Problem is TOR is not used for it's intended purpose... to let persecuted people in far away lands access to our yummy yummy freedom. It's mostly for Kiddie porn and Warez.
One man's yummy yummy freedom is another man's hideous freedom porn. If the second man is an operative in the exit node's country's draconic internal security apparatus, the exit node is no less screwed just because the EFF or Amnesty International thinks the exit node is used to empower the oppressed.
On some practical level, the only criterion as to whether an exit node will be raided or not is whether it pisses off the authorities. However, what happens after that may be a useful diagnostic as to the oppressiveness of the government. (Like this case, in which the cops may be backing down because the violation they're after wasn't specifically the TOR exit node's action.)
The on-wheel audio controls on my Mitsubishi are entirely reliable and heads-up and hands-on-wheel. I push the "next station" button and it goes to the next station in my presets list. I push the "volume up" button and the volume goes up a small but noticeable bit. If I hold the "volume up" button, the volume goes up slowly but continuously until I release the button.
isn't quite so smart, so your eyes are taken off the road, hand off the wheel to make adjustments because the device skipped a station, or didn't rollover to the next band,
Ah, I see, you mean "defective implemenetations of on-wheel controls." Mine don't skip, or fail to roll over, or any of that crap. When push the button, the button does what it's supposed to do.
Broken is broken. Just because yours doesn't work doesn't mean mine won't either.
For quite some time now all SSDs have had 3 year limited warranties. I can't remember if anybody ever truly offered a lifetime warranty.
I think you're misinterpreting "lifetime warranty". "Lifetime" means "of the purchaser" and if the manufacturer's staticstical product failure models predict you're about to submit a warranty claim, they dispatch either death robots or ninjas to your house and kill you.
It's "Tivoization": GPL software that can be modified and compiled, but the intended hardware will refuse to run it unless the binary is cryptographically signed...and the hardware vendor holds the keys and isn't sharing.
GPL 2.0 had no protections against this particular end-run on the "anyone can modify, anyone can use" philosophy of Free Software. Tivo very cleverly used this loophole to "protect" their devices from "unauthorized" software modifications (i.e., they used Linux kernel and GNU userland, but didn't want the user hacking around with it). "Sure, you can have the source code... modify it to your heart's content. However, you can't run it on Tivo hardware, sorry."
GPL 3.0 put in a fairly explicit clause (cited elsewere in this thread) to prevent that end-around. It ain't GPL'd (per 3.0) if you can't modify it and run it on the platform it was intended on.
This is applicable in the UEFI boot software case: If the UEFI bootloader in Secure Boot mode is GPL 3.0, the signing key is as much part of the end-user redistributable as the source code... and Microsoft ain't giving away that signing key. (Besides, everyone having the key to the bootloader is exactly the same as not having Secure Boot at all... the bad guys could sign their rootkit and the loader would very happily load it.)
Or maybe a tiny patentholder (and possible troll...I don't care to research it enough to differentiate) suing Nintendo and many of Ninitendo's biggest retailers for the WII allegedly violating a patent on handheld pointer technology.
It makes exactly as much sense. It may make no sense to an outside observer, but it seems to be a legitimate outcome of the thought process: "Manufacturer, you're violating my patent and making money off of it. Retailer, you're making money too, by supporting Manufacturer's violation of my patent by giving them a market. Both of you, knock it off and pay me my share."
The practical upshot is often that a retailer will pull a dubious product off the shelf in response to the initial legal sabre-rattling. That puts pressure on the manufacturer to settle the issue one way or the other.
THIS is what this SDK EULA change is about. Google wants to throttle unauthorized Android work-alikes in the cradle. It probably sticks in their craws that legally anyone can build an AOSP-based phone, but there isn't much they can do about that. But completely non-Android systems with Android (Dalvik) runtime capability? Hells, no. You have to use the SDK to develop to that environment, so that's where we'll hit it... no SDK for you!
The version we use in RTS OS is a different, proprietary version, which we also wrote ourselves.
This is probably what Red Hat thinks needs to be proven.
Pure hypothetical in contradiction of RTS's statement follows. Entirely fictional. However, I'm betting this is what Red Hat is worried about.
RTS writes Linux SCSI core driver. Contributors improve it. RTS backports Linux SCSI core driver, including contributed improvements, to RTS OS and then closes it off as proprietary.
This scenario would be a GPL infringement. This is probably what Red Hat suspects. This is contrary to RTS' claim, which is: The RTS OS codebase is clean, and is not a derivative product of the GPLed Linux codebase (with other contributions).
