If I'm not mistaken those assertions were debunked long ago anyway. EM64T is nothing more than AMD64 by Intel. AMD64 chips and the Dore 2 Duos are all x86 chips extended to 64-bit. The classic definition of the bitness of a CPU is the size of a WORD (not the WORD used in MS Visual C++ mind you). 32-bit chips had a 32-bit WORD and the 64-bit chips have a 64-bit WORD. Since a WORD is 64-bits, the chip will take 64-bit addresses, 64-bit operands for arithmetic and all that good stuff. They're capable of switching to a 32-bit mode to run 32-bit software to boot.
EM64T runs x64 operating systems and x64 software perfectly fine. Both the AMD64 and EM64T suffer from the problem of the 32-bit mode sometimes being faster than the 64-bit mode (probably due to the increased size of the code [memory addresses twice as large] itself when running 64-bit software). IIRC, MS extended the number of levels of paging in x64 Windows as well but I'm not sure if any of the UNIX kernels did the same.
I've read the article before. The cop simply stated he didn't know WHICH law it was. He did believe a law was being broken, however. Rather than looking it up and then finding a way to tie the man to the wifi access, he went and had the man confess to him without ever even indicating a law was being broken (despite his belief there was one being broken).
The fact is a police officer questioned the man while under the belief that he had committed a crime (it is not uncommon for the police to not know what law a defendant will be charged under) and failed to inform him of his right to an attorney before answering his questions.
This was not a traffic stop where he would've known he had either broken the law or the police officer believed he had so that argument is moot. The cop believed he'd broken the law and concealed that belief. The fifth amendment DOES protect against the use of a confession if the defendant was not informed of their rights. I know this for a fact because despite my very own brother KNOWING that driving a car he'd had an accident in was illegal (reckless driving ahoy), his admission that he had in fact been driving was thrown out because the officer who had asked him had not informed him of his right to a lawyer!
If this becomes common, we'll be opening ourselves up to "dumb cops" trampling the rights of anyone they come across. "I don't know need to inform anyone of their rights because these things aren't against the law!" "Oh, I just found out they are and they admitted it, bring in the wagons, boys!"
My reading of the original story indicated that the cafe owner didn't know there was a law against the leeching and didn't even go to the cops. This cop just saw him doing it and thought there MUST be a law being broken. He proceeded to ask the guy what he was doing (to get a confession without mention the guy had the right to remain silent!) and then looked up a law to arrest him for. This officer pretty much found a loophole for that pesky Fifth Amendment... feign ignorance, get confession, "look up" law, arrest with previous confession under belt.
The officer extracted a confession out of a citizen without informing them of their rights. Can we now expect officers to start feigning ignorance about obscure laws only to claim later they looked it up and then use previous confessions to throw people in jail?
Why would they knowingly advertise with someone who is obviously ripping them off? People are visiting *Blockbuster's* site and the spyware is initiating traffic that makes it look like they were referred by an affiliate when they had just *typed in the address themselves*.
This is a case of someone scamming legitimate affiliate programs at Blockbuster's expense.
I hate to break it to you but their university already paid for those licenses. I can get it for the cost of shipping/handling and the cost of the media (disc production). It's pretty cheap but only because my university in paying for MSDNAA.
Given that Vista is the default choice of many OEMs and that past performance would indicate that they would've sold more than 60 million units since the Vista release, the fact that Microsoft is only claiming 40 million licenses of Vista is actually surprisingly LOW.
I don't know anyone personally either but that just means I don't personally know anyone that has bought a new PC since its release. Most home users don't usually jump on the upgrades very quickly anyway... if at all.
78% of the licenses were for more expensive versions that people were not getting free coupons for. I gather that they might not be including them or they simply don't make up a large number of licenses.
Besides, MS can tell if a non-OEM has activated their copy or not.
Here's the original text that was going to be inserted directly into the Constitution and formed the basis of the Second Amendment. The intent of the writers is pretty clear.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
What we have now is text wrangled around by the the House and Senate and written in a fashion that is now out of custom. The meaning is still the same as reaffirmed by the judiciary and even Congress repeatedly.
Assuming MS really does have valid patents, how could just rewriting the code prevent Microsoft from seeking royalties for past infringement?
Why does Linus think that Microsoft can't have patented anything that might be in the Linux kernel now just because basic operating system theory was done in the 1960s? Surely Linux 2.6.x is more modern than 1960s technology, right?
The Apple look and feel suit set no precedent whatsoever and in reality boiled down to Apple suing Microsoft over UI elements they had already licensed to Microsoft.
Microsoft can secure patents on their UI "innovations" all they want. They might even be copyrightable in reality, but they've taken the position that you can't copyright a GUI previously.
The deal required that Microsoft also had to pay royalties. Microsoft's revenues are MUCH higher than Novell's so they paid more than Novell paid them.
If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of issues have been with the shit MS has sitting on top of their kernel. Putting that pile of crap on top of BSD is probably not going to help.
Identification of Infringed Material
The image referenced above contains a scanned image of a picture and a signature that I created and own the rights to. I did not give permission for these images to be copied and redistributed.
They DID have the forethought not to claim ownership of the fake ID itself apparently.
Slashdot Mirror
GDP? How about per capita? *cough* GDP is a stupid economic indicator anyway.
