So a game originally made for a 5 year old console is going to be using advanced graphics features that current gen PC games aren't even using yet (ex. Shader 4)? And Microsoft won't release DX10 for XP?
I find this implausible.. esp. since DX9.0c is available for Win98, of all systems..
What does Vista have that XP doesn't (or, won't be back-ported.. like Avalon and Indigo) that would be a legitimate, technical reason for Halo 2 not to run on XP?
I don't think there is one.. I think Microsoft is trying to use Halo 2 to force people to buy Vista.. and if that's the case, I condemn it.
Well, if you read TFA, you'd know that they were reviewing all of their designs for such types of vulnerabilities - but had not reached the spec for wmf files yet. Vista is still in beta - you can't really criticize them for having a security hole in a beta product when they haven't finished securing the vulnerable components.
I think this story qualifies as a strawman.. The story makes it sound like if you put *any* files into a shared folder, you're breaking the law. This is not the case.
What the RIAA is really arguing is that if you place files into a shared folder that, if distributed, would constitute illegal distribution.. the act of making these files (which would be illegal if distributed) available for distribution by placing them in a shared folder is illegal.
Now, I don't see how they'd be able to actually prove the files were, in fact, files that would be illegal for the person to distribute unless the RIAA downloaded them (meaning the files were distributed).
Just remember kiddies, if you distort something to make it more absurd than it really is.. OF COURSE it's going to sound absurd!
Who cares if OSX isn't open source? It's a hell of a lot better than anything Redhat's put out lately.. this is a loss for the children who will eventually use these laptops.
On how it's implemented within the company. The daily meetings can become a huge waste of time if: a) There are unnecessary participants b) The (necessary) particpants don't listen to the progress of others and add their input where it would be useful
In all, it's like pretty much any other methodology - it's only as useful as the particpants are able/willing to follow it. It is no silver bullet that will magically make your code better.
- Skype is not standards-compliant, allowing it and any vulnerability to
pass through corporate firewalls.
And how would this be different if Skype was standards compliant?
- Skype's encryption is closed source and prone to man-in-the-middle
attacks. There are also some unanswered questions about how well the
keys are managed.
Ooh.. closed source is evil! By this logic, Info-Tech should recommend banning Windows (to the delight, I'm sure, of many/.ers)
- Enterprises using Skype risk a communication barrier with countries
and institutions that have already banned the service.
Is this a joke? I dunno about you, but I haven't seen any companies completely give up.. what's that thing?.. the telephone in favour of Skype..
Skype is a useful tool. That's all I've got to say about that.
DRM in and of itself is not bad, or evil or anything like that (despite what some may lead you to believe). Ideally DRM would allow all legal access to content and disallow all illegal access to content (with built-in knowledge of where you are located, and hence what constitutes legal and illegal). What's more, in addition to just "allowing" legal access - it should be absolutely transparent to the user.
Now, DRM as currently implemented isn't ideal. There is a fundamental tradeoff between allowing people who have no legal right to use the content (false-positives) and not allowing people who have a legal right to use it (false-negatives).
It seems Sony wants to decrease the false-positive rate (as any content company would), BUT they're willing to do it at the risk of an increase in the false-negative rate (BAD idea to piss off your paying customers!).. Microsoft seems to want to take a more balanced approach - decrease the false positive rate (perhaps not by as much) while holding firm or decreasing the false-negative rate.
Why did I write my post? Probably because I believe they are wrong. In fact, since another poster indicates that they are distributing episodes for free on pressed media it would seem that HBO is at least beginning to agree with me. Distributing a single episode to a select number of people via pressed media is significantly different than distributing all of the episodes to anyone who wants them via the Internet.
My point is, for better or for worse, it is exclusively HBO's decision as to how they distribute their content. Even if, on the whole, distributing all or some of their programs via BT would be beneficial to them does not allow consumers to do so unless HBO gives explicit permission.
