I already have good enough reason to feel Apple's whole approach to update sucks!
All I want to do is update QuickTime on my XP box. I need it because of the.mov and.qt files it won't play otherwise. QT tells me there's a new update I must install, but the ONLY WAY Apple will provide me this update with bundled with iTunes which I DON'T HAVE and DON'T WANT!
It's never a good idea to install software you have no need for (I'm one of the remaining 27 people in the world without an iPod), don't want (the software, or the iPod), and don't know how avoid without just not updating in the first place.
Why the hell does Apple think I need an iTunes update just to update their buggy QT?
Looks like it's time to be buying silver futures. With all that silver iodide going up in smoke (so to speak), and given the size of China's consumption of any resource, silver supplies are going to be far tighter in the future than they are now.
They are claiming that the tool makes a copy of the game and stores it to ram to avoid their anti-cheating checks.
That's all well and fine except HE DIDN'T DO IT! The user running Glider on their own computer is the one who made the copy.
Think for a moment. If Napster/KaZaZ/whatever is responsible for making a copy of the copyrighted music files, then the RIAA would be suing those company programmers AND NOT SUING THE INDIVIDUALS who run the program afterwards. The original programmer did not commit copyright infringement by creating a program that users run that may load some data off of that user's hard drive into ram memory.
Blizzard Sucks! Why don't they just create some servers for 'bots, some for non-bots, and let everybody be happy?
They say this costs them money. Heck, there are probably some people who are only playing and paying Blizzard BECAUSE they don't have to grind their way up level by level until things get interesting.
Blizzard is full of crap in claiming that this programmer has violated their TOS with Glider. Maybe an end-user might violate the TOS for WoW, but not the software programmer who simply sells the program. Blizzard is being heavy-handed in exactly the same way the RIAA has been for years now.
I would like to know how Glider has evaded the Warden.
Uh, not on a nearly full SSD using the SSD for swap space. SSD's have seen significant storage reduction (overused sectors permanently removed from service) in as little as 4 to 6 weeks according to user reports posted right here on Slashdot.
Excuse me (not), but dual "standards" for the same function clearly hurt. Because they're not identical, they clearly can't be completely inter-operable, and additionally require twice as much effort to implement, keep current, and decide which to use. So is that guy on crack?
Anyhow, flash prices may be dropping, but I don't see SSDs gaining majority marketshare within the next 5 years.
SSDs are fast already, and getting faster quicker. Except for the unfortunate problem with wear that wear-leveling isn't really solving as well as some would have you believe, an SSD with suitable capacity for a majority of users - especially business users - at an acceptable price with much higher performance may easily be here within a year.
And if they could solve the write wear problem with any of several technologies, rotating storage could quickly (3-5 years) become relegated as second tier mass storage for video and other non-performance related storage.
Where is Intel in all this? They make the south bridge and MCH chips that talk to SATA drives. Are only Seagate and WD drives allowed to connect to them? Is Intel beholden to patent holders on the SATA interface? Why not connect future drives through USB 2/3 if SATA is patent encumbered?
The real question to me is, what is actually in there that is so helpful, or harmful, to other people besides idle curiosity? Unless some candidate outright lied on their application, how useful really is this information in the first place?
Really? Given that her patent claim is 12 YEARS OLD, I don't think the word "clearly" means what you think it means.
So are you saying that Sony read her patent, decided "That's neat!" and ripped it off from the patent office? Or did they likely do their own original research?
Also, you left out the word I carefully put in: "Publicly". Why haven't we heard about this until now. PS3 has been out for years. Why wasn't a stink raised the moment the first PS3 hit the docks in the USA? Going public from the beginning washes away patent troll accusations very nicely.
In addition, at least one computer news site today says this is in regard to another patent filed in February.
Interesting that they wanted to wait for the outcome before releasing this. It's almost as if they were waiting to thumb their nose at the BD camp once all the companies had moved over to that side.
Since BD+ was one of the strong arguments movie studios were citing in their selection of BD, wait for them to commit, and then tell them they're getting NOTHING extra out of BD. Makes sense to me.
I don't need this crack myself. I only need one other person to have it and the cat's out of the bag permanently (for that disc at least).
How long before the cost of DRM exceeds the protection it gives before being cracked? We may already be past that point - except that the idiot bean counters don't realize it!
