Your only partly right there. This particular virus only spreads by user stupidity, but many other virii spread by exploiting stupid IE flaws, and Outlook uses IE to render HTML mail, and it renders it as soon as the user highlights the email in question.
That is Microsoft's fault. The code is buggy, but ok, that happens to everyone. Yet I cannot even conceive what sort of security model allows even the chance of a HTML renderer executing arbitrary code. And the fact that the user cannot turn their buggy rendering off (Some versions of Outlook Express allow you to disable it, if you crawl through the registry to do it) is just icing on the cake.
Security probably matters sweet FA for these machines. I doubt they'd purchase stock computers for their connections to the internet. Im guessing most of these machines are terminals for inside the military's own network, with no exposure to the outside world, and would probably not contain any uber-important information or functionality, just more desktops.
If I recall correctly, iTunes does support selling albums. They have a number of guidelines for putting stuff up for sale, and the two relevant ones are:
1) Tracks should not be more than $0.99.
2) An album must not cost more than the sum of the price of its tracks.
Albums are still available, but they're more like a batch-purchase of tracks than a single entity.
If an artist wants to produce an opus, make each movement a track at $0.99 and sell it for number of movements * $0.99. Nothing very special going on here.
I tried to play TIM on my Athlon 2600 system not long ago. The game wasn't designed for fast machihnes, unfortunately. You click "Go", the screen blurs, and your machine is lying in pieces at your feet. Not a chance in hell to see what actually went on.
Could a commercial entity supporting Linux (IBM, say, or RedHat), sue SCO for libel, or something; perpetuating unsubstantiated claims that devalue their product?
It seens to me that this sort of FUDding should be illegal. At the very least, someone should be able to have a legal muzzle clamped on SCO's mouth so as to stop the noise.
Would a SCO executive selling their stock now possible qualify for an insider trading violation?
After all, the only people who really know how much of a valid legal position SCO has are the people who've seen the code. If the executives know SCO hasn't a chance in hell, and are persuing this lawsuit to project the image that it has, while selling of shares they know to be worthless...isn't that illegal?
Of course, it could probably only be determined after the court case has found that SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on, and by that time there will be no SCO, but still...
he open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research"
Gee I'm glad that SCO is around to tell the CIA who is contributing to terrorism. I hope all stationary companies watch out; their products can be used for scientific research and weapons research.
I just hope Marvel doesn't export Flash Gordon Decoder Rings.
Is that no Scouring at all, or will it be shown in the extended DVD version of ROTK?
In his Foreword to the book, Tolkien says that the Scouring "is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset". (And apart from that, it's one of my favorite chapters!)
I truly hope we get to see it in one form or another.
You're a dick. He's not saying "Give me everything your do or you're an evil capitalist pig", he's saying does anyone mind giving me some artwork, or does anyone know where some existing, already free artwork is...which is considerably more polite than you.
Well, we basically have the right to free speech, but there aren't the sort of legislations about it that there are in America. Basically you can say whatever the hell you like, unless you violate another law (libel, etc).
IBM has contributed to Open Source far more than SCO has. If SCO wins (*snort*) the message being sent will be "Don't contribute to Open Source; you never know whose gonna claim that the code you submitted was really theirs".
What the hell are you talking about? She's saying the exact opposite. Her major point is that she (and presumably others) are trying to hammer out some legislation that would stop the EU patent system from heading right down to where the US one is, to wit, shit creek.
She isn't saying the patent system doesn't have problems, she's saying it does, and she wants to fix it before it gets too bad.
She makes a few other valid points too, about "free" software. I don't buy her argument about it being a monopoly, but she's right enough about it not being free. Truly free software would just have its source code available online, with no restrictions as to redistribution (such as the GPL).
Of course, this sort of thing would only be abused, which just goes to show you that "free" does not necessarily equal "good".
But the dialogue was nothing special, the plot mediocre, and, most importantly for me, the characters just didn't grab you the way they do in Square's games.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, was also briefly mentioned in the article. I find all the bashing of it a little disapointing; yes it sucked, but I think Square had the right idea. If only they'd put half as much effort into scripting their movie as they did scripting their games, it would have been awesome.
I'd really like to see a well-developed Square movie. Unfortunately, now, I doubt it'll ever happen.
An artist has two choices when it comes to this. They can either play by the rules of copyright, make money on it for a few years, then hand it over, or they can ignore copyright and let what happens, happen.
