Anyway, means they can encode to anything they want for all the new stuff without having to transcode. Hasn't helped with their congested servers though.
Doesn't really mean that at all. They need to encode for their targeted music players. MP3 would be best, since it's ubiquitous. Other formats, less so. They could, however, sell to the rest of the market of MP3 players with the non-DRM stuff -- provided that Apple wants to be in the music sales business, instead of the music hardware business.
Why doesn't somebody just drill down into the star and find out once and for all, rather than all this guessing. Get Hollywood to make a movie of you doing it, and you'll probably cover all the expenses in the process.
I'm more of a stickler for the rules than most of you, and even I say that if she's done an effective job for all this time, does this lying to get the job really matter?
And if she's been incompetent for all this time, then the people who supervised and reviewed her work for all this time should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY!
This incremental approach will eventually result in operating systems that are secure to all but the most sophisticated local attacks.
And since those attacks are For Sale for $3000 to $5000 on the Internet, everyone with intent to do serious, widespread damage will still be using them.
Wasn't Vista rewritten from scratch, rather than using the old NT code base? Isn't this wh it took an extra 3 years to arrive? Isn't this where there are still major compatibility errors in Vista compared to previous NT and Win95/98/ME versions?
So what did they do here? Rewrite the.ANI handler by re-implementing the same bug as before?
"The network is a shared resource, and we must ensure that it is available to all users,"
And suppose my use of my piece of the network available to all users is filesharing. That's how I want to spend my bandwidth share. If that's the case, why don't I get the same access as anyone else for any other application? If this is simply a bandwidth issue, then cap the bandwidth either by total speed, or by usage per day.
And if it's not a bandwidth issue, then quit claiming that it is.
I wonder how good they'll be at catching less common, unlisted, P2P apps
If the T1 is priced in dollars at the same rate as 10 years ago, then adjusted for inflation it has certainly gotten cheaper.
Other than that, they charge what the market will bear. Quit paying for them, use alternatives, and things will change. Perhaps they're trying to kill off the T1 altogether, or regulatory price changes are too much trouble to apply for and complete.
He didn't have to admit to any of his own wrongdoing. He was too busy admitting to Steve Job's wrongdoing to help Steve out. Isn't it great when you staff is so helpful?
How useful is this really? Intel has opened an FSB that they intend to replace with CSI in the next 18 to 24 months. Does this "opening" include CSI as well, or will anyone who accepts this be stepping into rapidly obsolete technology?
You would struggle to justify the removal of (for instance) a playlist file or log file for your MP3 playback software. Those files are clearly relevant to the question of whether you have copied or played any infringing copies of RIAA music.
Only in the RIAA's mind. A playlist does not indicate what music file was played, just it's title. It cannot indicate if a file is infringing, or not.
The whole purpose of this exercise is to determine what you DO have. If the RIAA already knew what you had with the precision you describe, they wouldn't need to inspect the disk in the first place.
The RIAA claims, with some precision, that the files they indicate, and the P2P software in question exists on some hard drive somewhere that was, at the time in question, connected to your Internet connection. And that the user/owner of that hard drive is the person they seek.
All the defense is seeking to provide is that it isn't the the defendant's hard drive that had the alleged infringing files. So the RIAA says that these are the files that are on the drive in question. As long as you don't remove any of the files they claim are on the hard drive they're looking for, you haven't hidden any evidence. Anything else beyond that is a fishing expedition on their part.
As for me, I'm not going to worry about it too much. Think of me as Beowulf Schaeffer not worrying too much about the galactic core exploding, and the shock wave arriving in a mere 20,000 years into the future. Nothing to lose sleep over.
If I have an XP system, it's probably not the latest hardware.
If I have an XP system, it's probably not equipped with the latest graphics card.
If I'm adding an abstraction/emulation layer, it's probably adding significant code to be executed.
Chances are that my performance is going to take a measurable, if not fatal, hit for any but the latest hardware.
By comparison Blu-Ray players, manufactured in Japan, are not expected to drop below $1000 until next year.
Since I can buy Blu-Ray players in PS3's for $599 right now, I'm calling BS on this whole article.
Also, doesn't China have a bit of a licensing problem regarding the content protection system in DVD's? Are these players from China fully licensed to use the AACS content protection system, as well as all patents in regard to HD-DVD? I'd be really careful about placing such a big and noisy order if everything wasn't perfectly on the up-and-up.
Do they 'interview' neighbors and friends to see if there is a missing hard drive they are just 'holding'?
