It is true but it is publically visually harder to spot also. There are people making money on car rental business. So, how do you publically visually tell the difference between own/rent.
Here is one better: Owning an Android phone with CFW is the number one way to guess if you are more intelligent or not.
Not saying that everyone should or shouldn't give feedback per the term they agree with. But imagine certain group of people like journalists/reviewers, and MS know about them using beta products to gain insight/benchmark and writing review. Obviously you don't want MS to start gaming the system knowing which beta copy they are using and tweak the setting that would work well for particular system/task, but not working well in real life. So, yes, there are certain exception that I would rather have MS not knowing everything, even if those people accept the terms.
Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.
Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.
I didn't say suing Apple for bundling Google search in the iOS but rather for bundling Apple services into iOS.
Antitrust case isn't about cost, but about abusing of monopoly power. In the US, it's okay to have monopoly power, but it's not okay to abuse it. I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win. I believe if Apple were to have iOS unbundle with other Apple services, or even possible to put on devices made by other manufacturers, wouldn't those phone be cheaper? A hell lots cheaper?
I mean, I think the plaintiff trying to sue Google Android but paint the case as suing Android. At best, the plaintiff could sue the handset maker. We know custom ROMS exist back then. It's not like Google forbid anyone to make an android handset w/o putting any Google services. Amazon did it, as well as B&N. Failed aside, they were phones & tablets that used Android w/o any of the build in Google services and they could have use other search engine as default. The successful market of the Android phones & tablets are because they are bundle with Google services(and that require Google search engine as default per the contract), not because they were impossible to un-bundle Google services and Android. I don't think Google were telling all the phone manufacturers that they cannot make product based on AOSP and not include any of the Google services. It may be possible that HTC and Samsung are under a (very) long term contract that they won't make any Android based product w/o Google services, hence Samsung start making a Tizen. But I think it's more likely that Samsung was thinking of a way to be less dependent on Google. But then neither Samsung nor HTC have a clear monopoly in smartphone market or even android smartphone market. Samsung may have a hugh lead in android smartphone market but it still not like 80-90% Windows monopoly in the PC industry. Even if they were to sue the handset maker, I think both the Galaxy S3 and EVO 3D does have bootloader unlock. Meaning they were possible to turn those specific phone whey both the plaintiffs own into custom ROM that doesn't use any of the Google services, less useful but possible. BTW, I still don't think a case like this is comparable to the inclusion/integration of IE in Windows.
Maybe next year ACM will blame Tesla and Samsung. In the US, female population is like 3-to-1 against male. Most of the tech company ACM pointed out are US tech companies, I'm confuse why would any group thinks tech companies should give special privilege or attention to the majority of the 75% population that have no interest in this field. When I was in high school, I don't see any one outside of my family give a crap about what field I interested in. And when I was in high school, I think majority of the male students only interest in female students and vice-versa. Even clubs like jeopardy or math and science were mostly comprised of male students like 9-to-1 if that club even had a female members. I don't think it was because they had any prejudice against female students, I was sure that they would welcome any female student to join the club. What I saw was many of the female students spent their lunch and after school hours at the gym watching basketball players instead. Not sure if they are the g/f of those players, fans or would be. But most of them didn't even care about basketball to begin with. There weren't even google or facebook back then. Most of those tech employees would be around my age (25-40). Suddenly now people think it's a problem and them to be blame? For the record I'm not working for any of those named companies. I played basketball and did some body building back in the junior high, then got bore and quit before high school. Did some programming in HS, but realized I didn't want that type of job. It would be fun doing that once in a while, but not spending 8-10 hours a day at the desk coding 6 days a week. Things that would become some what popular, I did that at least 3-5 years ahead. And I realized those weren't for me. What concerned me is that just about any dependent study groups, government or journalist/bloggers(can't very tell them apart any more), they weren't blaming parents. Why is that? Parents are the most influential people for any male and female since their birth. And it's their job to give their kids guidance. Students spend maybe 6-7 hours a day at school. And more at home, if they spend less at home that's the parents fault also. Yet, the tech industry is to blame?
