Legally, what difference does the quality of products make? If you leverage a monopoly in one market to stifle competition in another, it's illegal. It doesn't matter if you have the best product or not.
Because monopolies themselves aren't bad. Municipals tend to do a much better job than "private companies" because their charge isn't to their shareholders (which seems to let things like Enron happen), but to their communities.
Because the consumers aren't suffering by Google's actions, they're unlikely to be targetted by the FTC. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft's monopoly, where consumers are suffering.
Sure there is. A company can break the law to become a monopoly.
A company with a monopoly only breaks the law by using a monopoly to obtain an unfair advantage over a competitor, ie MS leveraging their Windows monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in the Web Browser market.
Err, there are a lot of ways a company with a monopoly can break the law, and its not entirely clear that the whole "web browser thing" was what did them in.
When Microsoft signed contracts with SUN to produce JAVA a certain way, then violated those contracts, and tied SUN up in court for a few years was a much better example. Simply put, if Microsoft hadn't signed that contract, people would've complained to MS "why is YOURS the only browser without Java Support?"
I'm not quite sure I understand your references to Toys R US or Wal-Mart. Neither of those retailers are anywhere near to having a monopoly, nor am I aware of any instances where either has been legitimately accused of unfairly leveraging a business advantage.
That much has been obvious, but unless you're an expert, I wouldn't expect you to simply "be aware" of them.
Google "walmart antitrust", or "toys r us antitrust" (esp. Toys R Us' problems with the FTC a while back).
See, Google got the monopoly by providing the best software. Microsoft didn't provide the best software, but told its customers buy our crap, or don't buy anything at all. Microsoft isn't the only company to break these laws: Bell Labs, Toys 'R' Us, and Wal*Mart are some that immediately spring to mind.
Once you've broken the law to get a monopoly, one of two things happen: You get your company torn apart- something Microsoft argued would be a "bad thing"- or you stop getting the privilege of playing in the Free Market. Microsoft chose the latter.
You can start comparing Google to Microsoft when Google starts hurting its customers, and hurting people who aren't Google's customers in order to hurt Google's competitors.
At the end of the day, I find it extremely obnoxious the sentiment that some kind of pure language design can save us from this misery. There is no salvation to be found among programmers who brag mostly about thinking less.
Almost every LISP programmer has heard the suggestion of a "lisp without parenthesis", and shrugged it off as if the problem with LISP-acceptance were the parenthesis! The parenthesis never bothered me! I %-bounce all through my LISP programs! Why if I didn't have parenthesis....
I remember looking at a mess of C++, bouncing with etags through a bunch of files, and we had two recursive routines; but one was const. The problem was that the compiler decided the const-one wasn't recursive, and generated to error as a result. The non-const one worked under some assumptions that simply were wrong. All the while cursing this !@#$@#$ of overloading, as well as the coding of the person who wrote the original file.
The reality is that the original programmer was new to C++, and while you can say that nobody ever really gets tripped up by operator/function overloading, people still do. LISP has its macros, and Perl has its line noise- every language has that feature that some demand is necessary, and others cry foul to.
So when we write C++, we avoid overloading- and mark up code heavily where overloading occurs (and surprise may lurk!). If overloading didn't exist, our lives would be easier because you wouldn't be able to use it either. It would never show up in foreign code on our doorstep and we would never have to track down bugs in it.
See, having all of these different capabilities in C++ (even the weird ones) means that anyone who needs to know C++ needs to know all of it. After all, we might have to look at someone elses code one day, and we need to know how all of its internals work. Especially the weird bits. And because C++ is a moving target (with no conforming compilers), it's hard to know C++. When I first was exposed to C++ in 1994, namespaces didn't exist in any compiler yet, and templates worked a little bit differently (in the available compilers)- so I not only have to know the C++ as specified, but how GNU C++ works, and how Turbo C++ works, and now Visual C++ works, and how each and every version of them worked, bugwise.
I think in that light it should be much easier to see why lots of people have come to the conclusion that C++'s "goodness" comes simply from the large number of people who can list it on their resume.
But like Windows, nobody really knows it as well as they'd like to think, and only its greatest appologists can pretend it hasn't caused more problems than its solved.
No it isn't. read the wiki yourself. I've been following it for months.