But I agree... the burden is on Red Hat to prove it. Demanding a code audit of a proprietary software codebase just because you suspect non-compliant backporting doesn't sound like it would work. In the meanwhile, they've poisoned relationships with a major code contributor. I hope it was worth it.
But is Apple legally forced to restrict their customers from avoiding this restriction? No, the walled garden and "Apps only through OUR App store" is Apple's choice.
It is nice for the IP holders though. Millions of captive customers, penned in neatly by the shiny walls of the iOS lock-in. Apple rounds 'em up, brands 'em, and corrals 'em... every patent and trademark troll can pick 'em off and butcher 'em at leisure.
I'm not sure if that's a fair characterization. Apple devices generally provide a well-engineered and somewhat distinctive user experience. Not radically different from the equivalents from other ecosystems (like Android), but distinctive and sometimes better.
My experience with Razer products is that they're more the Monster Cable of input devices. No clear advantage over comparable products from other providers, but substantial "audiophool" cred among the 1337 gamex0rs.
I think engineers can get ahead of the "idiot improvement" curve if they just add 4" spikes to the steering wheel hub and change all dashboard surfaces to reinforced tempered steel.
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be die in a car crash caused by his own inattention, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
In the holy words of the meme, "obvious troll is obvious".
The irony is that your post shows promise, including a few bits of factual truth mingled in with the fanboyish flamebating. It's just that good trolling requires a lighter touch. As it is, your post is only half a step above GNAA, and only by virtue of being at least peripherally on-topic.
Better luck next time, and remember... subtlety will serve you much better.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe that's what "bio-break" was for...
Ok, admittedly, not for actual labor and delivery, but conception, maybe...
that's an accretion disc.
Problem is TOR is not used for it's intended purpose... to let persecuted people in far away lands access to our yummy yummy freedom. It's mostly for Kiddie porn and Warez.
One man's yummy yummy freedom is another man's hideous freedom porn. If the second man is an operative in the exit node's country's draconic internal security apparatus, the exit node is no less screwed just because the EFF or Amnesty International thinks the exit node is used to empower the oppressed.
On some practical level, the only criterion as to whether an exit node will be raided or not is whether it pisses off the authorities. However, what happens after that may be a useful diagnostic as to the oppressiveness of the government. (Like this case, in which the cops may be backing down because the violation they're after wasn't specifically the TOR exit node's action.)
WTF are you talking about?
The on-wheel audio controls on my Mitsubishi are entirely reliable and heads-up and hands-on-wheel. I push the "next station" button and it goes to the next station in my presets list. I push the "volume up" button and the volume goes up a small but noticeable bit. If I hold the "volume up" button, the volume goes up slowly but continuously until I release the button.
isn't quite so smart, so your eyes are taken off the road, hand off the wheel to make adjustments because the device skipped a station, or didn't rollover to the next band,
Ah, I see, you mean "defective implemenetations of on-wheel controls." Mine don't skip, or fail to roll over, or any of that crap. When push the button, the button does what it's supposed to do.
Broken is broken. Just because yours doesn't work doesn't mean mine won't either.
Agreed. I think the acro-word they're looking for is FUBAR.
Although the authorities believe the CAN fix it. So "Beyond all repair" may not be literally true.
For quite some time now all SSDs have had 3 year limited warranties. I can't remember if anybody ever truly offered a lifetime warranty.
I think you're misinterpreting "lifetime warranty". "Lifetime" means "of the purchaser" and if the manufacturer's staticstical product failure models predict you're about to submit a warranty claim, they dispatch either death robots or ninjas to your house and kill you.
Not much of an eggcorn, since it's precisely etymological.
not if you need singed paper work
Good point. No matter how much heat you apply, you can't get a good char on a softcopy. Not even a little browning. You just burn your monitor.
Nothing burns, shreds, or pulps like paper.
Then if the media show a misleading snippet, the police can counter with a misleading snippet of their own.
FTFY.
Well, it's funny. Not "funny ha-ha". More like "funny bizarre and unfortunate".
It's "Tivoization": GPL software that can be modified and compiled, but the intended hardware will refuse to run it unless the binary is cryptographically signed...and the hardware vendor holds the keys and isn't sharing.
GPL 2.0 had no protections against this particular end-run on the "anyone can modify, anyone can use" philosophy of Free Software. Tivo very cleverly used this loophole to "protect" their devices from "unauthorized" software modifications (i.e., they used Linux kernel and GNU userland, but didn't want the user hacking around with it). "Sure, you can have the source code... modify it to your heart's content. However, you can't run it on Tivo hardware, sorry."
