That's good news for mice! Of course they get free health care. How many people will actually be able to afford such a drug, assuming that it works on people without having major side effects?
Does Pirate Bay also serve legal content? If so, by what authority can Microsoft block legal access to legal content? While I guess it is possible that people are spreading malware through Microsoft Messenger, only a fool would follow a link from someone they didn't know or who was anonymous. Even so, do people really need Microsoft to be big brother and protect us from the chance of accessing something containing malware? Censorship is censorship.
While it is easy to spoof a MAC address, if the router only accepts connections from specific ones means somebody has to sit there with a sniffer to intercept the traffic to determine acceptable addresses. That is a crime in most states and is enough to protect you, assuming you also have WPA2 enabled, to show the authorities that you didn't willfully do something illegal. It doesn't keep somebody else from using it, it just helps cover your own butt.
Chicago IL Memphis TN Columbia MO and most major Universities
For one, most ISP contracts prohibited the practice on a consumer contract. Second, the courts in those locations have held that since the individuals are not business, but illegally sharing their connection (since the ISP contract explicitly disallows it), they are held as part of a) a conspiracy to defraud the ISP and b) liable in enabling protected content from being distributed.
In most states, it is also illegal to use somebody's WIFI without permission.
As I have stated previously, there is a difference between a business providing this service and an individual doing the same. Just as there is a difference between a a casino running a black jack table and you doing so in your basement.
I doubt that could ever happen as ISPs would fall foul of that law every time. An IP address does not identify a person - you'd need more evidence to convict than that. Have you got an example of someone being convicted without any evidence being found on their computer?
An ISP is a company in the business of providing internet access. An individual opening up their router is not. An IP address does not identify a person, but it will identify your specific router. If illegal content has been detected going through your router's IP (say child porn), it will/can trigger an investigation, it happens all the time, but is dependent on your state's laws. It is never a good idea to rely on a defense that is based on ignorance as in not knowing what people were doing with the service you were providing them. Just ask MegaUpload.
Clearly that is not how it works. If it was, every McDonald's, Starbucks, and half the other retail stores out there would not be offering free unencrypted WiFi. Fear that some criminal is going to drive around town looking for your open WiFi so that they can commit a crime is complete paranoia. There are open WiFi hotspots everywhere that wouldn't draw attention if a stranger was sitting in their car using it. They are even put on maps, and advertised by the businesses offering the open WiFi.
There is a difference between a business or municipality doing this and an individual. Since there have been individuals who have tried that defense and have lost (at least in the US), it does indeed work that way. Of course, each state has different laws. In some, merely being in possession of child porn can get you arrested in others you have to distribute it. Do you really want to chance it in your location? If so, go for it.
By everyone locking down their wifi you provide credibility to the claim that an IP equals a perpetrator.
If I were to say, brute force your WPA2 using my graphics card, you would have a harder time making your case than if your wifi was open and it could have been anyone.
I care more about protecting the innocent than persecuting criminals I guess.
That approach does not hold up in court, at least in the US. For instance, you have an open WIFI connection that someone uses to download child porn. You claim, but I didn't download the porn, somebody else did. That is true, you only distributed it, since it did flow to your device and then out again. Not a very smart strategy, if you ask me.
What I do is use a WPA2 network that all my devices use and an open network for guests to use that is firewalled from accessing the other network. That gives me the best of both worlds.
My attitude is that if I'm out and about and want to get WIFI, I'd like other people to provide open guest networks, so it makes sense for me to provide one for other people to use.
Restricting your network to specific MAC addresses would be a good protection, too. As for wanting WIFI when you are out and about, there are data plans for that.
A guest in your home is fine. Of course, even with WPA2, as a guest you can give them the password. Then again, you take responsibility for a guest in your home. What if your neighbor's kid uses your intentionally free access to do something illegal, like child porn. Are you not then contributing to the activity? In addition, the authorities are going to come after you, because it is your IP address they will have.
Now one may argue that they were not a party to the activity, just like an ISP is not a party to it, however, unless you are registered and operate as an ISP, then you lose that argument.
It seems that your position, while laudable, is also very naive, It puts you and your family at an unnecessary risk.