The key is produced through a (previously) unknown tranformation involving the MAK. Since the MAK is published, as well as the cipher, as well as the protocol.
TiVo's DRM prevented Linux and Mac users from watching their shows only as a side effect. The intent of TiVo's DRM is to prevent people who don't know the MAK from watching the content.
I don't know what the intent of Tivo's DRM was, and I strongly suspect you don't either.
The DRM as implemented couldn't do what you say it was intended to do- people regularly rip from their tivo and show the results to people who don't have the MAK.
This is a nice piece of reverse engineering, but no encryption scheme was cracked.
Its a wonderful piece of reverse engineering, but if you're nitpicking that people didn't break the turing cipher, I've got news for you: Nobody had to. They broke the method of creating the key.
I don't understand why someone would go through the effort of downloading movies from their TiVo to watch on a PC.... The only case I can see is if your kid is on the local news and you want a permanent record. Even then, you can usually contact the news station for that.
So see? You made a liar of yourself: You _CAN_ understand why someone would download from their tivo to watch on their TV.
I like putting cartoons on DVD so my kid can watch something on long car rides. Before today, this meant using wine and directshow nonsense. Today its just become a little better.
Other people have other reasons. Just because you have no family or friends, and no imagination to boot doesn't mean everyone is as sad as you.
.htaccess files, by their very nature, cause performance degradation on your website, and so should be avoided whenever possible.
NO!.htaccess files by their implementation cause performance degradation. The Apache group could have made that degradation zero, but thought that a Novell Netware port was more important.
Seriously, Linux's F_NOTIFY has been around since 2.4 and other operating systems have similar.
1)being the most used OS ibn the world gives you the bonus of the publicity. If you do something bad or have some pretty terrble bugs, half the planet will know about it. If apple have terrible bugs their 3 and a half users will know about it. And that's all.
Except Microsoft Windows isn't the most used OS in the world. A UNIX is- everybody who uses a web browser is looking at a web page- very likely to be served by a UNIX server. I think the sheer number of zombies (about 60% of Microsoft's user base) demonstrates that Windows users simply don't know that they're owned. The other 40% probably have professional UNIX admins running their network.
Or did you mean Operating system with the largest number of installations? That'd have to go to TRON- immensly popular in Japan, it's on just about every piece of industrial or business hardware there: I'm talking billions of deployments.
2) The bonus of the (in)simpathy. being the most used (and missused) OS in the worls affects the simpathy the user have for that products. Using MacOS or Linux makes you "cool" and "underground" so Windows will get that extra bashing.
I think accepting any bugs is a mistake. Note that Linux and FreeBSD both make honest efforts to fix their bugs- but unless someone has disclosed it to Security Focus, Microsoft won't fix it. They know just like everyone else that Bugs are defects and since Microsoft sold a defective product, they have to fix it. Of course, the fewer that are disclosed the better.
3)An OS is a TERRIBLY complex thing, and you ***will*** have bugs. There is only a matter of time.
Er, no. The reason defective software is available is because people just like you who think defective software is acceptable. If nobody thought defective software was acceptable, there simply wouldn't be any defective software. NASA (for example) makes defect-free software (albeit at a significant expense)- but usually failures are acceptable if the failures are graceful and recoverable. EROS and J2SE are two operating systems that work like this.
4)Everybody and their cats program (pr missprogram) for Windows. When a 6 years old boy begins programming, do you think they will program for Huniacs mainfrains or for Windows? Thus there will be more "hackers", "crackers", etc for the main OS.
I disagree. Up until distributed zombies became popular (thanks mixter), nobody targetted Windows simply because no gain could be had. Now zombies are used for everything from spamming to extortion. Six year olds aren't "bringing down windows" - I mean, I don't know if six year olds are bringing down windows. They're not bringing down UNIX, that's for certain (the oldest and most pervasive operating system ever), but if six year olds are bringing down Windows, I'd highly recommend you seek elsewhere.
If you want to maliciausly explote an OS to make Major damage/profit, do you want to target millions of Windows users or the 3 and a half Mac users?
You'll find very few people disagree with this, but people don't want to "maliciously" exploit an OS: they want to make profit. Spammers and spyware installers don't target Windows: they target ignorance. When ignorant people start buying Macintosh and UNIX desktops again, you'll probably see some real targets there. After all, would you rather have 1% of 1000, or 99% of 100?