The last time I was an HBO subscriber they did not have ads. That was the point of paying a subscription fee and their business model. OK, you've got me there. I've never been an HBO subscriber.. don't think HBO is even available in Canada (maybe one one of the uber-tier satellite or digital cable plans... but I can't afford those..)
Well, that is the supermarket's decision to offer samples to customers because, in their estimation, doing so will sell more cheese and earn them higher profits. It was not HBO's decision to offer recordings of this show online for free so people could "sample" it. Why would they choose not to do so? Probably because the bottom line is they believe their profits will not improve because of doing so. If episodes are available (commercial free) online, will more or less people watch them on TV, with ads (if less, then HBO loses money)? If episodes are available online, will more or less people buy the DVD boxsets (again, if less, then HBO loses money)? You may argue that, in the end HBO will earn more money by making their shows available for download.. but the fact is, that is HBO's decision - and only HBO's decision - to make.
I guess you have a point. IANAL, and IANAA (the last A is for American:->), so I don't know how all that stuff works. As far as I know (which isn't much) entrapment only applies to actions by the government (police) and has to be somehow shocking to the public.
These trackers have published about 50 variant torrents of only three titles, "The Wedding Crashers", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and the first three episodes of "The O.C." Some titles are published as "DVD-rips" while others are pushed as "XviDs". Others are presented as an English or French releases. All of which would, of course, be illegal to download or upload, anyway. I don't see the problem.. as a matter of fact, I see it as a victory for those of use who respect intellectual property.
[i]On the other hand, *if* the downloaded material really *is* what it was claimed to be, then, well... anyone having downloaded it is not guilty of copyright infringement, as it was the rights holders themselves that voluntarily and knowingly uploaded the material. You don't even have to argue about entrapment, because copying movies is not something that is *inherently* illegal - it's just illegal if you haven't gotten permission, and if you're downloading from the rights holders themselves, then you can argue that you had permission - it's called concludent behaviour.[/i] Ahh.. but even if the downloaded file really was what it was claimed to be, and it really did come from the rights holders, and thus you really did have the right to download it.. that does not mean you have the right to distribute it. So you're still breaking the law by uploading to other peers (which is very hard to prevent when using BitTorrent).
Posted anonymously, because of unfair Slashdot moderation system (OMFG! He said something negative about Mozilla! Quick! Mod as troll, mod as troll! Code red!!).
Since Microsoft is obviously so big, and filled with so many professionals they obviously know how to handle security patches and upgrades better than a common user. That wasn't my argument in the least. All I'm saying is that patching FF is more time consuming and difficult than patching IE.. and it does not need to be that way.
I use Firefox, and for the most part I like it (adblock - which is something MS is likely to NEVER implement.. just look at how much they resisted popup blocking! - and a few other extensions are really the "killer app" for it..). It is not perfect, however.. and although, on the whole, I consider it a better browser than IE (that's why I'm using it) there is still a lot of room for improvement.
Mozilla's 'ability to react, find a solution and put it into the user's hands is better than Microsoft.'
Mozilla's ability to "put it into the user's hands" is NOT better than Microsoft's. For IE, all you have to do is go to Windows Update, and select the patch.. and it will automagically do everything for you (even more automatic if you have automatic updates turned on). With Mozilla, you must download the latest version of the browser (which usually has more stuff than just the bug fix you're interested in), uninstall the old one, and install the new one from scratch (including specifying options like install directory and other preferences Mozilla *should* already know and use).
Patches from Microsoft take more time (amongst other reasons) because they do more extensive regression testing than Mozilla.. how many times have I downloaded the latest FF only to find several things broken (especially extensions)?
To be sure, Microsoft's response time leaves much to be desired (I'd personally rather receive a fix as soon as it's available, rather than waiting for a once-a-month patch, for one), but Mozilla's process leaves much to be desired as well.
OTOH, I wonder if GNU/the FSF will accept the "show us the offending code, and we'll remove it" line for GPL violators that they use whenever anyone makes a patent/copyright claim against a "free software" project (most notably SCO)
As I understand it, no. If you link to the GPL program, you are forced to release it under the GPL.. hence the program you originally link to could not be licensed under the LGPL.