His problem was that he used copyright law to protect his work. He should have patented a method of assigning values to various musical notations and using a mathematical generator based on the value of Pi to construct a melody. That way, given the crazy patent system, his work would be protected because anybody else would violate his patent.
I think a key thing they're focusing on that you might not be is optimizing the UI for touch, rather than keyboard/mouse user inputs. On traditional desktop/laptop form factors, I would agree that Win8 would not be compelling, and Win7 is probably preferable. On a touch-capable device, though, the pendulum swings the other direction.
Yes, because we all know that using a touch interface for an accounting/data entry application makes so much sense. Bookkeepers, payroll, receivable and payables clerks do regular data entry. Is Microsoft really saying that moving hands from a keyboard to the screen and back again is the most efficient way to do that? This is an accounting application for mid to large businesses. Tablet and touch interfaces are fine for consumers of data, but by it's very nature, this is a producer of data.
The summary ignores one obvious fact. BSD has done quite well on the desktop. It's called OS X. And while BSD is not Linux, it shows that the problem is not OS specific.
What keeps Linux from repeating that success is that there isn't a large sponsor of it in the PC industry and Microsoft doesn't release Office for it.
One thing the review left out, but others have alluded to is that Gnome 3 may not be the only desktop one uses. I've used both Gnome Shell and Unity quite a bit and if they were all I had to use, I could more readily adapt to them. However, I also have to use Windows a lot and going back and forth between them is cumbersome.
Under Gnome 2, XFCE and KDE, at least my desktop functions similarly in all cases (menu bar, task list, notifications, etc.). I don't have to think to switch tasks on this computer, I need to do this and on this computer I need to do that. I don't think I am alone on that.
I have no doubt that I could set my mother up to use Gnome 3 and it's shell and she would get along quite well with it. She only has the one computer and once she was familiar with how to do things, she'd be fine. However, I, and many/.ters have multiple computers at home and work and we don't necessarily have the luxury of choosing the OS or desktop environment. In these cases, similar functionality is more important than sexiness.
I do agree, however, that the Tom's Hardware review was extremely well done. Then again, I agree with their findings, so maybe I'm biased.
Totally agree. Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface. I don't understand why Fedora wouldn't just go with KDE as the default since it's still a desktop interface (assuming we are limited to the big two managers, Gnome and KDE). KDE (finally) runs great.
I agree with this sentiment. That's why I went with KDE. On my desktop, I have a desktop interface, on my netbook/ultrabook, I can use the netbook interface and on a tablet, the new plasma active. Three different UIs for three different purposes, but underneath it all, one desktop environment to learn.
1. Amazon/Netflix/Hulu/etc. don't have all (not even close) the movies that I own. 2. I prefer to not carry cases of DVD's when I travel, it takes up space and I don't have my full collection. 3. I don't have the hours of time each week to rip my collection to a digital format. Copying my VHS tapes to a digital format took a few months to complete. 4. I would prefer to not have to set up a separate NAS and machine to rip and save movies all day along. Also, if my house burns or is robbed, I don't want to lose all my movies. 4. I would like to have my owned DVD/Bluray collection available anywhere I go, not all of us go from work to home every day of our life. Some of us travel, vacation, visit others, etc.
That is why $2 per is a small amount to me. I already have a Vudu account, so I could see that that issue may not appeal to others.
1. This service will only work with those dvds that use ultraviolet drm, so most of the dvds you own probably won't work with it. 2. How many dvds do you watch when you travel and if just a few, it takes only 2 minutes to copy a dvd to a hard drive. 3. VHS would not be included in this and it only takes about 2 minutes to copy a dvd to the hard drive (VOB files). 4. If you house burns down, your movies are included in the content coverage, all you need is a list to set the values. If you are at home, why rip them at all -- why not just put them in the device you want to watch them on? 4 (sic). This sounds like a repeat of item 2, maybe you watch a bunch of previously viewed dvds when you travel? I know it is useful for the kids in the car, however, if I rip and decode them, I can fit about 8 movies onto a single dvd.
But, for your purposes, it probably makes sense. For me, though, I'd be spending $200+ to do this, assuming my dvds were ultraviolet. For that price, I can buy a used PC and install owncloud on it and have full control of my stuff from anywhere.