1. Run a firewall and only open what you need to be opened
Do you honestly think anyone but a network administrator has any idea what you just said?
2. Most importantly: DONT CLICK ON STUPID SHIT! Don't run seedy programs etc. It's amazed how many Windows users get infected like that
Do you honestly think people go Hrm, this program is pretty seedy, but I'm going to run it anyway!.
The real problem is people go Oh, I received an electronic fax, that's not a program and people like you just say No you dolt, that was an exe file, gawd how stupid are you!?
Those obviously won't protect against 100% of threats, but very few things in life are guarenteed.
This is what I think the real problem is: Suggesting that people accept faulty software and their own failings.
Here's an idea: a big red button on the side of the computer. You hold it in, and executables can be created. Tell people that big red button lets other people change the way their computer works and no matter how the computer instructs them otherwise, to only push and hold that button in when they are unhappy about how their computer works and feel the need to change it.
That's what root is supposed to be for- whether they be called Administrator or sudo doesn't make it any more or less safe. The fact that Non-root can install software is a security weakness. The fact that the user can run as administrator and not know it is a security weakness.
My mother in law has been actively computing since 2002 without any viruses or "computer problems of any kind" simply because she has to call me in order to remount/home without -o noexec, or sudo for anything. I wish there were a red button sometimes because she's pretty good about knowing when to call me, but because she honestly thought she had to "Runas" in order to read a fax (after all, that's what the email from her son said to do!), she doesn't mind not knowing her own root password.
I'm willing to bet both arms and both legs that Microsoft has this one covered legally. The writing of EULAs has become a finely honed art. They will cover this in the EULA, and there won't be a damn thing that people who have agreed to the EULA can do about it.
But you have to remember: You are not buying a complete OS X for generic hardware, you are buying an UPGRADE for APPLE hardware. The license restricts you to that, and Apple is VERY clear about it. It really doesn't matter what you want to do - Apple does not sell a license for toasters. If you however want to shread your copy of OS X, you are free to do so.
Who cares what Apple thinks? I didn't sign anything, and no one can take away my rights by ``license'' unless I sign something. US Courts were very clear about this in Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
Not only am I legally allowed to install Mac OS X on my toaster, I can give people patches that let other people install it on their toasters: See Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
The bottom line is that you can't compare OS X with Vista in this way because the two companies have very different business models. One is a software company that sells some hardware, the other a hardware company that sells some software for that hardware. With Apple, it's very clear that you are buying the Apple experience from top to bottom. You don't get that with Microsoft.
No, that was very clear that you were buying that.
The very first thing I did with My mac-mini was install Linux on it. I then proceeded to install Mac OS X Panther (obtained via a broken 166mhz iMac) and Tiger on top of it using MOL. Apple can forbid me to do this all they like, it still isn't illegal, and still shouldn't be.
The problem is that laws change. They change simply by having enough people believe that they already have (Just ask OJ "if he did it"), and right now, you believe the law has changed.
Once you believe all they have to do is worm some text into a thousand line document that was at least partially on the screen when you clicked a button, you've had that meeting of the minds they're always talking about, and suddenly, that law actually does apply to you.
Yes Virginia, the solution really is that simple: Ignore that EULA. Click I accept but do not read it. Know that it is false and unenforcable and lies, and you will be safe.
Many of them are not public for security reasons - and well they should be.
Sir, I have a car to sell you. There have been a number of customers killed in it, but I will not tell you why, until I get around to fixing the problem.
If I found a bug related to security, I am *certain* they would do the same, and not publish it. It would be foolish to do so. Why oh why do people like this need to publish security related bugs so everyone can get comprimised? It's simply irresponsible.
No, it's not. If I have an Oracle database with a security vulnerability in it, I might be immune- my firewall might protect me, or I might not have users accessing it in a way that makes me vulnerable.
If I am vulnerable, exactly what can the attacker accomplish? I might want to shut down my database. If it happens too frequently, I may want a refund.
Whatever I do, it's my decision, and not Oracles. The bugs are their because of their sloppiness. If I know about them, then I can protect myself. If I don't know about them, then I cannot protect myself. It's as simple as that.
So do understand sir, you are asking me to trust them. Not just a little bit either, but potentially with the livelyhood of my company. Where exactly do you think these vulnerabilities come from, and who exactly do you think "discovers" them, and most importantly, why is it you think keeping information about these vulnerabilities secret from me (the customer) is a good thing?