I suspect Toshiba actually licensed the technology or something similar.
Toshiba uses a red laser diode that's rather different from the Sony blue diode. That's partly why Toshiba got to market first, and PS3 was delayed for months - the problem in building the blue laser diodes in quantity. The circumstances might be different.
PS3 and BluRay have been on the market for years now, and in quite public development for years prior to that. If this professor had come out publicly at the beginning and said, hey, that's my LED they're using, and I want boodles of ca$h, I would probably consider that acceptable behavior. Same for the RAZR (can't Motorola even spell?). But to wait this long and suddenly wake up from that Rip Van Winkle stupor to suddenly realize - that has to be my patent in there somewhere and now that you have built the market and are invested so deeply that you can't change anything to work around my idea I intend to blackmail you out of even bigger boodles of ca$h isn't acceptable. At a certain point patent trolls just harm too many other people to be allowed to continue, and this is a good case of exactly that!
Clearly Sony developed this on their own, so you can't even say they stole it.
Not true. There have been several cases in which a RIAA/MPAA case was dismissed because the defendant provided adequate evidence that it wasn't necessarily them who downloaded illegal materials
You really are a coward, and wrong to boot. Your argument shot itself in the foot the moment you admitted that they were already a defendant. That meant they'd already been sued.
Sharing your wireless wouldn't be problem except that:
1. It puts outsiders inside the protections provided by your NAT, and possibly hardware firewalls.
2. If you're on Comcast, other users can push you over their unpublished usage limit (on their all-you-can-eat "unlimited" broadband service) and get your account shut off.
3. The RIAA/MPAA sues the ISP account holder, not the actual infringer (even though they still claim to have identified an individual.)
4. Your own broadband seldom runs at more than 20% of advertised speed as it is. Other users are capable of slowing you down significantly.
5. We don't need to encourage a culture full of freeloaders.
6. If you're not encrypting, then they're reading all of your own browsing and file transfer activities. (Yes, this is possible on shared cable loops as well, but not other point-to-point connections e.g. DSL, FiOS.)
Aren't these enough reasons to think before you share?
The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000.
Can this be used against MediaSentry for their unauthorized (who in their right mind did authorize them) access to computer systems? Love to see a few of them in jail right about now.
All the FCC needs to do to bring Comcast back under control is tell them fine, inspect all your packets and block the ones you wish. You have now lost all your Common Carrier status protections and will be held responsible for EVERYTHING traversing your network.
Want to see Comcast fold like a cheap poolside chair after that?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, that also worked in Zelda to get the musical frogs to give me their heart-piece.
All I want to do is update QuickTime on my XP box. I need it because of the .mov and .qt files it won't play otherwise. QT tells me there's a new update I must install, but the ONLY WAY Apple will provide me this update with bundled with iTunes which I DON'T HAVE and DON'T WANT!
It's never a good idea to install software you have no need for (I'm one of the remaining 27 people in the world without an iPod), don't want (the software, or the iPod), and don't know how avoid without just not updating in the first place.
Why the hell does Apple think I need an iTunes update just to update their buggy QT?
Looks like it's time to be buying silver futures. With all that silver iodide going up in smoke (so to speak), and given the size of China's consumption of any resource, silver supplies are going to be far tighter in the future than they are now.
That's all well and fine except HE DIDN'T DO IT! The user running Glider on their own computer is the one who made the copy.
Think for a moment. If Napster/KaZaZ/whatever is responsible for making a copy of the copyrighted music files, then the RIAA would be suing those company programmers AND NOT SUING THE INDIVIDUALS who run the program afterwards. The original programmer did not commit copyright infringement by creating a program that users run that may load some data off of that user's hard drive into ram memory.
Blizzard Sucks! Why don't they just create some servers for 'bots, some for non-bots, and let everybody be happy?
They say this costs them money. Heck, there are probably some people who are only playing and paying Blizzard BECAUSE they don't have to grind their way up level by level until things get interesting.
I would like to know how Glider has evaded the Warden.
Uh, not on a nearly full SSD using the SSD for swap space. SSD's have seen significant storage reduction (overused sectors permanently removed from service) in as little as 4 to 6 weeks according to user reports posted right here on Slashdot.
