Learn your terminology. An advocate is somebody who speaks in favor of something. A lobbyist is somebody who bribes politicians so they vote in favor of something.
Re:This will NO break any encryption algorithms...
on
No P = NP Proof After All
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Prime factorization is in NP (proof is just about as trivial as they come) and therefore if P=NP, there must exist a polynomial time algorithm for prime factorization. Who gives a fuck if factorization is NP complete or not, that doesn't matter in the slightest. I suggest you learn what NP complete means, as a start.
On a lot of shows they zoom in every time anybody uses their phone now. Sometimes there are entire scenes about the characters enjoying the cool new features. One episode of Bones, a character said "Blah blah in the lab just told me whatever red herring" and the other was like "How could you possibly know that, your phone didn't ring!" and they're like "Oh, this iPhone is amazing I can get all of my IM accounts and email in one tightly designed package!" like, what the fuck, like before the iPhone no phone has ever had text messaging before, ever. Bones is perhaps the worst show ever in regards to product placement. They don't just zoom in on shit, the characters switch to full-on commercial mode for 30 seconds. "You? A minivan?" "They aren't just for soccer moms you know. As an artist, I love the convenient stow and go seating when loading up an exhibit! And the backup camera is really convenient when trying to back a loaded van into a loading dock!" There was also an episode based entirely around Avatar, and another one where the major subplot was about them being in jail after showing off the fact that this same cool new minivan automatically swerves dangerously to avoid going over the center line. Actually, that was terrible product placement "Our car will get you arrested for drunk driving even though you are sober"
The DMCA exception doesn't prevent them from bricking your phone, just having you thrown in prison after. They will still put all of their effort into destroying customers phones, don't you worry. It also won't stop the phone from recording every phonecall you make and sending it to Sony over your 3G, nor will it stop it from logging your credit card numbers and sending them to Sony every time it's booted, unencrypted.
Yes, this is why. If your game music is Creative Commons Share-Alike, and Microsoft zips it up in DRM, then license be damned, anybody who bought the software cannot redistribute the assets. This violates the GPLv3 explicitly. It is also against the spirit of any other Open Source (with capitals) license, because you have Microsoft as a distributor both granting you the right to freely redistribute what you downloaded, while at the same time making all effort to prevent you from doing so. Even without explicit clauses, that might get them in legal trouble. So they more or less have to do this, or make the DRM optional. But it's their choice which of those two things to do.
Did YOU intentionally post wrong information? Apache MIT and BSD are not Open Source licenses. To be Open Source you NEED that *enforced* right to redistribute the software. If you don't have that, it isn't Open Source. Microsoft is banning that requirement, so anything that is Open Source with capitals is forbidden. Lower case open source is allowed, in that they will not send goons to rough you up if you release your source code independent of the Windows Market.
Wrong. See here for details. Any Open Source (with capital letters) license is forbidden, as is Creative Commons on your art, music, or even documentation.
Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge. Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses. For the purpose of this definition, “GPLv3 Licenses” means the GNU General Public License version 3, the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3, and any equivalents to the foregoing.
Pay attention to the part I bolded. That's the opposite of your claim, isn't it? You said it's limited to GPLv3, and Microsoft specifically says it isn't. Anyway, BSD isn't an Open Source license, it's a Free Software license. BSD is allowed because all you have to do is keep the copyright notice at the top. You don't have to allow others to redistribute it. Creative Commons licenses are not allowed because they all allow redistribution. But, you can always use a CC license (except non-commercial if you are selling it, obviously) as long as you strip the license off of it, which you can do if it isn't a Share-Alike license. But technically that makes you wrong. Because you are still forbidden from using a Creative Commons license on your art, your music, and your user manual. You can use CC licensed stuff, but you must strip the license first.