Well, in one case they are demanding to image and search the hard drives and all MP3 players of the son of a defendant, who lives miles away, and claims to only have a desktop system at home that he uses for his job as a legal assistant (i.e. large amount of confidential files there). They're trying to do this because, having searched his mother's harddrive and found ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of illegal activity on it, and only assumed that they were given the wrong hard drive, and are now on the hunt for the correct one that they're sure exists.
In the RIAA's twisted logic, he has either taken his desktop (not notebook/laptop computer) to his mother's house miles away to do illegal filesharing on her Internet broadband account, and then taken it home again, or REMOVED HIS HARDDRIVE and transported it over and back to infringe on record company copyrights. This theory, they feel, allows them to now search his hard drive -- or, I would expect, anyone within 4 degrees of separation from the defendant -- and all music players as they wish. While I believe this was finally ruled unreasonable and unlikely to produce admissible evidence, they now are fighting their best to avoid paying his legal bills that he entailed explaining this bit of common sense to them.
I would have them remove ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that can be proven not to relate to the RIAA's case before the RIAA can get their hands on it. Every e-mail, every history file, every log file, your installation of Microsoft Office, Media Player playlists, any other installed program that they're not looking for. Anything that's your business that it's on your hard drive, and not their business, should be gone gone gone! Even the operating system you use and its activation keys are none of their business in this case, since they're not suing you for having Microsoft Windows on your hard drive. And don't forget anything that indicates just how you connect to the Internet.
In the end they should receive any MP3 files that are on their list of infringing files, and Online Media Distribution System (P2P file sharing program, for the rest of us) files for the OMDS they've claimed they've identified (e.g. KaZaA) if present, AND NOTHING MORE!
As I understand it (IANAL), you are allowed to remove personal files that have no relationship to the case at hand. The RIAA can object if you try to protect files they say have a direct bearing on their case, however, they should find it an impossible task to justify why they need to see anything other than specified MP3 and/or OMDS files. Don't give them a byte more than they're entitled to.
And most importantly of all, perhaps, wipe all the unused file space. Let them try to prove why they deserve access to areas of the hard drive not included in any files.
This is being treated like it's the end of Microsoft. That their entire programming paradigm will have to change, and that they'll be paying out crippling amounts of money. I would predict at at worst it costs them $1billion, and they don't make more than the most minor changes in.NET. And that's after years of litigation. They can probably buy Vertical Computer Systems for less than this worst case, and are likely considering that as one option. I, for one, don't expect to see big changes, if any changes, ever.
Microsoft shows their yellow side yet again. They wait until Fake Steve Jobs is gone on a hunting retreat for the weekend before attacking the iPhone. Everyone knows that FSJ would rip them a frigging Zune-sized you-know-what the moment he saw this red meat. Ballmer throwing chairs is no match for FSJ on even an average day.
When Shining Path started sweeping across the countryside, this was a real threat -- not a mostly imaginary threat like American paranoia about terrorism.
Terrorists are hardly an imaginary threat. Currently they're more like a remote threat, rather than blowing up cars and themselves in my neighborhood. That's the way I'd like to keep them.
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.
Slashdot Mirror
How about in everybody's sig line on Slashdot as protest?
Now what was that number again?
Doesn't really mean that at all. They need to encode for their targeted music players. MP3 would be best, since it's ubiquitous. Other formats, less so. They could, however, sell to the rest of the market of MP3 players with the non-DRM stuff -- provided that Apple wants to be in the music sales business, instead of the music hardware business.
Are you aware that some of the words Mr. Beckerman ask him about are in the Code of Ethics of the organization he claims certification membership in?
I thought not.
Why doesn't somebody just drill down into the star and find out once and for all, rather than all this guessing. Get Hollywood to make a movie of you doing it, and you'll probably cover all the expenses in the process.
MIMO, sounds too much like GIGO.
And if she's been incompetent for all this time, then the people who supervised and reviewed her work for all this time should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY!
And since those attacks are For Sale for $3000 to $5000 on the Internet, everyone with intent to do serious, widespread damage will still be using them.
So what did they do here? Rewrite the .ANI handler by re-implementing the same bug as before?
Or were we just lied to again, by Microsoft?
And suppose my use of my piece of the network available to all users is filesharing. That's how I want to spend my bandwidth share. If that's the case, why don't I get the same access as anyone else for any other application? If this is simply a bandwidth issue, then cap the bandwidth either by total speed, or by usage per day.
And if it's not a bandwidth issue, then quit claiming that it is.
I wonder how good they'll be at catching less common, unlisted, P2P apps
Other than that, they charge what the market will bear. Quit paying for them, use alternatives, and things will change. Perhaps they're trying to kill off the T1 altogether, or regulatory price changes are too much trouble to apply for and complete.
He didn't have to admit to any of his own wrongdoing. He was too busy admitting to Steve Job's wrongdoing to help Steve out. Isn't it great when you staff is so helpful?