Slashdot Mirror
So a game originally made for a 5 year old console is going to be using advanced graphics features that current gen PC games aren't even using yet (ex. Shader 4)? And Microsoft won't release DX10 for XP?
I find this implausible.. esp. since DX9.0c is available for Win98, of all systems..
What does Vista have that XP doesn't (or, won't be back-ported.. like Avalon and Indigo) that would be a legitimate, technical reason for Halo 2 not to run on XP?
I don't think there is one.. I think Microsoft is trying to use Halo 2 to force people to buy Vista.. and if that's the case, I condemn it.
That's backwards. If MS checks the code, and they find some of their's in it - guess what that means? LAWSUIT.
And if MS doesn't check it, or don't finish within six months.. that does not in any way give any rights to use MS's code in ReactOS.
Well, if you read TFA, you'd know that they were reviewing all of their designs for such types of vulnerabilities - but had not reached the spec for wmf files yet. Vista is still in beta - you can't really criticize them for having a security hole in a beta product when they haven't finished securing the vulnerable components.
That is, if you believe what Allchin says..
I think this story qualifies as a strawman..
The story makes it sound like if you put *any* files into a shared folder, you're breaking the law. This is not the case.
What the RIAA is really arguing is that if you place files into a shared folder that, if distributed, would constitute illegal distribution.. the act of making these files (which would be illegal if distributed) available for distribution by placing them in a shared folder is illegal.
Now, I don't see how they'd be able to actually prove the files were, in fact, files that would be illegal for the person to distribute unless the RIAA downloaded them (meaning the files were distributed).
Just remember kiddies,
if you distort something to make it more absurd than it really is..
OF COURSE it's going to sound absurd!
RealPlayer, required to listen/watch any of the lectures, is not open.. and is much more offensive/intrusive/etc. than OSX or Windows.
Add that you can only stream most (all?) of the content and not download it.. well, it sort of limits the usefulness, doesn't it?
Comparing the free offering of SQL Server to the full version of mySQL is just about as biased a comparison as Microsoft's "Get the facts" campaign..
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..
Who cares if OSX isn't open source? It's a hell of a lot better than anything Redhat's put out lately.. this is a loss for the children who will eventually use these laptops.
On how it's implemented within the company. The daily meetings can become a huge waste of time if:
a) There are unnecessary participants
b) The (necessary) particpants don't listen to the progress of others and add their input where it would be useful
In all, it's like pretty much any other methodology - it's only as useful as the particpants are able/willing to follow it. It is no silver bullet that will magically make your code better.
- Skype is not standards-compliant, allowing it and any vulnerability to
/.ers)
pass through corporate firewalls.
And how would this be different if Skype was standards compliant?
- Skype's encryption is closed source and prone to man-in-the-middle
attacks. There are also some unanswered questions about how well the
keys are managed.
Ooh.. closed source is evil! By this logic, Info-Tech should recommend banning Windows (to the delight, I'm sure, of many
- Enterprises using Skype risk a communication barrier with countries
and institutions that have already banned the service.
Is this a joke? I dunno about you, but I haven't seen any companies completely give up.. what's that thing?.. the telephone in favour of Skype..
Skype is a useful tool. That's all I've got to say about that.
DRM in and of itself is not bad, or evil or anything like that (despite what some may lead you to believe). Ideally DRM would allow all legal access to content and disallow all illegal access to content (with built-in knowledge of where you are located, and hence what constitutes legal and illegal). What's more, in addition to just "allowing" legal access - it should be absolutely transparent to the user.
Now, DRM as currently implemented isn't ideal. There is a fundamental tradeoff between allowing people who have no legal right to use the content (false-positives) and not allowing people who have a legal right to use it (false-negatives).