No, they don't keep the dvd, at least not according to the press release. It is used to verify that you actually own the dvd. Basically, you take your dvd's into Walmart with a list of the titles and the clerk enters the list on the computer after verifying that you have physical copies. It doesn't matter if those copies are yours, your friends or belong to redbox. The secret is to not have them in their original case, just a jewel case so they can be seen, but not the source that provided them (ie rental).
If I already have the dvd, why would I want to stream it from the internet to watch on my ps/3, xbox, computer, etc.? I already own it, I can just put it in the device. As for watching it on my phone, forget it, battery life is terrible and the screen is really small. Tablet, possibly, but if I have 100 dvds in my collection, do I want to pay $200 to digitize them (btw, aren't dvd's digital to begin with??) in case I might want to watch them on a tablet? Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay amazon to stream it to me for that occasion?
Walmart isn't actually ripping your dvds with this, you bring the dvd in as proof you have it. What's to stop somebody from renting a bunch of dvds and bringing them in a paying $2 each to include in their list? That would be a lot cheaper than buying new or even used dvds. Around here you can rent new dvs for $1.99 if you return them the next day. $1.99 + 2.00 = $3.99 per dvd.
I think the flaw was in his neutron gun, very inefficient. We basically did this in college in the 1980s in my nuclear engineering class. We didn't use smoke detectors, but did use 100mcg of Am-241. However, our neutron gun was much more significant as were the sources of other ingredients. We were not actually attempting to start a breeder, but instead were investigating different neutron gun designs.
Regardless, even if the kid wasn't successful building his reactor, he produced enough radioactive waste (39 55gal barrels of it) that he could have easily made a dirty bomb.
2. The security services have managed to intercept and prevent every attempt to use one, or
3. You're wildly exaggerating the ease of construction.
Number 3. seems the likeliest of these to me.
Yeah, I'm wildly exagerating. Just tell that to the boy scout in Michigan who was arrested for building a breeder reactor doing exactly what I described.
Slashdot Mirror
That's good news for mice! Of course they get free health care. How many people will actually be able to afford such a drug, assuming that it works on people without having major side effects?
Does Pirate Bay also serve legal content? If so, by what authority can Microsoft block legal access to legal content? While I guess it is possible that people are spreading malware through Microsoft Messenger, only a fool would follow a link from someone they didn't know or who was anonymous. Even so, do people really need Microsoft to be big brother and protect us from the chance of accessing something containing malware? Censorship is censorship.
While it is easy to spoof a MAC address, if the router only accepts connections from specific ones means somebody has to sit there with a sniffer to intercept the traffic to determine acceptable addresses. That is a crime in most states and is enough to protect you, assuming you also have WPA2 enabled, to show the authorities that you didn't willfully do something illegal. It doesn't keep somebody else from using it, it just helps cover your own butt.
Chicago IL
Memphis TN
Columbia MO
and most major Universities
For one, most ISP contracts prohibited the practice on a consumer contract. Second, the courts in those locations have held that since the individuals are not business, but illegally sharing their connection (since the ISP contract explicitly disallows it), they are held as part of a) a conspiracy to defraud the ISP and b) liable in enabling protected content from being distributed.
In most states, it is also illegal to use somebody's WIFI without permission.
As I have stated previously, there is a difference between a business providing this service and an individual doing the same. Just as there is a difference between a a casino running a black jack table and you doing so in your basement.
I doubt that could ever happen as ISPs would fall foul of that law every time. An IP address does not identify a person - you'd need more evidence to convict than that. Have you got an example of someone being convicted without any evidence being found on their computer?
An ISP is a company in the business of providing internet access. An individual opening up their router is not. An IP address does not identify a person, but it will identify your specific router. If illegal content has been detected going through your router's IP (say child porn), it will/can trigger an investigation, it happens all the time, but is dependent on your state's laws. It is never a good idea to rely on a defense that is based on ignorance as in not knowing what people were doing with the service you were providing them. Just ask MegaUpload.
Clearly that is not how it works. If it was, every McDonald's, Starbucks, and half the other retail stores out there would not be offering free unencrypted WiFi. Fear that some criminal is going to drive around town looking for your open WiFi so that they can commit a crime is complete paranoia. There are open WiFi hotspots everywhere that wouldn't draw attention if a stranger was sitting in their car using it. They are even put on maps, and advertised by the businesses offering the open WiFi.