Tell me exactly sir, how is my request "irresponsible"?
Microsoft sold these people a lemon, and it's the users' fault?
Its called neglegence: Microsoft didn't write good code, and a lot of people got hurt: Those zombies waste my bandwidth (even though there isn't any MS software here), and those ads have ruined my email.
Sure, they offered to "fix it later"- sometimes years after someone noticed, but only if the person who bought their software complains.
Unfortunately, as you point out, they don't know that they bought a lemon. They're non-technical people, and the technical people (i.e. you) are telling them this is normal.
Here's an idea: Tell Microsoft to issue a recall of their broken software and offer to pay damages. Tell your customers to demand the same thing.
Also, the article talks about the promising lineup of 2007 PS3 not 2006 PS3 and then compares it to the lineup of 2006 Wii not 2007 Wii. Therefore, after comparison you can only declare PS3 the winner.
I don't know. Do I still get to count Duke Nukem Forever as a launch title for my N64?
Seems to me that it's bad taste to call something a launch title unless its actually available at launch.
... he's a US district judge... Federal judges are NEVER elected.
Wrong.
State supreme courts are US Districut courts (Missouri's is also their Western District). Eight states have their supreme court judges appointed by the Governor, and 11 use what is called The Missouri Plan (including, intuitively Missouri). It works like this: A committee solicits applicants and conducts interviews and makes a recommendation of three people to the Governor who picks one of them. After a year on the bench the judges must run unupposed at the next general election for retention in office. Believe it or not, this vote is often called a retention vote.
You're thinking of circuit courts and not district courts. The US President also makes appointments to the Supreme court, but almost everyone knows that.
which makes Missouri (including its Western District court- their Supreme Court, the one we're talking about now), that 11
While Article III judges are appointed for life, the supreme court of Missouri (Missouri's Western District court) is an Article I tribunal (legislative) court. See for details on exactly what this means.
There are 94 federal "district courts" - including at least one district in each state.
That district is referred to as the _supreme_ court of that state, and it is that court in Missouri sir, is where Stephen Limbaugh Jr. sits.
If your "friend" thinks he needs legal advise, he should ask a lawyer.
If your "friend" is asking for technical advise, while dosbox and wine are _great_ ways to impose greater restrictions on legacy software, if your "friend" is asking for technical advise by acting like he's looking for legal advise, then your "friend" is an asshat.
I like playing games, but nobody makes games I want to play. Does the author really mean to suggest I should be playing games I'm not interested in?
And what else could Loki expect by picking a very small percentage of a very small percentage? Did they really think they could do better than the Dreamcast? I mean, Sega's Saturn numbers were larger than Linuxs' at the time. Isn't this really just a big no-duh?
Here's an idea: If you want to buy the game, buy the game. If you want to justify the 2,000$ you spent on your ``eff-pee-ess'' by buying crappy games, all you're really doing is perpetuating this myth that "gamers" have small penises and bad hygene.
Meanwhile, at least somebody is paying attention to the fact that the "gaming population" is pitifully and unmarketably small, and that while many of them actually like to play games, the more vocal jackasses with their so called "culture" makes them the target market of only the most brain-damaged.
Actually, I didn't mean to present that as a factual quote (quotation marks notwithstanding), I was simply trying to present a counterpoint to the original poster's assertion that a publisher shouldn't sell their work if he/she/it didn't want him doing whatever he pleases.
I understand your intentions, but whether the publishers believe that the monopoly granted by copyright somehow extends to things other than copying rights, or if they know they're lying about the current law doesn't matter, and I'll try and explain why:
US Law isn't really that complicated; The important thing to know is Law is whatever everyone agrees is law. In the US, it is understood that Congress can make laws, but so can regular citizens by serving on a Jury.
When we see the Microsoft/Disney/SPA/BSA/RIAA/MPAA/etc so active in trying to convince people that the law is actually how they say it is instead of how it is, people invariably begin to believe them, and when they do two things start happening:
1. They start repeating these non-truths and convincing others, and 2. One of them gets on a jury and overrides (via prima de facto) what was originally law
Once #2 occurs, other cases can occur where the prosecution simply points to the first case and says this is what everyone agrees so therefore it is law.