Any Open Source license, however, is forbidden. Because, look at the 3 requirements of the Microsoft license: First, no redistirbution allowed. Second, source code may not be disclosed. Third, modification is not allowed. Look at the first 3 requirements to call something OSS (with capital letters). First, redistribution allowed. Second, source code must be included with distribution. Third, modifications must be allowed. Microsoft specifically forbids anything that meets even one of the three most fundamental aspects of being Open Source.
I hope somebody robs you, and there are witnesses, and that fortunately for you, none of them are scum. You wouldn't want them violating the robber's privacy.
The concern is coming from an anonymous International Business Times writer, who linked to the actual NASA release and said "OH NOES", then speculated that maybe the sun is just getting tired from working all the time. That is to say, somebody who knows nothing about the particular field he's "reporting" on is worried, and for no reason whatsoever.
It's cut and dried, actually. Because Amazon.com fully owns Amazon.com Texas, whereas it does not own UPS.
Amazon is arguing that they don't own a warehouse in Texas, Amazon.com Texas does, and they own Amazon.com Texas. This is totally bogus, and Amazon knows it. That's why they backed down on actually going to court (though not in the way Texas hoped they would!) Though, I'm not sure how saying "Amazon.com Texas no longer exists lol" will get them out of existing bills, since that Texas property has to go somewhere. And yeah, the other thing, being able to snap your fingers and cause the "independent third party contractor" to vanish entirely is a pretty big fucking clue that it's not very independent after all...
Think of it like this: A judge sentences a cracker to community service and probation, with a condition that he cannot own a computer, but can use one for work. This cracker, being oh so clever, creates "Clever Cracker LLC" and then has this corporation buy a PC and hire him as a programmer. Now he can have a PC in his home office, and do what he likes, because technically he's his own boss and is telling himself to do things "for work". No judge on Earth would let that slide. Amazon.com is basically doing exactly the same thing. They're trying to say it's not their warehouse, it's the warehouse of a corporation that they happen to own. Not knowing the actual wording on Texas sales tax laws, I can't comment for certain, but like I said, Amazon doesn't appear to have much confidence in their own argument.
By stating categorically that it's absolutely and without exception utterly impossible for a machine to duplicate the processing power of a human brain, you are saying that the brain is somehow magical. You are the one believing in faeries.
You don't have to play this game in Canada. In Canada, to ask a customer for any information, you need a contract that specifies everything that information will be used for, signed by the customer. I believe the penalty for using information without a signature, or using it for a use other than one listed, is a $100,000 fine. Additionally, unless that information is required to provide the service, you cannot refuse service to a customer who refuses to sign. And they're pretty clear about what "required" means, too. If they want your postal code and/or address, it has to be because you are buying a service that requires that information. Like, a phone line or cable or something, where they CANNOT provide you without that information. If it's not something delivered to your house, they cannot require your address or postal code. Even if they do need your address for "added benefits" such as notifying you of recalls, etc. Those aren't part of the sale, you can opt out of the additional service, so the information is not required.
I don't see anything stopping them from charging more for an in-app purchase.
That's because you didn't look. If you offer anything at all for sale through the Apple store, that must be the lowest price for that item anywhere on the planet. Period. No exceptions. So if your book costs $4.49 on Amazon, you can't set the apple price to $4.99 or something, you have to set it to $3.99 (Remember also that Apple prices categorically must end in.99)
Video games are different from cars and houses because they are copyrighted. So they don't have to say all used markets are "wrong", just that the Doctrine of First Sale is wrong. They would have had better luck in the past, when first sale wasn't actually law, just an unwritten guideline. But for a long time now it has been law. They've tried to get around it by saying "No see it says that the owner is allowed to resell, but we're the owner of the copyright, it doesn't actually refer to the owner of the disc!" but since the law specifically makes that distinction and says it's the owner of the copy, they've not yet been successful. Still, they spend an awful lot of money lobbying both political parties to get First Sale stricken from law.