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I don't see why does it have to be that way. While not saying what my opinion is, as I don't see how that's matter whether what he is to me. What matter is what he did? I think it's kinda pointless what to label him. In fact, even if he is being labeled both, as I see that they can be mutually inclusive, we wouldn't have been all pissed off at the NSA if not for what he did. Yes, even people who call him traitor can still pissed at NSA, and they all wouldn't say so if not for what Snowden leaked. While many want to argue that what NSA did was with in the power granted by Patriot Act. But as I recalled, there were many who weren't happy when we first heard of the Patriot Act either. Regardless of what it was, the leak is definitely in a good timing. As many now know that there need to be a change and in favor for the change toward more privacy and the time for the Patriot Act to be review is soon. It could be worse if the leak were to come out much later, say after Patriot Act get a permanant stamp.
This doesn't sound like vulnerability on the encryption at all but rather Android allow modification of routing table instead. This means any existing encryption stay in tact, just rather the data is going to be re-routed out of the VPN tunnel.
Let me make it clear, I'm not defending anyone here. The question I have to raise is, why giving one guy too much control in the first place? Let's look at what if he got hit by a car and die instead? So, is the lawyer or the judge gonna force the password out of him? What if you were that admin and were using a USB keyboard password like ubikey, then reset/format that key after you got fired? This is legitimate. Also, we should look at password seperately from the network infrastructure. The employer should be looking at a way to get infrastructure back not the password. Eg: the judge have force him to create another admin account and give that to the employer instead of having to reveal his own password.
That's depend of the point of view on who is sitting on the bench judging. Say certain type of cartoon/animation maybe OK in Japan but not in the US. I don't even play something like GTA and I agree with you that posting a video game shouldn't be consider a death threat, but then again we are suppose to obey the law written by people who don't understand anything they written about. In the worse case they have some type of incentive to write the law in a certain way. The way I look at this issue why the punishment doesn't fit the crime or why certain kids have to be single out for certain crime why other don't? So, it's not okay to to express yourself in a certain way even if it may violate the freedom of speech but nobody get hurt, but it's okay to beat the crap of other? If he get charged with interference of school operation, then I have to wonder if beating up classmate doesn't? Why doesn't the students who bullied other students get charge with this crime also? Or is the bulling behavior considered normal school operation?
I'm an amatuer photographer, how can I contact those ISP to watch for my copyrighted photos? What about other hundred thousand other artists whose name you never heard of, are the ISP gonna protect them too? Or is it just that our privacy isn't worth as much as those big name entertainment company greedy profit?
From watching the movie, didn't the terrorists flown first class? What kind of terrorists have the money for first class seat to get close to the cockpit but can't afford extra $100? Don't get me wrong, I understand that there would be a background check prior to the TSA theatre, but we are not talking about terrorists that board the airplane to streal some US top secret like in a spy movie here. We are talking about terrorists on a suicide mission here. So, what kind of background screening are we talking about here? Hm, a terrorist that was on a suicide mission before and didn't die will get rejected? But if your background is clean, even if you are terrorist we give you a chance by paying $100?
I have read somewhere that they are going to let UN(United Nation) to control the top domain. How about have them fight the spammer as well? since the US law doesn't affect the spammers from other country.
I thought, in the US, it's innocent until proven guilty. Was I wrong? Obiously the case isn't ended yet, technically speaking, it's still legal, right?
Pentium 233 MMX can convert MPEG2>DivX in 113 minutes while converting to XviD only take 59 minutes. cut it down nearly by half. On the other hand P4 570 (3.8GHz) take 1:40 minutes for a DivX and 2:23 minutes for XviD. Almost double.
What is that mean? Is the CPU architechture very improving?