Won't the DMCA overrule this?
Well once a de facto-law has been enacted, Congress (often by way of lobbyists) may try and amend or recodify their intentions better. Sometimes the President will make an executive order for a similar reason. However the means, the DMCA represents this kind of recoding, and doesn't itself change what people agree to be law.
But I get worried when regular people start repeating these lies; once real users start believing those things are what is right, and agree it is law, because at that point, you actually need to convince people to accept new morals, something that I'm sure you can appreciate, is a lot more complicated.
IANAL. I'm also not American nor I live in the U.S. so my knowledge of U.S. law is limited to Boston Legal.
I think it's fairly universal that Law is considered this surreal existance of smoke filled rooms and gray haired men, but I find it's very helpful to reject the idea that Law describes good and evil; liberal and royalist; right and wrong, and instead describes the circumstances that further attention may be required. That attention is a Judge and a Jury in the U.S.
From your tone I assume it was very important part of your day arguing with someone on Slashdot for the hell of it. If I were you, I'd take measures QUICK.
Do you make it a point to often reply on subjects you know nothing about with ``points'' that are easily verified as false?
Nice trick with 4 hostnames, but this means 4 security contexts for your content, which may make a lot of development hard (especially client based with JavaScript).
Why? Doesn't your javascript explicitly state document.domain to the common root?
Not to mention the management issues of having to link to content on 4 different domains in an efficient enough manner.
You mean creating four hostnames for the same address? Or do you mean changing a few src="" attributes?
This leaves us with pipelining on the client, which could results in much worse load peaks on the servers though.
Wrong. It leaves us with nothing. Didn't you read the article? HTTP Pipelining isn't enabled in the big two web browsers, so as far as "reality" is concerned it doesn't exist. It's like IPV6- who cares how much "better" it is if no one is using it?
Sounds revisionists to me, I'm pretty sure the slogan was always "software should be free." Well, it is. Now he wants to make it less free.
Nope. It's software wants to be free. It's the users that should be free.
DRM removes freedoms from users. That's its job. People like Disney and Microsoft don't like their users. They don't like that someone might by "The Little Mermaid" and more than one person might watch that copy. They don't like that if they distribute a demo disc, it's legal for someone to remove the timebombs and limitations. They also don't like that it's legal to distribute a program which does these things.
That's what DRM is supposed to do. Improve the bottom-line of people like Disney and Microsoft at the expense of their Customers. The theory is that the customers don't know it.
If you can show a quote that suggests even with the most twisted interpretation you can muster that RMS at one point believed that this was a good thing, I'd accept your "sounds revisionist" pompousness.
Not for people who really like the simplicity of GPL 2, and don't like the political directions of GPL 3.
Not for people who think that improvements should be free, no. Linus is certainly one of those people, and the GPL2 does that. It's not like he cares what kinds of devices Tivo runs his software on. He just cares if Tivo adds support for some new whiz-bang paging model that he be able to get that merged back in (at his discretion).
Slashdot Mirror
Because the consumers aren't suffering by Google's actions, they're unlikely to be targetted by the FTC. This is in stark contrast to Microsoft's monopoly, where consumers are suffering.
Err, there are a lot of ways a company with a monopoly can break the law, and its not entirely clear that the whole "web browser thing" was what did them in.
When Microsoft signed contracts with SUN to produce JAVA a certain way, then violated those contracts, and tied SUN up in court for a few years was a much better example. Simply put, if Microsoft hadn't signed that contract, people would've complained to MS "why is YOURS the only browser without Java Support?"
That much has been obvious, but unless you're an expert, I wouldn't expect you to simply "be aware" of them.
Google "walmart antitrust", or "toys r us antitrust" (esp. Toys R Us' problems with the FTC a while back).
See, Google got the monopoly by providing the best software. Microsoft didn't provide the best software, but told its customers buy our crap, or don't buy anything at all. Microsoft isn't the only company to break these laws: Bell Labs, Toys 'R' Us, and Wal*Mart are some that immediately spring to mind.
Once you've broken the law to get a monopoly, one of two things happen: You get your company torn apart- something Microsoft argued would be a "bad thing"- or you stop getting the privilege of playing in the Free Market. Microsoft chose the latter.
You can start comparing Google to Microsoft when Google starts hurting its customers, and hurting people who aren't Google's customers in order to hurt Google's competitors.