Meanwhile, they're already using serial keys as an end-run around first sale. So far nobody has had PS3/360 games that lock you out of single player without having a previously-unused CD key, but plenty of them lock you out of bonus features and multiplayer. It's only a matter of time. The only way to stop that is if state AG get serious about false advertising prosecutions. But as long as they're clearly labeling which advertised features do not work unless it's a new copy, I'm not sure how much traction that would get. There might also be an anti-trust angle, but that's pretty tenuous.
Anti-consumer developers, such as the folks at Penny Arcade (they made a game so now they're strongly anti-consumer-rights), say that games are different from movies and CDs because games make all their money from sales, whereas DVDs and CDs are all bonus money on top of the theater tickets and the concerts/radio royalties, so you can't even compare them. When asked about cars and houses, though, their answer is that Ford pays its workers on salary, whereas game developers pay their employees in royalties (which I don't think is true at all) and so therefore you can't compare them, either. Because apparently how a company choses to pay its employees should have a bearing on whether or not resale should be legal.
Philips screws are not suited for automated processes. Or rather, they were designed for automated screwing but the times have changed. A Philips drive head is designed to cause the driver to cam out when the screw is all the way in. Caming out isn't desireable, as it can damage the screw head and possibly the driver head as well. But, it's better than stripping the screw, or cracking whatever you're screwing into, which is what happens if a high speed automated driver keeps going too long with, say, a Robertson drive. But times have changed. Automated drivers are very good at torque sensing now, so they can stop the instant a screw has been driven home. So the Philips isn't optimal any longer. Caming out can damage the screw, the driver, it's not good. So the best screws to use in automated assembly are screws that can take high torque, and will not cam out. A Robertson works well for this, but isn't widely used any more. Probably because it's Canadian;) Instead, Torx screws are most often used in electronics and automotives. They're also called Hexalobular screws. They're 6 pointed stars. Their sharp edges allow for high torque without cam out. Supposedly they last longer than a Robertson so that's why they're used instead. They're also pretty popular. Most driver sets come with Philips, Robertson, Slot, and Torx. All of mine have more Torx than anything.
Torx also makes Pentaloblar drivers, and that's what Apple's using. So, they can say they switched to Torx because of their suitability for automated assembly. But, they did chose to go with the tamper resistant Torx, not the 6 lobed variety. They can't really say anything about that, because there's no reason. And, do you know the only people who use them besides Apple? Prisons and government schools (but I repeat myself). So it's actually an extremely apt choice on their part. "We use prison screws, try not to think about it."
Still, they're being cheap about it. I see in the picture that they don't have the center pin. That means they're using the old pentalobular drivers, not the new, more tamper resistant, and also still patented, ones;)
They never actually dismissed fair use, Slashdot is just making shit up again. A non-profit organization reposted 100% of an article, with citation. They are claiming fair use. Of fucking COURSE the lawfirm suing them says that this doesn't count as fair use. Saying "In this instance, fair use doesn't apply" isn't the same thing as "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAIR USE!" except in the twisted mind of eldavojohn.
Well, because you should never trust a Slashdot summary, they're always lies. Righthaven has stated that copying 100% of an article doesn't become fair use just because they cited the source they copied it from. Slashdot disagrees, they think if you don't steal credit, it's completely and totally fair to make as many copies as you like and do whatever you like with them.
The real reason they are stonewalling on the 2.2 update for Vibrant is this: When they released the 2.2 update for the Vibrant in Canada, the update worked fine for a week or two, and then like clockwork bricked a huge percentage of the phones that updated. And when I say bricked, I'm not being liberal with that word, after a week or so running the Samsung 2.2 update, the SD card would become corrupt, and
recovery mode would be unable to format it. My wife and I both have Vibrants, and it happened to them both one day apart. Samsung has been silent on the matter. Not surprising they'd avoid moving sending the 2.2 update out to US Vibrant owners, and also not surprising that they're refusing to explain why. Bell at least is fixing them, but lots of people on the XDA forum are saying their "repaired" phones are bricking again in short order.
Slashdot Mirror
Learn your terminology. An advocate is somebody who speaks in favor of something. A lobbyist is somebody who bribes politicians so they vote in favor of something.