There is a difference between a business or municipality doing this and an individual. Since there have been individuals who have tried that defense and have lost (at least in the US), it does indeed work that way. Of course, each state has different laws. In some, merely being in possession of child porn can get you arrested in others you have to distribute it. Do you really want to chance it in your location? If so, go for it.
By everyone locking down their wifi you provide credibility to the claim that an IP equals a perpetrator.
If I were to say, brute force your WPA2 using my graphics card, you would have a harder time making your case than if your wifi was open and it could have been anyone.
I care more about protecting the innocent than persecuting criminals I guess.
That approach does not hold up in court, at least in the US. For instance, you have an open WIFI connection that someone uses to download child porn. You claim, but I didn't download the porn, somebody else did. That is true, you only distributed it, since it did flow to your device and then out again. Not a very smart strategy, if you ask me.
What I do is use a WPA2 network that all my devices use and an open network for guests to use that is firewalled from accessing the other network. That gives me the best of both worlds.
My attitude is that if I'm out and about and want to get WIFI, I'd like other people to provide open guest networks, so it makes sense for me to provide one for other people to use.
Restricting your network to specific MAC addresses would be a good protection, too. As for wanting WIFI when you are out and about, there are data plans for that.
A guest in your home is fine. Of course, even with WPA2, as a guest you can give them the password. Then again, you take responsibility for a guest in your home. What if your neighbor's kid uses your intentionally free access to do something illegal, like child porn. Are you not then contributing to the activity? In addition, the authorities are going to come after you, because it is your IP address they will have.
Now one may argue that they were not a party to the activity, just like an ISP is not a party to it, however, unless you are registered and operate as an ISP, then you lose that argument.
It seems that your position, while laudable, is also very naive, It puts you and your family at an unnecessary risk.
His problem was that he used copyright law to protect his work. He should have patented a method of assigning values to various musical notations and using a mathematical generator based on the value of Pi to construct a melody. That way, given the crazy patent system, his work would be protected because anybody else would violate his patent.
I think a key thing they're focusing on that you might not be is optimizing the UI for touch, rather than keyboard/mouse user inputs. On traditional desktop/laptop form factors, I would agree that Win8 would not be compelling, and Win7 is probably preferable. On a touch-capable device, though, the pendulum swings the other direction.
Yes, because we all know that using a touch interface for an accounting/data entry application makes so much sense. Bookkeepers, payroll, receivable and payables clerks do regular data entry. Is Microsoft really saying that moving hands from a keyboard to the screen and back again is the most efficient way to do that? This is an accounting application for mid to large businesses. Tablet and touch interfaces are fine for consumers of data, but by it's very nature, this is a producer of data.
Or maybe it will just be their Gnome 3.
The summary ignores one obvious fact. BSD has done quite well on the desktop. It's called OS X. And while BSD is not Linux, it shows that the problem is not OS specific.
What keeps Linux from repeating that success is that there isn't a large sponsor of it in the PC industry and Microsoft doesn't release Office for it.
Technically, until either one can deal well with touch screens, neither is a tablet interface. They do, however, look like tablet interfaces.
One thing the review left out, but others have alluded to is that Gnome 3 may not be the only desktop one uses. I've used both Gnome Shell and Unity quite a bit and if they were all I had to use, I could more readily adapt to them. However, I also have to use Windows a lot and going back and forth between them is cumbersome.
Under Gnome 2, XFCE and KDE, at least my desktop functions similarly in all cases (menu bar, task list, notifications, etc.). I don't have to think to switch tasks on this computer, I need to do this and on this computer I need to do that. I don't think I am alone on that.
I have no doubt that I could set my mother up to use Gnome 3 and it's shell and she would get along quite well with it. She only has the one computer and once she was familiar with how to do things, she'd be fine. However, I, and many /.ters have multiple computers at home and work and we don't necessarily have the luxury of choosing the OS or desktop environment. In these cases, similar functionality is more important than sexiness.
I do agree, however, that the Tom's Hardware review was extremely well done. Then again, I agree with their findings, so maybe I'm biased.