I remember looking at a mess of C++, bouncing with etags through a bunch of files, and we had two recursive routines; but one was const. The problem was that the compiler decided the const-one wasn't recursive, and generated to error as a result. The non-const one worked under some assumptions that simply were wrong. All the while cursing this !@#$@#$ of overloading, as well as the coding of the person who wrote the original file.
The reality is that the original programmer was new to C++, and while you can say that nobody ever really gets tripped up by operator/function overloading, people still do. LISP has its macros, and Perl has its line noise- every language has that feature that some demand is necessary, and others cry foul to.
So when we write C++, we avoid overloading- and mark up code heavily where overloading occurs (and surprise may lurk!). If overloading didn't exist, our lives would be easier because you wouldn't be able to use it either. It would never show up in foreign code on our doorstep and we would never have to track down bugs in it.
See, having all of these different capabilities in C++ (even the weird ones) means that anyone who needs to know C++ needs to know all of it. After all, we might have to look at someone elses code one day, and we need to know how all of its internals work. Especially the weird bits. And because C++ is a moving target (with no conforming compilers), it's hard to know C++. When I first was exposed to C++ in 1994, namespaces didn't exist in any compiler yet, and templates worked a little bit differently (in the available compilers)- so I not only have to know the C++ as specified, but how GNU C++ works, and how Turbo C++ works, and now Visual C++ works, and how each and every version of them worked, bugwise.
I think in that light it should be much easier to see why lots of people have come to the conclusion that C++'s "goodness" comes simply from the large number of people who can list it on their resume.
But like Windows, nobody really knows it as well as they'd like to think, and only its greatest appologists can pretend it hasn't caused more problems than its solved.
The key is produced through a (previously) unknown tranformation involving the MAK. Since the MAK is published, as well as the cipher, as well as the protocol.
I don't know what the intent of Tivo's DRM was, and I strongly suspect you don't either.
The DRM as implemented couldn't do what you say it was intended to do- people regularly rip from their tivo and show the results to people who don't have the MAK.
Its a wonderful piece of reverse engineering, but if you're nitpicking that people didn't break the turing cipher, I've got news for you: Nobody had to. They broke the method of creating the key.
I like putting cartoons on DVD so my kid can watch something on long car rides. Before today, this meant using wine and directshow nonsense. Today its just become a little better.
Other people have other reasons. Just because you have no family or friends, and no imagination to boot doesn't mean everyone is as sad as you.
This defeats TiVO's DRM that was used to prevent Linux and Mac users from watching shows on their PC.
Please stop replying if you have no idea what you're talking about.
Seriously, Linux's F_NOTIFY has been around since 2.4 and other operating systems have similar.
Except Microsoft Windows isn't the most used OS in the world. A UNIX is- everybody who uses a web browser is looking at a web page- very likely to be served by a UNIX server. I think the sheer number of zombies (about 60% of Microsoft's user base) demonstrates that Windows users simply don't know that they're owned. The other 40% probably have professional UNIX admins running their network.
Or did you mean Operating system with the largest number of installations? That'd have to go to TRON- immensly popular in Japan, it's on just about every piece of industrial or business hardware there: I'm talking billions of deployments.
I think accepting any bugs is a mistake. Note that Linux and FreeBSD both make honest efforts to fix their bugs- but unless someone has disclosed it to Security Focus, Microsoft won't fix it. They know just like everyone else that Bugs are defects and since Microsoft sold a defective product, they have to fix it. Of course, the fewer that are disclosed the better.
Er, no. The reason defective software is available is because people just like you who think defective software is acceptable. If nobody thought defective software was acceptable, there simply wouldn't be any defective software. NASA (for example) makes defect-free software (albeit at a significant expense)- but usually failures are acceptable if the failures are graceful and recoverable. EROS and J2SE are two operating systems that work like this.
I disagree. Up until distributed zombies became popular (thanks mixter), nobody targetted Windows simply because no gain could be had. Now zombies are used for everything from spamming to extortion. Six year olds aren't "bringing down windows" - I mean, I don't know if six year olds are bringing down windows. They're not bringing down UNIX, that's for certain (the oldest and most pervasive operating system ever), but if six year olds are bringing down Windows, I'd highly recommend you seek elsewhere.
