Re:I think he missed an important distinction...
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
OK. NASA's website has some decent info about the whole incident, but it's not terribly well organized into a clear hierarchy; ie. a timeline prior to launch. They have one prior to breakup, but that doesn't do us a lot of good regarding this discussion.
I'm well aware that you can't just turn around and land when you have however many millions of pounds of thrust below you. Must have sucked to be those engineers.
I think he missed an important distinction...
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
Was the Columbia disaster not preventable? I distinctly remember it being mentioned on television and the Internet that engineers witnessed the wing damage incident and chose not to ground the flight. It was a bad call, in retrospect, but that doesn't make the shuttles fundamentally unsafe.
I think the poster was right about Rep. Barton and Lockheed-Martin.
IANAL, but as I understand it, any act preventing their BIOS from running in exactly the way they intended is a violation. It doesn't matter what you do afterwards. (Unless that's further criminal activity)
Furthermore, I am not a US citizen (Canuck), so I haven't researched the DMCA as exhaustively as I might otherwise have. Still, I believe it's as draconian as I implied above.
Modification of an X-Box, namely, with a modchip, constitutes a form of copy-protection circumvention, which is an offense under the DMCA.
By installing your modchip, you circumvent bootup routines contained in the BIOS ROM which prevent you from playing pirated games, installing Linux, etc, etc.
The proprietary Microsoft BIOS ROM is what this whole DMCA spectre revolves around. You own the box but not the ROM inside. It's not your right to modify it. (As dictated by law. I'm all for mods)
I don't mean this to a bash at Apple, in fact, I consider it a compliment, but anyway, Apple seems to have managed to put together software systems that work fine for the lowest common denominator and don't resort to Stupid Pet Tricks.
By and large Apple's choices aren't really all that innovative, just common-sense smart. Why can't others do the same?
Hopefully, in the future, people will be using browsers with halfway decent restraints for Javascript and other scripting languages.
I use Opera and Firebird and neither would ever let this sort of stupid attack fly. In fact, in Firebird, you can specifically disable some forms of window-resizing/moving script.
Ah sorry, mild misunderstanding. I was just referring to ESMTP given that the parent had claimed its adoption was megaslow... the actual focus of my comment was the new standards currently being proposed.
I suppose your argument still stands to reason, but if AOL and Earthlink decided to be 800 pound gorillas and force smaller outfits, maybe it would help. Maybe not.
Disregard this comment if ESMTP would eliminate spam (can't tell from its homepage if it has anything to do with authentication), but I think perhaps you should talk to AOL, Earthlink, The World, and various other ISP's head honchos before you claim no one would want to switch.
In recent weeks all of these people have weighed in on the massive bandwidth drain spam generates, and given that they're pretty big in the industry, I don't see why a push like this would fail.
Apparently a jury of his peers was too dim to see the difference between two forms of copyright infringement.
When you think about it, unauthorized sampling is more odious than sharing as the sampling offender is actually profiting fiscally from ill-gotten gain, as opposed to merely gaining digital information.
Indeed. I just recently fully migrated from my abominable Hotmail address to my POP3. I can't believe how bad Hotmail's gotten, between popups, appending service ads to your outgoing mail, changing their login screen to be full of (guess what) ads, and not letting you correctly apply your own spam filters.
No indeedy! If I want to redirect mail with my own filters, I can't actually send it to the size-unrestricted Junk Mail folder!
My friend, we have nothing to fear. We came after the beat poets of the late fifties/early sixties, and no one can ever put them to shame for lameness, daddy-o.
OK, I stand corrected. I was basing a couple of assumptions off an article in the Register. (I couldn't really get much info about the service on Apple's site)
My only question now: if you have a catastrophic disk failure and lose your music, will the stuff you get back from Apple play on the "new" file system, or whatever it is they use to identify your computer? My assumption is that this information would be lost in a format, and you'd have to phone Apple to reestablish your identity, like with XP Home.
Actually, with the way copyright and patent law is going these days, I wouldn't be surprised if the big firms could indeed keep their hands on the fruits of their labour indefinitely, which is a shame.
I could imagine a particularly wise and benevolent government forcing it into the public domain, and after all, this is the year 2250 (whenever) we're talking about, and perhaps benevolent government will have finally emerged by then.
Well put. However, after the massive global turmoil, I expect, under the circumstances you proposed, that you'd end up with an "I, Robot" scenario; the world's economic "backend", being resource gathering, processing, and manufacturing, would be completely mechanized, leaving humans only the arts and sciences as our dominion.
It would certainly spell the end of economics as we know it. Socialist utopia, here we come. Have you read many of Asimov's works pertaining to the topic?
There's discussion in the article about property rights and nanotech, particularly relating to the advanced, at this point imaginary, construction of complex mechanisms through nanobots.
However, I believe they may be putting the cart ahead of the donkey, considering the need of resources for the bots. That is, unless you don't mind nanobots eating your kids and reconstituting them into Nanobot Green.;)
You are right, but think of how quick media companies will jump on the DRM bandwagon once they realize what a boon it will be. Say bye-bye to Netflix and music stores. Perhaps if you have music from some distributor, and you later decide to flick off DRM, the files will delete themselves?
Sounds probable to me. Look at the Apple Music store. It has limited DRM by today's standards, but you still stand to lose all your music if you really f*ck up.
This DRM debate, by and large, isn't about the present state of online services and their alternatives. It's about the future, which very well may be a future where the media conglomerates control the Internet like the television. It's apocalyptic, but not as far-fetched as some people would like to call it.
I stand corrected. That will teach me to listen to Gates' spin-doctoring.
Still, you don't see Microsoft enforcing those terms much, do you? Whereas I've seen lots of examples of format lockout, especially with the saga of the.DOC format.