I suppose the default mode is CORRUPT_DATA_SILENTLY?
Which is exactly why we marry the switching hardware of a Layer 2 switch with the IP routing logic of a router to produce... a Layer 3 switch!
If I'm not mistaken those assertions were debunked long ago anyway. EM64T is nothing more than AMD64 by Intel. AMD64 chips and the Dore 2 Duos are all x86 chips extended to 64-bit. The classic definition of the bitness of a CPU is the size of a WORD (not the WORD used in MS Visual C++ mind you). 32-bit chips had a 32-bit WORD and the 64-bit chips have a 64-bit WORD. Since a WORD is 64-bits, the chip will take 64-bit addresses, 64-bit operands for arithmetic and all that good stuff. They're capable of switching to a 32-bit mode to run 32-bit software to boot.
EM64T runs x64 operating systems and x64 software perfectly fine. Both the AMD64 and EM64T suffer from the problem of the 32-bit mode sometimes being faster than the 64-bit mode (probably due to the increased size of the code [memory addresses twice as large] itself when running 64-bit software). IIRC, MS extended the number of levels of paging in x64 Windows as well but I'm not sure if any of the UNIX kernels did the same.
IPv4 will be exhausted at around the same time as the first commercial fusion power plant is started and the release of Duke Nukem Forever.
I've read the article before. The cop simply stated he didn't know WHICH law it was. He did believe a law was being broken, however. Rather than looking it up and then finding a way to tie the man to the wifi access, he went and had the man confess to him without ever even indicating a law was being broken (despite his belief there was one being broken).
The fact is a police officer questioned the man while under the belief that he had committed a crime (it is not uncommon for the police to not know what law a defendant will be charged under) and failed to inform him of his right to an attorney before answering his questions.
This was not a traffic stop where he would've known he had either broken the law or the police officer believed he had so that argument is moot. The cop believed he'd broken the law and concealed that belief. The fifth amendment DOES protect against the use of a confession if the defendant was not informed of their rights. I know this for a fact because despite my very own brother KNOWING that driving a car he'd had an accident in was illegal (reckless driving ahoy), his admission that he had in fact been driving was thrown out because the officer who had asked him had not informed him of his right to a lawyer!
If this becomes common, we'll be opening ourselves up to "dumb cops" trampling the rights of anyone they come across. "I don't know need to inform anyone of their rights because these things aren't against the law!" "Oh, I just found out they are and they admitted it, bring in the wagons, boys!"
My reading of the original story indicated that the cafe owner didn't know there was a law against the leeching and didn't even go to the cops. This cop just saw him doing it and thought there MUST be a law being broken. He proceeded to ask the guy what he was doing (to get a confession without mention the guy had the right to remain silent!) and then looked up a law to arrest him for. This officer pretty much found a loophole for that pesky Fifth Amendment... feign ignorance, get confession, "look up" law, arrest with previous confession under belt.
The officer extracted a confession out of a citizen without informing them of their rights. Can we now expect officers to start feigning ignorance about obscure laws only to claim later they looked it up and then use previous confessions to throw people in jail?
That was supposed to be Windows Vista but they got confused about which product they were using.
I'm not sure 3 years is anywhere near long enough to start screaming about laches.
That's quite a leap. Thank god YNAL!
Why would they knowingly advertise with someone who is obviously ripping them off? People are visiting *Blockbuster's* site and the spyware is initiating traffic that makes it look like they were referred by an affiliate when they had just *typed in the address themselves*.
This is a case of someone scamming legitimate affiliate programs at Blockbuster's expense.
I hate to break it to you but their university already paid for those licenses. I can get it for the cost of shipping/handling and the cost of the media (disc production). It's pretty cheap but only because my university in paying for MSDNAA.
Given that Vista is the default choice of many OEMs and that past performance would indicate that they would've sold more than 60 million units since the Vista release, the fact that Microsoft is only claiming 40 million licenses of Vista is actually surprisingly LOW.
I don't know anyone personally either but that just means I don't personally know anyone that has bought a new PC since its release. Most home users don't usually jump on the upgrades very quickly anyway... if at all.
78% of the licenses were for more expensive versions that people were not getting free coupons for. I gather that they might not be including them or they simply don't make up a large number of licenses. Besides, MS can tell if a non-OEM has activated their copy or not.
Assuming MS really does have valid patents, how could just rewriting the code prevent Microsoft from seeking royalties for past infringement? Why does Linus think that Microsoft can't have patented anything that might be in the Linux kernel now just because basic operating system theory was done in the 1960s? Surely Linux 2.6.x is more modern than 1960s technology, right?
The Apple look and feel suit set no precedent whatsoever and in reality boiled down to Apple suing Microsoft over UI elements they had already licensed to Microsoft. Microsoft can secure patents on their UI "innovations" all they want. They might even be copyrightable in reality, but they've taken the position that you can't copyright a GUI previously.
The deal required that Microsoft also had to pay royalties. Microsoft's revenues are MUCH higher than Novell's so they paid more than Novell paid them.
If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of issues have been with the shit MS has sitting on top of their kernel. Putting that pile of crap on top of BSD is probably not going to help.
Wasn't that thing produced by the Brits?
Has anyone checked if it's even legal for this woman to be posting reproductions of fake IDs on the internet from NY?
She appears to be a bigot.