Excuse me (not), but dual "standards" for the same function clearly hurt. Because they're not identical, they clearly can't be completely inter-operable, and additionally require twice as much effort to implement, keep current, and decide which to use. So is that guy on crack?
SSDs are fast already, and getting faster quicker. Except for the unfortunate problem with wear that wear-leveling isn't really solving as well as some would have you believe, an SSD with suitable capacity for a majority of users - especially business users - at an acceptable price with much higher performance may easily be here within a year.
And if they could solve the write wear problem with any of several technologies, rotating storage could quickly (3-5 years) become relegated as second tier mass storage for video and other non-performance related storage.
Where is Intel in all this? They make the south bridge and MCH chips that talk to SATA drives. Are only Seagate and WD drives allowed to connect to them? Is Intel beholden to patent holders on the SATA interface? Why not connect future drives through USB 2/3 if SATA is patent encumbered?
We won't know if these are actually the oldest asteroids until someone goes out there and checks their Best used by date.
EVERYTHING is objectionable to someone. You either close down the entire Internet, or none of it. No picking and choosing in-between.
Apple, you suck!
The real question to me is, what is actually in there that is so helpful, or harmful, to other people besides idle curiosity? Unless some candidate outright lied on their application, how useful really is this information in the first place?
I'll believe it when I get burned by it. 6000K. What the heck are they even making it out of?
Actually, that's the second best sig. The best sig is:
As God is my witness, I thought Balrogs could fly. -Gandalf
So are you saying that Sony read her patent, decided "That's neat!" and ripped it off from the patent office? Or did they likely do their own original research?
Also, you left out the word I carefully put in: "Publicly". Why haven't we heard about this until now. PS3 has been out for years. Why wasn't a stink raised the moment the first PS3 hit the docks in the USA? Going public from the beginning washes away patent troll accusations very nicely.
In addition, at least one computer news site today says this is in regard to another patent filed in February.
Since BD+ was one of the strong arguments movie studios were citing in their selection of BD, wait for them to commit, and then tell them they're getting NOTHING extra out of BD. Makes sense to me.
How about when it's quickly broken?
How long before the cost of DRM exceeds the protection it gives before being cracked? We may already be past that point - except that the idiot bean counters don't realize it!
Toshiba uses a red laser diode that's rather different from the Sony blue diode. That's partly why Toshiba got to market first, and PS3 was delayed for months - the problem in building the blue laser diodes in quantity. The circumstances might be different.
PS3 and BluRay have been on the market for years now, and in quite public development for years prior to that. If this professor had come out publicly at the beginning and said, hey, that's my LED they're using, and I want boodles of ca$h, I would probably consider that acceptable behavior. Same for the RAZR (can't Motorola even spell?). But to wait this long and suddenly wake up from that Rip Van Winkle stupor to suddenly realize - that has to be my patent in there somewhere and now that you have built the market and are invested so deeply that you can't change anything to work around my idea I intend to blackmail you out of even bigger boodles of ca$h isn't acceptable. At a certain point patent trolls just harm too many other people to be allowed to continue, and this is a good case of exactly that!
Clearly Sony developed this on their own, so you can't even say they stole it.
You really are a coward, and wrong to boot. Your argument shot itself in the foot the moment you admitted that they were already a defendant. That meant they'd already been sued.
SCOREEEEE!!!
1. It puts outsiders inside the protections provided by your NAT, and possibly hardware firewalls.
2. If you're on Comcast, other users can push you over their unpublished usage limit (on their all-you-can-eat "unlimited" broadband service) and get your account shut off.
3. The RIAA/MPAA sues the ISP account holder, not the actual infringer (even though they still claim to have identified an individual.)
4. Your own broadband seldom runs at more than 20% of advertised speed as it is. Other users are capable of slowing you down significantly.
5. We don't need to encourage a culture full of freeloaders.
6. If you're not encrypting, then they're reading all of your own browsing and file transfer activities. (Yes, this is possible on shared cable loops as well, but not other point-to-point connections e.g. DSL, FiOS.)
Aren't these enough reasons to think before you share?
Can this be used against MediaSentry for their unauthorized (who in their right mind did authorize them) access to computer systems? Love to see a few of them in jail right about now.
Want to see Comcast fold like a cheap poolside chair after that?