Could they refuse to replace a broken glass screen if they find out your iphone is or was ever jailbroken, JUST BECAUSE it was jailbroken?
Nintendo has already done this to someone who softmodded a Wii and sent it for repair, charging more than the retail cost of a new Wii to repair the Wii sent in. Granted, that was in Germany, but in answer to your question, companies would love to do something like that.
All they'd have to do, legally, is tell you at the point of sale that your iPhone will be permanently disabled and your warranty voided if third party apps are installed. If you accept that, they'd have a very good chance of surviving a lawsuit.
Do you really think that Google wants to deal with all the DMCA requests? This decision won't stem them in the least. I'd be willing to bet that their Audible Magic technology that automatically mutes purportedly copyrighted music will remain in place for a long time to come.
"Scientists" (some professor) have "developed" (thrown together a bunch of bullshit about) a "mathematical" (numbers make math!) "equation" (brackets and operations make an equation!) for the "perfect handshake" (in their sole opinion) taking into account the "twelve primary measures" (which they came up with after a one hour brainstorming session) needed to convey "respect and trust" (or at least the illusion of it, in order to sell cars) to the recipient.
Seriously, dry your hands if you can, don't grip too hard or too soft, and look 'em in the eyes. Done. But why not add some bureaucracy to the process?
"Johnson, you're two points shy on your grip rating! No raise this month!"
Re:Motorola are clearly assholes
on
Droid X Gets Rooted
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is all part of a plan to limit upgrades to existing phones, in order to push people into buying new ones. Simple.
A shame you believed the packaging though. Caveat emptor.
I guarantee you that the information won't make its way back to Dell, because I can also guarantee you that the online chat service is 100% outsourced. The flow of information in those arrangements is often mostly one way.
A. This will get tripped accidentally, even for naive users, and will cost owners money to fix. B. This violates the idea of ownership of the device. Motorola figures that they're licensing you parts, not selling. For an "open" OS, this is insane. C. Once you get around it, unless you can destroy the code, you still have that thing hanging around. A mistake or bad combination later on could trip it -- there's no reason to have to put up with walking through a minefield.
And absolutely none of that creates a negative for Motorola or the carrier. To them, this is the greatest anti-hacker technology ever, and that is how they will advertise it to users, if necessary.
Increases safety! Prevents hacking! Prevents viruses! Safest phone in ages!
Users will flock to it, and us hackers will be a very small joke group consisting of less than one percent of sales. We will make absolutely no difference.
Google doesn't want to be involved in a court case, and if Google believes your music is unlicensed, they know that if they allow your YouTube video on the site, they will be sued along with you when it goes to court (or possibly even in your place, considering it's much easier to sue a large public entity). They want to avoid a lawsuit, and stepping out of the music licensing game entirely is the easiest and cheapest way for them.
It's just business. Don't like it? Change the law.
No authority will tell me what is and is not art. My brain is my own, and no other man's. Such an abstract distinction can be made on an individual basis. Like the Supreme Court on obscenity, "I know it when I see it."
(For the record, I think just about anything can be art, including video games.)
I'm pretty sure the poster meant to do something like this:
fork(); fork(); fork();// etc.
which would make the number of processes increase exponentially every time the forked processes forked again. Not 1, 2, 3, but 1, 2, 4, 8, 16... and 2^30 gets you above 1 billion.
Slavery didn't run counter to the Constitution at once point, but lord knows it was one of the most morally wrong things on this planet. I cannot understand you if you think otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit, I was only planning on watching the 11 O'Clock News tonight!
(Also, if you've ever used a torrent, you should know that claiming that it has more than, say, 10,000 seeders is almost certainly BS.)
Yes. I'll expect your spider in my email by end of business.
Industry group ending in 'AA' pays to have study conducted that supports their views, doesn't care so much about accuracy.
News at eleven.
Could they refuse to replace a broken glass screen if they find out your iphone is or was ever jailbroken, JUST BECAUSE it was jailbroken?
Nintendo has already done this to someone who softmodded a Wii and sent it for repair, charging more than the retail cost of a new Wii to repair the Wii sent in. Granted, that was in Germany, but in answer to your question, companies would love to do something like that.