Prime factorization is in NP (proof is just about as trivial as they come) and therefore if P=NP, there must exist a polynomial time algorithm for prime factorization. Who gives a fuck if factorization is NP complete or not, that doesn't matter in the slightest. I suggest you learn what NP complete means, as a start.
Yes. Anything but profit that doubles every quarter, forever, is a catastrophic failure.
On a lot of shows they zoom in every time anybody uses their phone now. Sometimes there are entire scenes about the characters enjoying the cool new features. One episode of Bones, a character said "Blah blah in the lab just told me whatever red herring" and the other was like "How could you possibly know that, your phone didn't ring!" and they're like "Oh, this iPhone is amazing I can get all of my IM accounts and email in one tightly designed package!" like, what the fuck, like before the iPhone no phone has ever had text messaging before, ever. Bones is perhaps the worst show ever in regards to product placement. They don't just zoom in on shit, the characters switch to full-on commercial mode for 30 seconds. "You? A minivan?" "They aren't just for soccer moms you know. As an artist, I love the convenient stow and go seating when loading up an exhibit! And the backup camera is really convenient when trying to back a loaded van into a loading dock!" There was also an episode based entirely around Avatar, and another one where the major subplot was about them being in jail after showing off the fact that this same cool new minivan automatically swerves dangerously to avoid going over the center line. Actually, that was terrible product placement "Our car will get you arrested for drunk driving even though you are sober"
Crying on slashdot about how people shouldn't like the things you don't like?
By your own (completely and utterly false) rules, you MUST be sued into oblivion now. You said the T word, they are required by law to sue you.
CSI just showed somebody shooting an underage person a dozen times in the chest. Better arrest those actors for murder, then. Idiot.
The DMCA exception doesn't prevent them from bricking your phone, just having you thrown in prison after. They will still put all of their effort into destroying customers phones, don't you worry. It also won't stop the phone from recording every phonecall you make and sending it to Sony over your 3G, nor will it stop it from logging your credit card numbers and sending them to Sony every time it's booted, unencrypted.
Yes, this is why. If your game music is Creative Commons Share-Alike, and Microsoft zips it up in DRM, then license be damned, anybody who bought the software cannot redistribute the assets. This violates the GPLv3 explicitly. It is also against the spirit of any other Open Source (with capitals) license, because you have Microsoft as a distributor both granting you the right to freely redistribute what you downloaded, while at the same time making all effort to prevent you from doing so. Even without explicit clauses, that might get them in legal trouble. So they more or less have to do this, or make the DRM optional. But it's their choice which of those two things to do.
Did YOU intentionally post wrong information? Apache MIT and BSD are not Open Source licenses. To be Open Source you NEED that *enforced* right to redistribute the software. If you don't have that, it isn't Open Source. Microsoft is banning that requirement, so anything that is Open Source with capitals is forbidden. Lower case open source is allowed, in that they will not send goons to rough you up if you release your source code independent of the Windows Market.
Misleading post. Any Open Source license is forbidden.
Wrong. See here for details. Any Open Source (with capital letters) license is forbidden, as is Creative Commons on your art, music, or even documentation.
Pay attention to the part I bolded. That's the opposite of your claim, isn't it? You said it's limited to GPLv3, and Microsoft specifically says it isn't. Anyway, BSD isn't an Open Source license, it's a Free Software license. BSD is allowed because all you have to do is keep the copyright notice at the top. You don't have to allow others to redistribute it. Creative Commons licenses are not allowed because they all allow redistribution. But, you can always use a CC license (except non-commercial if you are selling it, obviously) as long as you strip the license off of it, which you can do if it isn't a Share-Alike license. But technically that makes you wrong. Because you are still forbidden from using a Creative Commons license on your art, your music, and your user manual. You can use CC licensed stuff, but you must strip the license first.