Well, I'm not very a programmer, just did some programming a while back. So I'm not talking about PPOV(Programming Point Of View). As you and others have pointed out that most hospital use Windows OS, so think of.NET as current money now and J2EE as future money. While it make sense to think about what you can do in the future, it make much more sense for a small company to grab the money that is there now and hoping to get more later.
http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/004408.h tml#more in section 2.g: "(1) In subsection (g), "intentionally induces" means intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability. "
So, bascially, harddrive, scanner, camera, camcorder, PVR, VCR, copier machine can be use for copyright infringment. For crying out louud, infact, even a pen and paper can be use for copyright infringment. What's next, all art classes cannot be taught in school, infact, you can't even study literature if you know how to write.
you must have not read the Microsoft download page for the service pack, "This installation package is intended for IT professionals and developers downloading and installing on multiple computers on a network." read my post for more detail http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117359&cid =9927056
why would it be illegal, to redistribute the XP SP2. according to microsoft download page, "This installation package is intended for IT professionals and developers downloading and installing on multiple computers on a network." if redistribution, either by copying, burning to a cd is consider illegal, then how the heck does Microsoft expect the admin to install them on the network? Of cause, it's distribution, or pure contradiction from microsoft. Gee, not to mention we are on a big giant "network". Also, I don't see MS require you to read EULA before downloading the ServicePack2, nor even mention it in the download page. Then if the person who download the SP2, but didn't install it, that mean he doesn't see the EULA nor accept it, and thus EULA cannot apply, and cannot prevent his/her to redistribute it either.
There have been some research going on, about using crystal like material to store data. Similar to the one seen in Superman & Minority Report movies. It does make sence to store data in 3D, because you can fit more data in 3D object than 2D object. If people think about it, today's harddrive have more than one platter, and in a way it's 3D. Moving away from 2D storage is a good idea. I personally think 3D removable storage base, will come in before 2014(10 years from now), possibly around 2010. But to say that DVD will be obsolete is pretty far-fetch, unless Gates wasn't including Blue-Ray as DVD Technology. The problem w/ non-disc base medium is, the possibly more expensive to produce, and that's the main reason Y the disc-base storage is going to stay.
Slashdot Mirror
It is true but it is publically visually harder to spot also. There are people making money on car rental business. So, how do you publically visually tell the difference between own/rent.
Here is one better:
Owning an Android phone with CFW is the number one way to guess if you are more intelligent or not.
Maybe the researcher should do that next
That must be the politician in you that is talking.
Not saying that everyone should or shouldn't give feedback per the term they agree with. But imagine certain group of people like journalists/reviewers, and MS know about them using beta products to gain insight/benchmark and writing review. Obviously you don't want MS to start gaming the system knowing which beta copy they are using and tweak the setting that would work well for particular system/task, but not working well in real life. So, yes, there are certain exception that I would rather have MS not knowing everything, even if those people accept the terms.
lol at gamemaker, software fix=upgrade your hardware.
I would be surprise if NSA does not have them on the servers somewhere.
Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.
Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.
I didn't say suing Apple for bundling Google search in the iOS but rather for bundling Apple services into iOS.
Antitrust case isn't about cost, but about abusing of monopoly power. In the US, it's okay to have monopoly power, but it's not okay to abuse it. I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win. I believe if Apple were to have iOS unbundle with other Apple services, or even possible to put on devices made by other manufacturers, wouldn't those phone be cheaper? A hell lots cheaper?
I mean, I think the plaintiff trying to sue Google Android but paint the case as suing Android. At best, the plaintiff could sue the handset maker. We know custom ROMS exist back then. It's not like Google forbid anyone to make an android handset w/o putting any Google services. Amazon did it, as well as B&N. Failed aside, they were phones & tablets that used Android w/o any of the build in Google services and they could have use other search engine as default. The successful market of the Android phones & tablets are because they are bundle with Google services(and that require Google search engine as default per the contract), not because they were impossible to un-bundle Google services and Android. I don't think Google were telling all the phone manufacturers that they cannot make product based on AOSP and not include any of the Google services. It may be possible that HTC and Samsung are under a (very) long term contract that they won't make any Android based product w/o Google services, hence Samsung start making a Tizen. But I think it's more likely that Samsung was thinking of a way to be less dependent on Google. But then neither Samsung nor HTC have a clear monopoly in smartphone market or even android smartphone market. Samsung may have a hugh lead in android smartphone market but it still not like 80-90% Windows monopoly in the PC industry. Even if they were to sue the handset maker, I think both the Galaxy S3 and EVO 3D does have bootloader unlock. Meaning they were possible to turn those specific phone whey both the plaintiffs own into custom ROM that doesn't use any of the Google services, less useful but possible. BTW, I still don't think a case like this is comparable to the inclusion/integration of IE in Windows.