The impetus behind copyright is the assumption that authors, artists, etc would be reluctant to share the fruits of their labour if they were not entitled to some protection. This would lead to fewer works of art being produced. So the constitution provides limited protection as an incentive for developing art. But if art is not owned by the public, then it is pointless, as when it is out of print, it will dissappear of the face of the earth and human knowledge will be lost.
The goal of copyright is to maintain the art of the current generation for the enjoyment of future generations, and that maintenance can only be done in the public domain, not by corporations. Corporations are not interested in promoting art, they're interested in making money.
If everyone were forced to buy every bit of music they ever got their hands on, because every computer that existed, and every peripheral, contained DRM support, would the people rebel? Would there be rioting in the streets?
Nope, no rioting. But you can bet your bottom dollar there'd be rebellion. People would hack their systems to remove DRM restrictions, warez groups would strip DRM protection from songs, hell, independant artists would produce DRM-less songs to get more airplay.
A post-DRM world would be pretty much the same as a pre-Internet world in terms of copyright violation. It'd still happen, but it'd be a pain in the neck and be done by less people. And for the added kick up the pants, when the DRM-protected contents drops out of fashion, it also drops out of existence, because the only people who can play it then are the rebels, and human art/history/creativity is lost.
here is no way to adjust the music listening public to copying just the right amount of music illegally
Of course there is, and retailers (in IP and non-IP) do it all the time; they hike up prices to compensate for losses. It's exactly the same as your speeding analogy; If people are gonna drive at 10 over the limit, and we want em to do 100, we set the limit at 90. If 10 people are gonna copy our CD, we'll bump up the price of the other 90.
Slashdot Mirror
Your only partly right there. This particular virus only spreads by user stupidity, but many other virii spread by exploiting stupid IE flaws, and Outlook uses IE to render HTML mail, and it renders it as soon as the user highlights the email in question.
That is Microsoft's fault. The code is buggy, but ok, that happens to everyone. Yet I cannot even conceive what sort of security model allows even the chance of a HTML renderer executing arbitrary code. And the fact that the user cannot turn their buggy rendering off (Some versions of Outlook Express allow you to disable it, if you crawl through the registry to do it) is just icing on the cake.
Security probably matters sweet FA for these machines. I doubt they'd purchase stock computers for their connections to the internet. Im guessing most of these machines are terminals for inside the military's own network, with no exposure to the outside world, and would probably not contain any uber-important information or functionality, just more desktops.
Who needs to page a sysop?
Automated password generation ain't hard. I stick it on every website I do that uses a password-based login system.
If I recall correctly, iTunes does support selling albums. They have a number of guidelines for putting stuff up for sale, and the two relevant ones are:
1) Tracks should not be more than $0.99. 2) An album must not cost more than the sum of the price of its tracks.
Albums are still available, but they're more like a batch-purchase of tracks than a single entity.
If an artist wants to produce an opus, make each movement a track at $0.99 and sell it for number of movements * $0.99. Nothing very special going on here.
I tried to play TIM on my Athlon 2600 system not long ago. The game wasn't designed for fast machihnes, unfortunately. You click "Go", the screen blurs, and your machine is lying in pieces at your feet. Not a chance in hell to see what actually went on.
It's a pity, cause I agree that game was great.
Yeah, but does it count as telling everybody, if you make them sign an NDA first?
Could a commercial entity supporting Linux (IBM, say, or RedHat), sue SCO for libel, or something; perpetuating unsubstantiated claims that devalue their product?
It seens to me that this sort of FUDding should be illegal. At the very least, someone should be able to have a legal muzzle clamped on SCO's mouth so as to stop the noise.
Would a SCO executive selling their stock now possible qualify for an insider trading violation?
After all, the only people who really know how much of a valid legal position SCO has are the people who've seen the code. If the executives know SCO hasn't a chance in hell, and are persuing this lawsuit to project the image that it has, while selling of shares they know to be worthless...isn't that illegal?
Of course, it could probably only be determined after the court case has found that SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on, and by that time there will be no SCO, but still...
he open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research"
Gee I'm glad that SCO is around to tell the CIA who is contributing to terrorism. I hope all stationary companies watch out; their products can be used for scientific research and weapons research.
I just hope Marvel doesn't export Flash Gordon Decoder Rings.