Any Open Source license, however, is forbidden. Because, look at the 3 requirements of the Microsoft license: First, no redistirbution allowed. Second, source code may not be disclosed. Third, modification is not allowed. Look at the first 3 requirements to call something OSS (with capital letters). First, redistribution allowed. Second, source code must be included with distribution. Third, modifications must be allowed. Microsoft specifically forbids anything that meets even one of the three most fundamental aspects of being Open Source.
Your "dial-up" connection is using AT&T's 3G network?
I hope somebody robs you, and there are witnesses, and that fortunately for you, none of them are scum. You wouldn't want them violating the robber's privacy.
The concern is coming from an anonymous International Business Times writer, who linked to the actual NASA release and said "OH NOES", then speculated that maybe the sun is just getting tired from working all the time. That is to say, somebody who knows nothing about the particular field he's "reporting" on is worried, and for no reason whatsoever.
It's cut and dried, actually. Because Amazon.com fully owns Amazon.com Texas, whereas it does not own UPS. Amazon is arguing that they don't own a warehouse in Texas, Amazon.com Texas does, and they own Amazon.com Texas. This is totally bogus, and Amazon knows it. That's why they backed down on actually going to court (though not in the way Texas hoped they would!) Though, I'm not sure how saying "Amazon.com Texas no longer exists lol" will get them out of existing bills, since that Texas property has to go somewhere. And yeah, the other thing, being able to snap your fingers and cause the "independent third party contractor" to vanish entirely is a pretty big fucking clue that it's not very independent after all...
Think of it like this: A judge sentences a cracker to community service and probation, with a condition that he cannot own a computer, but can use one for work. This cracker, being oh so clever, creates "Clever Cracker LLC" and then has this corporation buy a PC and hire him as a programmer. Now he can have a PC in his home office, and do what he likes, because technically he's his own boss and is telling himself to do things "for work". No judge on Earth would let that slide. Amazon.com is basically doing exactly the same thing. They're trying to say it's not their warehouse, it's the warehouse of a corporation that they happen to own. Not knowing the actual wording on Texas sales tax laws, I can't comment for certain, but like I said, Amazon doesn't appear to have much confidence in their own argument.
By stating categorically that it's absolutely and without exception utterly impossible for a machine to duplicate the processing power of a human brain, you are saying that the brain is somehow magical. You are the one believing in faeries.
You don't have to play this game in Canada. In Canada, to ask a customer for any information, you need a contract that specifies everything that information will be used for, signed by the customer. I believe the penalty for using information without a signature, or using it for a use other than one listed, is a $100,000 fine. Additionally, unless that information is required to provide the service, you cannot refuse service to a customer who refuses to sign. And they're pretty clear about what "required" means, too. If they want your postal code and/or address, it has to be because you are buying a service that requires that information. Like, a phone line or cable or something, where they CANNOT provide you without that information. If it's not something delivered to your house, they cannot require your address or postal code. Even if they do need your address for "added benefits" such as notifying you of recalls, etc. Those aren't part of the sale, you can opt out of the additional service, so the information is not required.
That's because you didn't look. If you offer anything at all for sale through the Apple store, that must be the lowest price for that item anywhere on the planet. Period. No exceptions. So if your book costs $4.49 on Amazon, you can't set the apple price to $4.99 or something, you have to set it to $3.99 (Remember also that Apple prices categorically must end in .99)
Video games are different from cars and houses because they are copyrighted. So they don't have to say all used markets are "wrong", just that the Doctrine of First Sale is wrong. They would have had better luck in the past, when first sale wasn't actually law, just an unwritten guideline. But for a long time now it has been law. They've tried to get around it by saying "No see it says that the owner is allowed to resell, but we're the owner of the copyright, it doesn't actually refer to the owner of the disc!" but since the law specifically makes that distinction and says it's the owner of the copy, they've not yet been successful. Still, they spend an awful lot of money lobbying both political parties to get First Sale stricken from law.