Maybe next year ACM will blame Tesla and Samsung. In the US, female population is like 3-to-1 against male. Most of the tech company ACM pointed out are US tech companies, I'm confuse why would any group thinks tech companies should give special privilege or attention to the majority of the 75% population that have no interest in this field. When I was in high school, I don't see any one outside of my family give a crap about what field I interested in. And when I was in high school, I think majority of the male students only interest in female students and vice-versa. Even clubs like jeopardy or math and science were mostly comprised of male students like 9-to-1 if that club even had a female members. I don't think it was because they had any prejudice against female students, I was sure that they would welcome any female student to join the club. What I saw was many of the female students spent their lunch and after school hours at the gym watching basketball players instead. Not sure if they are the g/f of those players, fans or would be. But most of them didn't even care about basketball to begin with. There weren't even google or facebook back then. Most of those tech employees would be around my age (25-40). Suddenly now people think it's a problem and them to be blame? For the record I'm not working for any of those named companies. I played basketball and did some body building back in the junior high, then got bore and quit before high school. Did some programming in HS, but realized I didn't want that type of job. It would be fun doing that once in a while, but not spending 8-10 hours a day at the desk coding 6 days a week. Things that would become some what popular, I did that at least 3-5 years ahead. And I realized those weren't for me. What concerned me is that just about any dependent study groups, government or journalist/bloggers(can't very tell them apart any more), they weren't blaming parents. Why is that? Parents are the most influential people for any male and female since their birth. And it's their job to give their kids guidance. Students spend maybe 6-7 hours a day at school. And more at home, if they spend less at home that's the parents fault also. Yet, the tech industry is to blame?
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I don't see why does it have to be that way. While not saying what my opinion is, as I don't see how that's matter whether what he is to me. What matter is what he did? I think it's kinda pointless what to label him. In fact, even if he is being labeled both, as I see that they can be mutually inclusive, we wouldn't have been all pissed off at the NSA if not for what he did. Yes, even people who call him traitor can still pissed at NSA, and they all wouldn't say so if not for what Snowden leaked. While many want to argue that what NSA did was with in the power granted by Patriot Act. But as I recalled, there were many who weren't happy when we first heard of the Patriot Act either. Regardless of what it was, the leak is definitely in a good timing. As many now know that there need to be a change and in favor for the change toward more privacy and the time for the Patriot Act to be review is soon. It could be worse if the leak were to come out much later, say after Patriot Act get a permanant stamp.
This doesn't sound like vulnerability on the encryption at all but rather Android allow modification of routing table instead. This means any existing encryption stay in tact, just rather the data is going to be re-routed out of the VPN tunnel.
Let me make it clear, I'm not defending anyone here.
The question I have to raise is, why giving one guy too much control in the first place? Let's look at what if he got hit by a car and die instead? So, is the lawyer or the judge gonna force the password out of him? What if you were that admin and were using a USB keyboard password like ubikey, then reset/format that key after you got fired? This is legitimate. Also, we should look at password seperately from the network infrastructure. The employer should be looking at a way to get infrastructure back not the password. Eg: the judge have force him to create another admin account and give that to the employer instead of having to reveal his own password.
That's depend of the point of view on who is sitting on the bench judging. Say certain type of cartoon/animation maybe OK in Japan but not in the US. I don't even play something like GTA and I agree with you that posting a video game shouldn't be consider a death threat, but then again we are suppose to obey the law written by people who don't understand anything they written about. In the worse case they have some type of incentive to write the law in a certain way. The way I look at this issue why the punishment doesn't fit the crime or why certain kids have to be single out for certain crime why other don't? So, it's not okay to to express yourself in a certain way even if it may violate the freedom of speech but nobody get hurt, but it's okay to beat the crap of other? If he get charged with interference of school operation, then I have to wonder if beating up classmate doesn't? Why doesn't the students who bullied other students get charge with this crime also? Or is the bulling behavior considered normal school operation?