I don't think IBM need spend too much money on it. My old Apple II could win the SCO case hands down.
How long did it take you to think of that, and was it worth it?
Is that no Scouring at all, or will it be shown in the extended DVD version of ROTK?
In his Foreword to the book, Tolkien says that the Scouring "is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset". (And apart from that, it's one of my favorite chapters!)
I truly hope we get to see it in one form or another.
You're a dick. He's not saying "Give me everything your do or you're an evil capitalist pig", he's saying does anyone mind giving me some artwork, or does anyone know where some existing, already free artwork is...which is considerably more polite than you.
Ok, thats my Anonymous Coward reply quota filled.
Well, we basically have the right to free speech, but there aren't the sort of legislations about it that there are in America. Basically you can say whatever the hell you like, unless you violate another law (libel, etc).
Australia != America despite starting with the same letter. No laws regarding freedom of speech here.
IBM has contributed to Open Source far more than SCO has. If SCO wins (*snort*) the message being sent will be "Don't contribute to Open Source; you never know whose gonna claim that the code you submitted was really theirs".
Nope, this is a no brainer, IBM all the way.
Go blue!
What the hell are you talking about? She's saying the exact opposite. Her major point is that she (and presumably others) are trying to hammer out some legislation that would stop the EU patent system from heading right down to where the US one is, to wit, shit creek.
She isn't saying the patent system doesn't have problems, she's saying it does, and she wants to fix it before it gets too bad.
She makes a few other valid points too, about "free" software. I don't buy her argument about it being a monopoly, but she's right enough about it not being free. Truly free software would just have its source code available online, with no restrictions as to redistribution (such as the GPL).
Of course, this sort of thing would only be abused, which just goes to show you that "free" does not necessarily equal "good".
So do I :)
And the animation was top rate.
But the dialogue was nothing special, the plot mediocre, and, most importantly for me, the characters just didn't grab you the way they do in Square's games.
I don't think Square will sink much money, or many resources, into another movie project after the first.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, was also briefly mentioned in the article. I find all the bashing of it a little disapointing; yes it sucked, but I think Square had the right idea. If only they'd put half as much effort into scripting their movie as they did scripting their games, it would have been awesome.
I'd really like to see a well-developed Square movie. Unfortunately, now, I doubt it'll ever happen.
Yup.
An artist has two choices when it comes to this. They can either play by the rules of copyright, make money on it for a few years, then hand it over, or they can ignore copyright and let what happens, happen.
The impetus behind copyright is the assumption that authors, artists, etc would be reluctant to share the fruits of their labour if they were not entitled to some protection. This would lead to fewer works of art being produced. So the constitution provides limited protection as an incentive for developing art. But if art is not owned by the public, then it is pointless, as when it is out of print, it will dissappear of the face of the earth and human knowledge will be lost.
The goal of copyright is to maintain the art of the current generation for the enjoyment of future generations, and that maintenance can only be done in the public domain, not by corporations. Corporations are not interested in promoting art, they're interested in making money.
Copyright comes with a proviso. When its time is up, it becomes public property (the public domain).
The whole point of copyright is to take the private creations of authors, and, after a limited time, give them to the public.
If everyone were forced to buy every bit of music they ever got their hands on, because every computer that existed, and every peripheral, contained DRM support, would the people rebel? Would there be rioting in the streets?
Nope, no rioting. But you can bet your bottom dollar there'd be rebellion. People would hack their systems to remove DRM restrictions, warez groups would strip DRM protection from songs, hell, independant artists would produce DRM-less songs to get more airplay.
A post-DRM world would be pretty much the same as a pre-Internet world in terms of copyright violation. It'd still happen, but it'd be a pain in the neck and be done by less people. And for the added kick up the pants, when the DRM-protected contents drops out of fashion, it also drops out of existence, because the only people who can play it then are the rebels, and human art/history/creativity is lost.
here is no way to adjust the music listening public to copying just the right amount of music illegally
Of course there is, and retailers (in IP and non-IP) do it all the time; they hike up prices to compensate for losses. It's exactly the same as your speeding analogy; If people are gonna drive at 10 over the limit, and we want em to do 100, we set the limit at 90. If 10 people are gonna copy our CD, we'll bump up the price of the other 90.
Glowing, yup.
And the sound would be a general screaming as the poor test pilot is roasted alive inside his cockpit.