You'll find very few people disagree with this, but people don't want to "maliciously" exploit an OS: they want to make profit. Spammers and spyware installers don't target Windows: they target ignorance. When ignorant people start buying Macintosh and UNIX desktops again, you'll probably see some real targets there. After all, would you rather have 1% of 1000, or 99% of 100?
Do you honestly think people go Hrm, this program is pretty seedy, but I'm going to run it anyway! .
The real problem is people go Oh, I received an electronic fax, that's not a program and people like you just say No you dolt, that was an exe file, gawd how stupid are you!?
This is what I think the real problem is: Suggesting that people accept faulty software and their own failings.
Here's an idea: a big red button on the side of the computer. You hold it in, and executables can be created. Tell people that big red button lets other people change the way their computer works and no matter how the computer instructs them otherwise, to only push and hold that button in when they are unhappy about how their computer works and feel the need to change it.
That's what root is supposed to be for- whether they be called Administrator or sudo doesn't make it any more or less safe. The fact that Non-root can install software is a security weakness. The fact that the user can run as administrator and not know it is a security weakness.
My mother in law has been actively computing since 2002 without any viruses or "computer problems of any kind" simply because she has to call me in order to remount
Or rather, the EULA only applies to you if you believe it applies to you.
Not only am I legally allowed to install Mac OS X on my toaster, I can give people patches that let other people install it on their toasters: See Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
No, that was very clear that you were buying that.
The very first thing I did with My mac-mini was install Linux on it. I then proceeded to install Mac OS X Panther (obtained via a broken 166mhz iMac) and Tiger on top of it using MOL. Apple can forbid me to do this all they like, it still isn't illegal, and still shouldn't be.
The problem is that laws change. They change simply by having enough people believe that they already have (Just ask OJ "if he did it"), and right now, you believe the law has changed.
Once you believe all they have to do is worm some text into a thousand line document that was at least partially on the screen when you clicked a button, you've had that meeting of the minds they're always talking about, and suddenly, that law actually does apply to you.
Yes Virginia, the solution really is that simple: Ignore that EULA. Click I accept but do not read it. Know that it is false and unenforcable and lies, and you will be safe.
No, it's not. If I have an Oracle database with a security vulnerability in it, I might be immune- my firewall might protect me, or I might not have users accessing it in a way that makes me vulnerable.
If I am vulnerable, exactly what can the attacker accomplish? I might want to shut down my database. If it happens too frequently, I may want a refund.
Whatever I do, it's my decision, and not Oracles. The bugs are their because of their sloppiness. If I know about them, then I can protect myself. If I don't know about them, then I cannot protect myself. It's as simple as that.
So do understand sir, you are asking me to trust them. Not just a little bit either, but potentially with the livelyhood of my company. Where exactly do you think these vulnerabilities come from, and who exactly do you think "discovers" them, and most importantly, why is it you think keeping information about these vulnerabilities secret from me (the customer) is a good thing?
Tell me exactly sir, how is my request "irresponsible"?
If you have to explain your ads, then they didn't work.
Its called neglegence: Microsoft didn't write good code, and a lot of people got hurt: Those zombies waste my bandwidth (even though there isn't any MS software here), and those ads have ruined my email.
Sure, they offered to "fix it later"- sometimes years after someone noticed, but only if the person who bought their software complains.
Unfortunately, as you point out, they don't know that they bought a lemon. They're non-technical people, and the technical people (i.e. you) are telling them this is normal.
Here's an idea: Tell Microsoft to issue a recall of their broken software and offer to pay damages. Tell your customers to demand the same thing.
Seems to me that it's bad taste to call something a launch title unless its actually available at launch.
State supreme courts are US Districut courts (Missouri's is also their Western District). Eight states have their supreme court judges appointed by the Governor, and 11 use what is called The Missouri Plan (including, intuitively Missouri). It works like this: A committee solicits applicants and conducts interviews and makes a recommendation of three people to the Governor who picks one of them. After a year on the bench the judges must run unupposed at the next general election for retention in office. Believe it or not, this vote is often called a retention vote.
You're thinking of circuit courts and not district courts. The US President also makes appointments to the Supreme court, but almost everyone knows that.
which makes Missouri (including its Western District court- their Supreme Court, the one we're talking about now), that 11
While Article III judges are appointed for life, the supreme court of Missouri (Missouri's Western District court) is an Article I tribunal (legislative) court. See for details on exactly what this means.