Totally agree. Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface. I don't understand why Fedora wouldn't just go with KDE as the default since it's still a desktop interface (assuming we are limited to the big two managers, Gnome and KDE). KDE (finally) runs great.
I agree with this sentiment. That's why I went with KDE. On my desktop, I have a desktop interface, on my netbook/ultrabook, I can use the netbook interface and on a tablet, the new plasma active. Three different UIs for three different purposes, but underneath it all, one desktop environment to learn.
Can you just take them off the shelf?
That shrink wrap might give it away.
1. Amazon/Netflix/Hulu/etc. don't have all (not even close) the movies that I own.
2. I prefer to not carry cases of DVD's when I travel, it takes up space and I don't have my full collection.
3. I don't have the hours of time each week to rip my collection to a digital format. Copying my VHS tapes to a digital format took a few months to complete.
4. I would prefer to not have to set up a separate NAS and machine to rip and save movies all day along. Also, if my house burns or is robbed, I don't want to lose all my movies.
4. I would like to have my owned DVD/Bluray collection available anywhere I go, not all of us go from work to home every day of our life. Some of us travel, vacation, visit others, etc.
That is why $2 per is a small amount to me. I already have a Vudu account, so I could see that that issue may not appeal to others.
1. This service will only work with those dvds that use ultraviolet drm, so most of the dvds you own probably won't work with it.
2. How many dvds do you watch when you travel and if just a few, it takes only 2 minutes to copy a dvd to a hard drive.
3. VHS would not be included in this and it only takes about 2 minutes to copy a dvd to the hard drive (VOB files).
4. If you house burns down, your movies are included in the content coverage, all you need is a list to set the values. If you are at home, why rip them at all -- why not just put them in the device you want to watch them on?
4 (sic). This sounds like a repeat of item 2, maybe you watch a bunch of previously viewed dvds when you travel? I know it is useful for the kids in the car, however, if I rip and decode them, I can fit about 8 movies onto a single dvd.
But, for your purposes, it probably makes sense. For me, though, I'd be spending $200+ to do this, assuming my dvds were ultraviolet. For that price, I can buy a used PC and install owncloud on it and have full control of my stuff from anywhere.
No, they don't keep the dvd, at least not according to the press release. It is used to verify that you actually own the dvd. Basically, you take your dvd's into Walmart with a list of the titles and the clerk enters the list on the computer after verifying that you have physical copies. It doesn't matter if those copies are yours, your friends or belong to redbox. The secret is to not have them in their original case, just a jewel case so they can be seen, but not the source that provided them (ie rental).
If I already have the dvd, why would I want to stream it from the internet to watch on my ps/3, xbox, computer, etc.? I already own it, I can just put it in the device. As for watching it on my phone, forget it, battery life is terrible and the screen is really small. Tablet, possibly, but if I have 100 dvds in my collection, do I want to pay $200 to digitize them (btw, aren't dvd's digital to begin with??) in case I might want to watch them on a tablet? Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay amazon to stream it to me for that occasion?
So, I ask, why would I want to do this?
Walmart isn't actually ripping your dvds with this, you bring the dvd in as proof you have it. What's to stop somebody from renting a bunch of dvds and bringing them in a paying $2 each to include in their list? That would be a lot cheaper than buying new or even used dvds. Around here you can rent new dvs for $1.99 if you return them the next day. $1.99 + 2.00 = $3.99 per dvd.
I think the flaw was in his neutron gun, very inefficient. We basically did this in college in the 1980s in my nuclear engineering class. We didn't use smoke detectors, but did use 100mcg of Am-241. However, our neutron gun was much more significant as were the sources of other ingredients. We were not actually attempting to start a breeder, but instead were investigating different neutron gun designs.
Regardless, even if the kid wasn't successful building his reactor, he produced enough radioactive waste (39 55gal barrels of it) that he could have easily made a dirty bomb.
There are only really three possibilities:
1. Terrorists are squeamish about using nukes;
2. The security services have managed to intercept and prevent every attempt to use one, or
3. You're wildly exaggerating the ease of construction.
Number 3. seems the likeliest of these to me.
Yeah, I'm wildly exagerating. Just tell that to the boy scout in Michigan who was arrested for building a breeder reactor doing exactly what I described.
Just ask Rush Limbaugh.