're some kind of Jobs worshipping, black turtleneck wearing, smug nutcase Mac fanatic (see how productive name calling is?), you didn't get that it's ironic for the usual legion of faithful Apple apologists to be blind to the fact that Apple is doing exactly the same thing that Microsoft would be virtually tarred and feathered here for.
That said, I haven't seen where it says that the AAC format will be kept secret. It looks to me like AAC is just as proprietary as any other MPEG format. Also consider that it's a major feat to store every song in multiple formats, just so that windows people will be happy, especially when AAC has been shown to be of a superior quality.
Both MPEG layer 3 and AAC are standards that are open (for a fee). What's not open, and not likely to be open, given that analysts have reported that Apple's intent is to leverage iTunes is to sell iPods, is the DRM associated with AAC. Why would Apple, unless legally compelled, license its proprietary DRM extensions to AAC to Creative or the like and damage its (yes, it is) lockin?
Actually, MS does have a point--the AAC format won't play on any portable device but an iPod. If that isn't vendor lockin, I don't know what it is. Of course, since it's Apple doing it, it must be OK . . .
Right! And a paper receipt would facilitate vote buying, by allowing the purchaser to verify the voter voted "appropriately." There should be a paper ballot, but it should be dropped into the ballot box at the poll.
Concur. I'm especially horrified by the potential for people who aren't willing to move from their couches to be able to cast ballots without having done so.
If people are put off by putting in a little effort, it's just fine with me that they don't vote. People who are willing to put forth effort will decide elections, and everyone will benefit.
Taking that a step further, it seems unreasonable to me that public entities, or entities funded substantially through tax revenue and/or donations should be able to hold any intellectual "property."
By fighting with a student obviously seeking publicity, they generate positive publicity for the student and negative publicity for UCSD. The student looks like David fighting the jackbooted UC System Goliath. Nice going, UCSD, and way to foster open and honest communication in the academy.
Fair enough--transferring in the last year would indeed be a bad move.
Given that there are just plain orders of magnitude more applications for PCs than for Macs, that's not surprising. It's not, however, a general indictment of the relative quality of Windows XP to Mac OS. And at least MS doesn't charge $129 for patches.
Have you considered transferring to a school in which IT isn't run by network Nazis?
The fact that they tried it is scary, and the fact sacrificed some underling when the press got too hot for them doesn't make it any less so.
The coporate enforcement agents^W^W^W copyright lawyers at the FBI argue that only the statement that the sender represents the copyright holder is under penalty of perjury.
This is of course, bullshit, but it also means we won't see any of these corporate jackbooted thugs justifiably tried for perjury.
Soution: Regulate VOIP. Make VOIP overseas a criminal offense (homeland security and all that). I, of course, don't advocate either scenario.