There are 94 federal "district courts" - including at least one district in each state.
That district is referred to as the _supreme_ court of that state, and it is that court in Missouri sir, is where Stephen Limbaugh Jr. sits.
You're thinking
....
don't ask on slashdot?
Seriously.
If your "friend" thinks he needs legal advise, he should ask a lawyer.
If your "friend" is asking for technical advise, while dosbox and wine are _great_ ways to impose greater restrictions on legacy software, if your "friend" is asking for technical advise by acting like he's looking for legal advise, then your "friend" is an asshat.
Seriously. Every time Microsoft partners with someone it means they're doomed. Remember when Microsoft "partnered" with any of these guys?
* Netscape
* Palm
* Symantec and McAfee
* Sendo
It's bad when "crap" is informative.
``My internet cock is _this_ big!''
``Well _MY_ internet cock runs linux! omg!''
Its terrible.
I like playing games, but nobody makes games I want to play. Does the author really mean to suggest I should be playing games I'm not interested in?
And what else could Loki expect by picking a very small percentage of a very small percentage? Did they really think they could do better than the Dreamcast? I mean, Sega's Saturn numbers were larger than Linuxs' at the time. Isn't this really just a big no-duh?
Here's an idea: If you want to buy the game, buy the game. If you want to justify the 2,000$ you spent on your ``eff-pee-ess'' by buying crappy games, all you're really doing is perpetuating this myth that "gamers" have small penises and bad hygene.
Meanwhile, at least somebody is paying attention to the fact that the "gaming population" is pitifully and unmarketably small, and that while many of them actually like to play games, the more vocal jackasses with their so called "culture" makes them the target market of only the most brain-damaged.
US Law isn't really that complicated; The important thing to know is Law is whatever everyone agrees is law. In the US, it is understood that Congress can make laws, but so can regular citizens by serving on a Jury.
When we see the Microsoft/Disney/SPA/BSA/RIAA/MPAA/etc so active in trying to convince people that the law is actually how they say it is instead of how it is, people invariably begin to believe them, and when they do two things start happening:
1. They start repeating these non-truths and convincing others, and
2. One of them gets on a jury and overrides (via prima de facto) what was originally law
Once #2 occurs, other cases can occur where the prosecution simply points to the first case and says this is what everyone agrees so therefore it is law.
Well once a de facto-law has been enacted, Congress (often by way of lobbyists) may try and amend or recodify their intentions better. Sometimes the President will make an executive order for a similar reason. However the means, the DMCA represents this kind of recoding, and doesn't itself change what people agree to be law.
But I get worried when regular people start repeating these lies; once real users start believing those things are what is right, and agree it is law, because at that point, you actually need to convince people to accept new morals, something that I'm sure you can appreciate, is a lot more complicated.
I think it's fairly universal that Law is considered this surreal existance of smoke filled rooms and gray haired men, but I find it's very helpful to reject the idea that Law describes good and evil; liberal and royalist; right and wrong, and instead describes the circumstances that further attention may be required. That attention is a Judge and a Jury in the U.S.
You mean creating four hostnames for the same address? Or do you mean changing a few src="" attributes?
Wrong. It leaves us with nothing. Didn't you read the article? HTTP Pipelining isn't enabled in the big two web browsers, so as far as "reality" is concerned it doesn't exist. It's like IPV6- who cares how much "better" it is if no one is using it?
DRM removes freedoms from users. That's its job. People like Disney and Microsoft don't like their users. They don't like that someone might by "The Little Mermaid" and more than one person might watch that copy. They don't like that if they distribute a demo disc, it's legal for someone to remove the timebombs and limitations. They also don't like that it's legal to distribute a program which does these things.
That's what DRM is supposed to do. Improve the bottom-line of people like Disney and Microsoft at the expense of their Customers. The theory is that the customers don't know it.
If you can show a quote that suggests even with the most twisted interpretation you can muster that RMS at one point believed that this was a good thing, I'd accept your "sounds revisionist" pompousness.
Not for people who think that improvements should be free, no. Linus is certainly one of those people, and the GPL2 does that. It's not like he cares what kinds of devices Tivo runs his software on. He just cares if Tivo adds support for some new whiz-bang paging model that he be able to get that merged back in (at his discretion).