Ask your congress-critter just how this vote benefits You! If they can't give you a good answer to this, ask them why they're still in office.
How useful is this really? Intel has opened an FSB that they intend to replace with CSI in the next 18 to 24 months. Does this "opening" include CSI as well, or will anyone who accepts this be stepping into rapidly obsolete technology?
And I'm sure this is only 5 years away from commercial use, just like every other such announcement.
Only in the RIAA's mind. A playlist does not indicate what music file was played, just it's title. It cannot indicate if a file is infringing, or not.
The whole purpose of this exercise is to determine what you DO have. If the RIAA already knew what you had with the precision you describe, they wouldn't need to inspect the disk in the first place.
The RIAA claims, with some precision, that the files they indicate, and the P2P software in question exists on some hard drive somewhere that was, at the time in question, connected to your Internet connection. And that the user/owner of that hard drive is the person they seek.
All the defense is seeking to provide is that it isn't the the defendant's hard drive that had the alleged infringing files. So the RIAA says that these are the files that are on the drive in question. As long as you don't remove any of the files they claim are on the hard drive they're looking for, you haven't hidden any evidence. Anything else beyond that is a fishing expedition on their part.
As for me, I'm not going to worry about it too much. Think of me as Beowulf Schaeffer not worrying too much about the galactic core exploding, and the shock wave arriving in a mere 20,000 years into the future. Nothing to lose sleep over.
Doesn't the Internet route around damage?
If I have an XP system, it's probably not equipped with the latest graphics card.
If I'm adding an abstraction/emulation layer, it's probably adding significant code to be executed.
Chances are that my performance is going to take a measurable, if not fatal, hit for any but the latest hardware.
And 100% of those posts have to mention rootkits!
Since I can buy Blu-Ray players in PS3's for $599 right now, I'm calling BS on this whole article.
Also, doesn't China have a bit of a licensing problem regarding the content protection system in DVD's? Are these players from China fully licensed to use the AACS content protection system, as well as all patents in regard to HD-DVD? I'd be really careful about placing such a big and noisy order if everything wasn't perfectly on the up-and-up.
Well, in one case they are demanding to image and search the hard drives and all MP3 players of the son of a defendant, who lives miles away, and claims to only have a desktop system at home that he uses for his job as a legal assistant (i.e. large amount of confidential files there). They're trying to do this because, having searched his mother's harddrive and found ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of illegal activity on it, and only assumed that they were given the wrong hard drive, and are now on the hunt for the correct one that they're sure exists.
In the RIAA's twisted logic, he has either taken his desktop (not notebook/laptop computer) to his mother's house miles away to do illegal filesharing on her Internet broadband account, and then taken it home again, or REMOVED HIS HARDDRIVE and transported it over and back to infringe on record company copyrights. This theory, they feel, allows them to now search his hard drive -- or, I would expect, anyone within 4 degrees of separation from the defendant -- and all music players as they wish. While I believe this was finally ruled unreasonable and unlikely to produce admissible evidence, they now are fighting their best to avoid paying his legal bills that he entailed explaining this bit of common sense to them.
So in answer to your question: Yes!
In the end they should receive any MP3 files that are on their list of infringing files, and Online Media Distribution System (P2P file sharing program, for the rest of us) files for the OMDS they've claimed they've identified (e.g. KaZaA) if present, AND NOTHING MORE!
As I understand it (IANAL), you are allowed to remove personal files that have no relationship to the case at hand. The RIAA can object if you try to protect files they say have a direct bearing on their case, however, they should find it an impossible task to justify why they need to see anything other than specified MP3 and/or OMDS files. Don't give them a byte more than they're entitled to.
And most importantly of all, perhaps, wipe all the unused file space. Let them try to prove why they deserve access to areas of the hard drive not included in any files.
This is being treated like it's the end of Microsoft. That their entire programming paradigm will have to change, and that they'll be paying out crippling amounts of money. I would predict at at worst it costs them $1billion, and they don't make more than the most minor changes in .NET. And that's after years of litigation. They can probably buy Vertical Computer Systems for less than this worst case, and are likely considering that as one option. I, for one, don't expect to see big changes, if any changes, ever.
Microsoft shows their yellow side yet again. They wait until Fake Steve Jobs is gone on a hunting retreat for the weekend before attacking the iPhone. Everyone knows that FSJ would rip them a frigging Zune-sized you-know-what the moment he saw this red meat. Ballmer throwing chairs is no match for FSJ on even an average day.
Terrorists are hardly an imaginary threat. Currently they're more like a remote threat, rather than blowing up cars and themselves in my neighborhood. That's the way I'd like to keep them.
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.