I often listen to the podcast while working out. Now I can go back and watch something that has interesting video that wasn't well communicated on the podcast.
Wow! How the hell do you get that from what I wrote?!
What I'm saying (not suggesting) is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees that freedoms are not constrained by the government. However, it permits freedoms to be constrained by private entities. Please notice I said "the Constitution" and did not mention "laws."
Mac users are "operating under a false sense of security", according to Symantec, and Firefox users will have to recognize that the open-source browser is currently a greater security risk than Internet Explorer.
Wow! You're worse than the folks on Faux News!
His point is perfectly valid. For a while now, people have legitimately slammed Windows because of the number of security patches that had to be applied.
Many seemed to think that Firefox was a much more secure browser than IE. The plethora of vulnerabilities in Firefox have shown that is not the case.
Don't let your hatred of Microsoft blind you to the truth...
It's not how many were fixed, it's how many were found. Many people incorrectly thought that Firefox would be more secure than IE because all Microsoft software is inherently insecure - because it comes from Microsoft.
This is making the point that any software can be insecure.
The iPod?
There are A LOT more computers running Windows than there are iPods.
For that matter, most of the people I know with digital media players do not use iPods.
DRM isn't specifically mandated by law, but is de facto mandated for an electronic book. You mentioned being able to checkout CDs? Does the library let you checkout a digital version of those CDs? If and when it does I guarantee you that it will have some sort of DRM in place for all CDs that are 'for profit' (the vast majority of CDs).
As FindLaw says on copyright: "Copyrights give the author certain exclusive rights, such as the right to make copies, modify or create derivative works (such as translations or dramatizations), and allow public displays or performances. Anyone wishing to do any of those things during the duration of the copyright must receive permission of the author, subject to certain limited exemptions."
I didn't twist your words at all. You should learn to say what you mean.
DRM is not "fundamentally and irrevocably in opposition to the concept of open source software." DRM is that to the concept of open content. They are not the same thing.
They do have the space, but they don't have the funds to purchase a book for everyone at the time they want to read it.
To do what you suggest would require a new business model for publishers and libraries where publishers would get a certain amount of money every time a library patron "borrowed" a book. It'll take time to get to such a model (if ever).
LOL!
Linux isn't the be all end all. If libraries only supported Linux then most of their consumers wouldn't be able to use the books, which renders the effort moot.
And to anticipate your question: why not support both Linux and Windows? What DRM package is available that would allow libraries to do that?
The side libraries chose is their consumers' side.
You don't like DRM, that's fine. But libraries don't like to break the law. They chose a technology that allows them to lend books to consumers (meeting a consumer desire).
Given that DRM is needed to not break the law, what DRM package would you have had them choose OTHER THAN Microsoft's?
There's no fallacy as he's not saying that it has to be that way. The libraries are trying to create an electronic distribution mechanism that publishers are comfortable with.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a matter of priorities for MS, just like it is any company.
At least in the U.S. Private entities can regulate speech in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.
However, I understand your point.
I often listen to the podcast while working out. Now I can go back and watch something that has interesting video that wasn't well communicated on the podcast.
This isn't about virtualizing storage, this is about managing storage.
Wow! How the hell do you get that from what I wrote?! What I'm saying (not suggesting) is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees that freedoms are not constrained by the government. However, it permits freedoms to be constrained by private entities. Please notice I said "the Constitution" and did not mention "laws."
Please educate yourself. The first amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from restricting speech, not private entities such as companies.
Mac users are "operating under a false sense of security", according to Symantec, and Firefox users will have to recognize that the open-source browser is currently a greater security risk than Internet Explorer.
Story
Hmmm... Can't even get the project name right, what does that say?
As something becomes more popular, existing but previously unknown vulnerabilities are more likely to be found.
The numbers are not "meaningless," but they certainly don't tell the entire story.
FF has problems, so does any software of any significant size. There's no need to be so defensive!
Could it be faith-based knowledge that is not rooted in reality?
Wow! You're worse than the folks on Faux News! His point is perfectly valid. For a while now, people have legitimately slammed Windows because of the number of security patches that had to be applied. Many seemed to think that Firefox was a much more secure browser than IE. The plethora of vulnerabilities in Firefox have shown that is not the case. Don't let your hatred of Microsoft blind you to the truth...
It's not how many were fixed, it's how many were found. Many people incorrectly thought that Firefox would be more secure than IE because all Microsoft software is inherently insecure - because it comes from Microsoft. This is making the point that any software can be insecure.
availability in selected areas of the country. I've seen their ad on TV a number of times now. No idea if it actually works though...
I was a member of the team that placed 4th nearly 20 years ago. Also, was an alternate for the team that placed 2nd.
DRM isn't specifically mandated by law, but is de facto mandated for an electronic book. You mentioned being able to checkout CDs? Does the library let you checkout a digital version of those CDs? If and when it does I guarantee you that it will have some sort of DRM in place for all CDs that are 'for profit' (the vast majority of CDs).
As FindLaw says on copyright: "Copyrights give the author certain exclusive rights, such as the right to make copies, modify or create derivative works (such as translations or dramatizations), and allow public displays or performances. Anyone wishing to do any of those things during the duration of the copyright must receive permission of the author, subject to certain limited exemptions."
I didn't twist your words at all. You should learn to say what you mean. DRM is not "fundamentally and irrevocably in opposition to the concept of open source software." DRM is that to the concept of open content. They are not the same thing.
LOL! The truth is publishers are NOT irrelevant. Less important? Yes. But irrelevant? No.
Wow! Such intellect! Such insight! How could ANYONE ever disagree with you?! Btw, if books were totally open, there'd be damn few books available.
They do have the space, but they don't have the funds to purchase a book for everyone at the time they want to read it. To do what you suggest would require a new business model for publishers and libraries where publishers would get a certain amount of money every time a library patron "borrowed" a book. It'll take time to get to such a model (if ever).
LOL! Linux isn't the be all end all. If libraries only supported Linux then most of their consumers wouldn't be able to use the books, which renders the effort moot. And to anticipate your question: why not support both Linux and Windows? What DRM package is available that would allow libraries to do that?
The side libraries chose is their consumers' side. You don't like DRM, that's fine. But libraries don't like to break the law. They chose a technology that allows them to lend books to consumers (meeting a consumer desire). Given that DRM is needed to not break the law, what DRM package would you have had them choose OTHER THAN Microsoft's?
There's no fallacy as he's not saying that it has to be that way. The libraries are trying to create an electronic distribution mechanism that publishers are comfortable with.