Hurr hurr. I know I'm feeding a troll, but the Legendary Bendy Chief is the Chief of Police from the Kowloon peninsula of Hong Kong, from the PC game, Hitman: Codename 47.
Once upon a time I used the game's excellent kinematics engine to bend his legs backwards with a sawn-off shotgun. It was great fun.
"They just don't understand," Gates said. "That's like saying because we make a word processor, that reporters write what we want them to write or something. I can give you examples to prove that's not the case." (About antitrust fears with DRM)
Wow. He sure allayed my fears. What he meant to say is, no, they don't have to write what he wants, but they do have to write in the FORMAT he wants, or get left behind. This whole DRM off-switch issue is the same quandary. Turn DRM off and watch your access to many online resources, that are becoming more and more integrated with daily life, vanish. Not to mention the suspicion that very well may come with shunning DRM. "What do you have to hide?", say Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Ashcroft.
Now I know I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but I can't see the article.
So, in classic "RTFA" style, I'm going to go ahead and say that this smacks of the trend from the dot.boom era when Joe Blow at the local cheese factory had a website, no matter how ugly and pointless. I can't say I'm looking forward to the fruits of these labours, IF they are the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm well aware that you can't just turn around and land when you have however many millions of pounds of thrust below you. Must have sucked to be those engineers.
I think the poster was right about Rep. Barton and Lockheed-Martin.
Well, one thing's for damn sure, it won't be sex education. :P
IANAL, but as I understand it, any act preventing their BIOS from running in exactly the way they intended is a violation. It doesn't matter what you do afterwards. (Unless that's further criminal activity)
Furthermore, I am not a US citizen (Canuck), so I haven't researched the DMCA as exhaustively as I might otherwise have. Still, I believe it's as draconian as I implied above.
The proprietary Microsoft BIOS ROM is what this whole DMCA spectre revolves around. You own the box but not the ROM inside. It's not your right to modify it. (As dictated by law. I'm all for mods)
By and large Apple's choices aren't really all that innovative, just common-sense smart. Why can't others do the same?
I use Opera and Firebird and neither would ever let this sort of stupid attack fly. In fact, in Firebird, you can specifically disable some forms of window-resizing/moving script.
I suppose your argument still stands to reason, but if AOL and Earthlink decided to be 800 pound gorillas and force smaller outfits, maybe it would help. Maybe not.
In recent weeks all of these people have weighed in on the massive bandwidth drain spam generates, and given that they're pretty big in the industry, I don't see why a push like this would fail.
When you think about it, unauthorized sampling is more odious than sharing as the sampling offender is actually profiting fiscally from ill-gotten gain, as opposed to merely gaining digital information.
No no no, you've got it all wrong... the blanket term is "Napster-like theft ring" nowadays. :)
Thank you kindly, sirrah, from another pre-MS Hotmail user who's cried at their meteoric fall from grace. ;)
It's handy-dandy, and I've never had a probASDFK6GJL45SDJ6G-CARRIER LOST-
No indeedy! If I want to redirect mail with my own filters, I can't actually send it to the size-unrestricted Junk Mail folder!
The Browser Formerly Known as Phoenix people seem to be asserting that.
Perhaps it's just a glib reversal to save face?
My friend, we have nothing to fear. We came after the beat poets of the late fifties/early sixties, and no one can ever put them to shame for lameness, daddy-o.
My only question now: if you have a catastrophic disk failure and lose your music, will the stuff you get back from Apple play on the "new" file system, or whatever it is they use to identify your computer? My assumption is that this information would be lost in a format, and you'd have to phone Apple to reestablish your identity, like with XP Home.
Actually, with the way copyright and patent law is going these days, I wouldn't be surprised if the big firms could indeed keep their hands on the fruits of their labour indefinitely, which is a shame.
I could imagine a particularly wise and benevolent government forcing it into the public domain, and after all, this is the year 2250 (whenever) we're talking about, and perhaps benevolent government will have finally emerged by then.
It would certainly spell the end of economics as we know it. Socialist utopia, here we come. Have you read many of Asimov's works pertaining to the topic?
However, I believe they may be putting the cart ahead of the donkey, considering the need of resources for the bots. That is, unless you don't mind nanobots eating your kids and reconstituting them into Nanobot Green. ;)
Sounds probable to me. Look at the Apple Music store. It has limited DRM by today's standards, but you still stand to lose all your music if you really f*ck up.
This DRM debate, by and large, isn't about the present state of online services and their alternatives. It's about the future, which very well may be a future where the media conglomerates control the Internet like the television. It's apocalyptic, but not as far-fetched as some people would like to call it.
Still, you don't see Microsoft enforcing those terms much, do you? Whereas I've seen lots of examples of format lockout, especially with the saga of the .DOC format.
Once upon a time I used the game's excellent kinematics engine to bend his legs backwards with a sawn-off shotgun. It was great fun.
Verbatim from the article:
"They just don't understand," Gates said. "That's like saying because we make a word processor, that reporters write what we want them to write or something. I can give you examples to prove that's not the case." (About antitrust fears with DRM)
Wow. He sure allayed my fears. What he meant to say is, no, they don't have to write what he wants, but they do have to write in the FORMAT he wants, or get left behind. This whole DRM off-switch issue is the same quandary. Turn DRM off and watch your access to many online resources, that are becoming more and more integrated with daily life, vanish. Not to mention the suspicion that very well may come with shunning DRM. "What do you have to hide?", say Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Ashcroft.
So, in classic "RTFA" style, I'm going to go ahead and say that this smacks of the trend from the dot.boom era when Joe Blow at the local cheese factory had a website, no matter how ugly and pointless. I can't say I'm looking forward to the fruits of these labours, IF they are the same.