Meanwhile, they're already using serial keys as an end-run around first sale. So far nobody has had PS3/360 games that lock you out of single player without having a previously-unused CD key, but plenty of them lock you out of bonus features and multiplayer. It's only a matter of time. The only way to stop that is if state AG get serious about false advertising prosecutions. But as long as they're clearly labeling which advertised features do not work unless it's a new copy, I'm not sure how much traction that would get. There might also be an anti-trust angle, but that's pretty tenuous.
Anti-consumer developers, such as the folks at Penny Arcade (they made a game so now they're strongly anti-consumer-rights), say that games are different from movies and CDs because games make all their money from sales, whereas DVDs and CDs are all bonus money on top of the theater tickets and the concerts/radio royalties, so you can't even compare them. When asked about cars and houses, though, their answer is that Ford pays its workers on salary, whereas game developers pay their employees in royalties (which I don't think is true at all) and so therefore you can't compare them, either. Because apparently how a company choses to pay its employees should have a bearing on whether or not resale should be legal.
Philips screws are not suited for automated processes. Or rather, they were designed for automated screwing but the times have changed. A Philips drive head is designed to cause the driver to cam out when the screw is all the way in. Caming out isn't desireable, as it can damage the screw head and possibly the driver head as well. But, it's better than stripping the screw, or cracking whatever you're screwing into, which is what happens if a high speed automated driver keeps going too long with, say, a Robertson drive. But times have changed. Automated drivers are very good at torque sensing now, so they can stop the instant a screw has been driven home. So the Philips isn't optimal any longer. Caming out can damage the screw, the driver, it's not good. So the best screws to use in automated assembly are screws that can take high torque, and will not cam out. A Robertson works well for this, but isn't widely used any more. Probably because it's Canadian ;) Instead, Torx screws are most often used in electronics and automotives. They're also called Hexalobular screws. They're 6 pointed stars. Their sharp edges allow for high torque without cam out. Supposedly they last longer than a Robertson so that's why they're used instead. They're also pretty popular. Most driver sets come with Philips, Robertson, Slot, and Torx. All of mine have more Torx than anything.
Torx also makes Pentaloblar drivers, and that's what Apple's using. So, they can say they switched to Torx because of their suitability for automated assembly. But, they did chose to go with the tamper resistant Torx, not the 6 lobed variety. They can't really say anything about that, because there's no reason. And, do you know the only people who use them besides Apple? Prisons and government schools (but I repeat myself). So it's actually an extremely apt choice on their part. "We use prison screws, try not to think about it."
Still, they're being cheap about it. I see in the picture that they don't have the center pin. That means they're using the old pentalobular drivers, not the new, more tamper resistant, and also still patented, ones ;)
They never actually dismissed fair use, Slashdot is just making shit up again. A non-profit organization reposted 100% of an article, with citation. They are claiming fair use. Of fucking COURSE the lawfirm suing them says that this doesn't count as fair use. Saying "In this instance, fair use doesn't apply" isn't the same thing as "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAIR USE!" except in the twisted mind of eldavojohn.
Well, because you should never trust a Slashdot summary, they're always lies. Righthaven has stated that copying 100% of an article doesn't become fair use just because they cited the source they copied it from. Slashdot disagrees, they think if you don't steal credit, it's completely and totally fair to make as many copies as you like and do whatever you like with them.
The real reason they are stonewalling on the 2.2 update for Vibrant is this: When they released the 2.2 update for the Vibrant in Canada, the update worked fine for a week or two, and then like clockwork bricked a huge percentage of the phones that updated. And when I say bricked, I'm not being liberal with that word, after a week or so running the Samsung 2.2 update, the SD card would become corrupt, and recovery mode would be unable to format it. My wife and I both have Vibrants, and it happened to them both one day apart. Samsung has been silent on the matter. Not surprising they'd avoid moving sending the 2.2 update out to US Vibrant owners, and also not surprising that they're refusing to explain why. Bell at least is fixing them, but lots of people on the XDA forum are saying their "repaired" phones are bricking again in short order.