GPL 3.0 put in a fairly explicit clause (cited elsewere in this thread) to prevent that end-around. It ain't GPL'd (per 3.0) if you can't modify it and run it on the platform it was intended on.
This is applicable in the UEFI boot software case: If the UEFI bootloader in Secure Boot mode is GPL 3.0, the signing key is as much part of the end-user redistributable as the source code... and Microsoft ain't giving away that signing key. (Besides, everyone having the key to the bootloader is exactly the same as not having Secure Boot at all... the bad guys could sign their rootkit and the loader would very happily load it.)
Interesting: a hierarchy of motivations.
Amoral greed > stupidity or apathy > disintrested evil
Of course, much greed is evil, or is described as such. So Hanlon's Razor appears to be contradicted in many of these "market cases".
On the upside, you can have a fully activated copy of Win 8 with relatively little effort.
On the downside, it'll still be Windows 8.
I think I'll pass, thanks.
Or maybe a tiny patentholder (and possible troll...I don't care to research it enough to differentiate) suing Nintendo and many of Ninitendo's biggest retailers for the WII allegedly violating a patent on handheld pointer technology.
It makes exactly as much sense. It may make no sense to an outside observer, but it seems to be a legitimate outcome of the thought process: "Manufacturer, you're violating my patent and making money off of it. Retailer, you're making money too, by supporting Manufacturer's violation of my patent by giving them a market. Both of you, knock it off and pay me my share."
The practical upshot is often that a retailer will pull a dubious product off the shelf in response to the initial legal sabre-rattling. That puts pressure on the manufacturer to settle the issue one way or the other.
Because the Constitution said so?
I think the righteous indignation and enhanced NEEERRRRRD RRRRAAAGE of dozens* of Android hackers will bring Xiaomi right around.
*"dozens" == more than 23. That's probably a safe guess.
Socrates' last words:
"I drank what?"
In that case, I sincerely hope our metal asses are shiny. So that the laser doesn't bite it.
THIS is what this SDK EULA change is about. Google wants to throttle unauthorized Android work-alikes in the cradle. It probably sticks in their craws that legally anyone can build an AOSP-based phone, but there isn't much they can do about that. But completely non-Android systems with Android (Dalvik) runtime capability? Hells, no. You have to use the SDK to develop to that environment, so that's where we'll hit it... no SDK for you!
The version we use in RTS OS is a different, proprietary version, which we also wrote ourselves.
This is probably what Red Hat thinks needs to be proven.
Pure hypothetical in contradiction of RTS's statement follows. Entirely fictional. However, I'm betting this is what Red Hat is worried about.
RTS writes Linux SCSI core driver. Contributors improve it. RTS backports Linux SCSI core driver, including contributed improvements, to RTS OS and then closes it off as proprietary.
This scenario would be a GPL infringement. This is probably what Red Hat suspects. This is contrary to RTS' claim, which is: The RTS OS codebase is clean, and is not a derivative product of the GPLed Linux codebase (with other contributions).
But I agree... the burden is on Red Hat to prove it. Demanding a code audit of a proprietary software codebase just because you suspect non-compliant backporting doesn't sound like it would work. In the meanwhile, they've poisoned relationships with a major code contributor. I hope it was worth it.
Don't be udderly ridiculous!
But is Apple legally forced to restrict their customers from avoiding this restriction? No, the walled garden and "Apps only through OUR App store" is Apple's choice.
It is nice for the IP holders though. Millions of captive customers, penned in neatly by the shiny walls of the iOS lock-in. Apple rounds 'em up, brands 'em, and corrals 'em... every patent and trademark troll can pick 'em off and butcher 'em at leisure.
Is Razer the Apple of input devices or something?
I'm not sure if that's a fair characterization. Apple devices generally provide a well-engineered and somewhat distinctive user experience. Not radically different from the equivalents from other ecosystems (like Android), but distinctive and sometimes better.
My experience with Razer products is that they're more the Monster Cable of input devices. No clear advantage over comparable products from other providers, but substantial "audiophool" cred among the 1337 gamex0rs.
I think engineers can get ahead of the "idiot improvement" curve if they just add 4" spikes to the steering wheel hub and change all dashboard surfaces to reinforced tempered steel.
-- Samuel Johnson... almost.
In the holy words of the meme, "obvious troll is obvious".
The irony is that your post shows promise, including a few bits of factual truth mingled in with the fanboyish flamebating. It's just that good trolling requires a lighter touch. As it is, your post is only half a step above GNAA, and only by virtue of being at least peripherally on-topic.
Better luck next time, and remember... subtlety will serve you much better.