I'm an amatuer photographer, how can I contact those ISP to watch for my copyrighted photos? What about other hundred thousand other artists whose name you never heard of, are the ISP gonna protect them too? Or is it just that our privacy isn't worth as much as those big name entertainment company greedy profit?
From watching the movie, didn't the terrorists flown first class?
What kind of terrorists have the money for first class seat to get close to the cockpit but can't afford extra $100? Don't get me wrong, I understand that there would be a background check prior to the TSA theatre, but we are not talking about terrorists that board the airplane to streal some US top secret like in a spy movie here. We are talking about terrorists on a suicide mission here. So, what kind of background screening are we talking about here? Hm, a terrorist that was on a suicide mission before and didn't die will get rejected? But if your background is clean, even if you are terrorist we give you a chance by paying $100?
I have read somewhere that they are going to let UN(United Nation) to control the top domain. How about have them fight the spammer as well? since the US law doesn't affect the spammers from other country.
I thought, in the US, it's innocent until proven guilty. Was I wrong? Obiously the case isn't ended yet, technically speaking, it's still legal, right?
Good point, but why can't the improvement be done at the hardware level that's transparent to the users and developers.
Pentium 233 MMX can convert MPEG2>DivX in 113 minutes while converting to XviD only take 59 minutes. cut it down nearly by half.
On the other hand P4 570 (3.8GHz) take 1:40 minutes for a DivX and 2:23 minutes for XviD. Almost double.
What is that mean? Is the CPU architechture very improving?
Well, I'm not very a programmer, just did some programming a while back. So I'm not talking about PPOV(Programming Point Of View). As you and others have pointed out that most hospital use Windows OS, so think of .NET as current money now and J2EE as future money. While it make sense to think about what you can do in the future, it make much more sense for a small company to grab the money that is there now and hoping to get more later.
The one that doesn't exist.
http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/004408.h tml#more
in section 2.g: "(1) In subsection (g), "intentionally induces" means intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability. "
So, bascially, harddrive, scanner, camera, camcorder, PVR, VCR, copier machine can be use for copyright infringment. For crying out louud, infact, even a pen and paper can be use for copyright infringment. What's next, all art classes cannot be taught in school, infact, you can't even study literature if you know how to write.
you must have not read the Microsoft download page for the service pack, "This installation package is intended for IT professionals and developers downloading and installing on multiple computers on a network." read my post for more detail http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117359&cid =9927056
why would it be illegal, to redistribute the XP SP2.
according to microsoft download page, "This installation package is intended for IT professionals and developers downloading and installing on multiple computers on a network." if redistribution, either by copying, burning to a cd is consider illegal, then how the heck does Microsoft expect the admin to install them on the network? Of cause, it's distribution, or pure contradiction from microsoft. Gee, not to mention we are on a big giant "network". Also, I don't see MS require you to read EULA before downloading the ServicePack2, nor even mention it in the download page. Then if the person who download the SP2, but didn't install it, that mean he doesn't see the EULA nor accept it, and thus EULA cannot apply, and cannot prevent his/her to redistribute it either.
There have been some research going on, about using crystal like material to store data. Similar to the one seen in Superman & Minority Report movies. It does make sence to store data in 3D, because you can fit more data in 3D object than 2D object. If people think about it, today's harddrive have more than one platter, and in a way it's 3D. Moving away from 2D storage is a good idea. I personally think 3D removable storage base, will come in before 2014(10 years from now), possibly around 2010. But to say that DVD will be obsolete is pretty far-fetch, unless Gates wasn't including Blue-Ray as DVD Technology. The problem w/ non-disc base medium is, the possibly more expensive to produce, and that's the main reason Y the disc-base storage is going to stay.