All they'd have to do, legally, is tell you at the point of sale that your iPhone will be permanently disabled and your warranty voided if third party apps are installed. If you accept that, they'd have a very good chance of surviving a lawsuit.
So?
Do you really think that Google wants to deal with all the DMCA requests? This decision won't stem them in the least. I'd be willing to bet that their Audible Magic technology that automatically mutes purportedly copyrighted music will remain in place for a long time to come.
"Scientists" (some professor) have "developed" (thrown together a bunch of bullshit about) a "mathematical" (numbers make math!) "equation" (brackets and operations make an equation!) for the "perfect handshake" (in their sole opinion) taking into account the "twelve primary measures" (which they came up with after a one hour brainstorming session) needed to convey "respect and trust" (or at least the illusion of it, in order to sell cars) to the recipient.
Seriously, dry your hands if you can, don't grip too hard or too soft, and look 'em in the eyes. Done. But why not add some bureaucracy to the process?
"Johnson, you're two points shy on your grip rating! No raise this month!"
This is all part of a plan to limit upgrades to existing phones, in order to push people into buying new ones. Simple.
A shame you believed the packaging though. Caveat emptor.
I guarantee you that the information won't make its way back to Dell, because I can also guarantee you that the online chat service is 100% outsourced. The flow of information in those arrangements is often mostly one way.
When I was doing tech support for HP desktops, I memorized the FTP address to download Ad-Aware via Windows' command line FTP client.
It wasn't out of a dislike of IE, more that if they were calling in, there was a 50% likelihood that their IE simply would not work due to spyware.
If you're a large enough potential purchaser, such an option does exist.
Holy crap, geek telecommute cruises. *starts a business*
I knew there was a reason I read this idle article. You win the internet forever.
A. This will get tripped accidentally, even for naive users, and will cost owners money to fix.
B. This violates the idea of ownership of the device. Motorola figures that they're licensing you parts, not selling. For an "open" OS, this is insane.
C. Once you get around it, unless you can destroy the code, you still have that thing hanging around. A mistake or bad combination later on could trip it -- there's no reason to have to put up with walking through a minefield.
And absolutely none of that creates a negative for Motorola or the carrier. To them, this is the greatest anti-hacker technology ever, and that is how they will advertise it to users, if necessary.
Increases safety! Prevents hacking! Prevents viruses! Safest phone in ages!
Users will flock to it, and us hackers will be a very small joke group consisting of less than one percent of sales. We will make absolutely no difference.
Funny you should mention railroads...
I think you just described the brain of most Slashdot readers.
Google doesn't want to be involved in a court case, and if Google believes your music is unlicensed, they know that if they allow your YouTube video on the site, they will be sued along with you when it goes to court (or possibly even in your place, considering it's much easier to sue a large public entity). They want to avoid a lawsuit, and stepping out of the music licensing game entirely is the easiest and cheapest way for them.
It's just business. Don't like it? Change the law.
It's because Google / YouTube, like us, want to stay as far away from the music industry's lawyers as humanly possible.
No authority will tell me what is and is not art. My brain is my own, and no other man's. Such an abstract distinction can be made on an individual basis. Like the Supreme Court on obscenity, "I know it when I see it."
(For the record, I think just about anything can be art, including video games.)
Firefox doesn't even attempt to hide it: Preferences -> Security -> Saved Passwords -> Show Passwords.
Err... you know that the US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and thus has a veto over many, many things that the UN does, right?
I'm not even going to touch the rest of your conspiracy-laden misinformed comment. Learn to research before opening your mouth.
...is their word to associate us with terrorists in the public's mind.
I'm pretty sure the poster meant to do something like this:
fork(); // etc.
fork();
fork();
which would make the number of processes increase exponentially every time the forked processes forked again. Not 1, 2, 3, but 1, 2, 4, 8, 16... and 2^30 gets you above 1 billion.
In the United States, legally, you're wrong, and have been for many years.
What the fuck are you on about?
Slavery didn't run counter to the Constitution at once point, but lord knows it was one of the most morally wrong things on this planet. I cannot understand you if you think otherwise.