It seems Sony wants to decrease the false-positive rate (as any content company would), BUT they're willing to do it at the risk of an increase in the false-negative rate (BAD idea to piss off your paying customers!).. Microsoft seems to want to take a more balanced approach - decrease the false positive rate (perhaps not by as much) while holding firm or decreasing the false-negative rate.
And extremely flawed analysis.
Why did I write my post? Probably because I believe they are wrong. In fact, since another poster indicates that they are distributing episodes for free on pressed media it would seem that HBO is at least beginning to agree with me.
Distributing a single episode to a select number of people via pressed media is significantly different than distributing all of the episodes to anyone who wants them via the Internet.
My point is, for better or for worse, it is exclusively HBO's decision as to how they distribute their content. Even if, on the whole, distributing all or some of their programs via BT would be beneficial to them does not allow consumers to do so unless HBO gives explicit permission.
The last time I was an HBO subscriber they did not have ads. That was the point of paying a subscription fee and their business model.
OK, you've got me there. I've never been an HBO subscriber.. don't think HBO is even available in Canada (maybe one one of the uber-tier satellite or digital cable plans... but I can't afford those..)
Canadians do not have the right to download copyright protected television shows without the consent of the copyright holder.
Well, that is the supermarket's decision to offer samples to customers because, in their estimation, doing so will sell more cheese and earn them higher profits. It was not HBO's decision to offer recordings of this show online for free so people could "sample" it. Why would they choose not to do so? Probably because the bottom line is they believe their profits will not improve because of doing so. If episodes are available (commercial free) online, will more or less people watch them on TV, with ads (if less, then HBO loses money)? If episodes are available online, will more or less people buy the DVD boxsets (again, if less, then HBO loses money)? You may argue that, in the end HBO will earn more money by making their shows available for download.. but the fact is, that is HBO's decision - and only HBO's decision - to make.
I don't see it. Your documents lose security and availability.. and you gain, what?
I guess you have a point. IANAL, and IANAA (the last A is for American :->), so I don't know how all that stuff works. As far as I know (which isn't much) entrapment only applies to actions by the government (police) and has to be somehow shocking to the public.
Please explain? This would be of great use to me.
These trackers have published about 50 variant torrents of only three titles, "The Wedding Crashers", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", and the first three episodes of "The O.C." Some titles are published as "DVD-rips" while others are pushed as "XviDs". Others are presented as an English or French releases.
All of which would, of course, be illegal to download or upload, anyway. I don't see the problem.. as a matter of fact, I see it as a victory for those of use who respect intellectual property.
[i]On the other hand, *if* the downloaded material really *is* what it was claimed to be, then, well... anyone having downloaded it is not guilty of copyright infringement, as it was the rights holders themselves that voluntarily and knowingly uploaded the material. You don't even have to argue about entrapment, because copying movies is not something that is *inherently* illegal - it's just illegal if you haven't gotten permission, and if you're downloading from the rights holders themselves, then you can argue that you had permission - it's called concludent behaviour.[/i]
Ahh.. but even if the downloaded file really was what it was claimed to be, and it really did come from the rights holders, and thus you really did have the right to download it.. that does not mean you have the right to distribute it. So you're still breaking the law by uploading to other peers (which is very hard to prevent when using BitTorrent).
Posted anonymously, because of unfair Slashdot moderation system (OMFG! He said something negative about Mozilla! Quick! Mod as troll, mod as troll! Code red!!).
Since Microsoft is obviously so big, and filled with so many professionals they obviously know how to handle security patches and upgrades better than a common user.
That wasn't my argument in the least. All I'm saying is that patching FF is more time consuming and difficult than patching IE.. and it does not need to be that way.
I use Firefox, and for the most part I like it (adblock - which is something MS is likely to NEVER implement.. just look at how much they resisted popup blocking! - and a few other extensions are really the "killer app" for it..). It is not perfect, however.. and although, on the whole, I consider it a better browser than IE (that's why I'm using it) there is still a lot of room for improvement.
Mozilla's 'ability to react, find a solution and put it into the user's hands is better than Microsoft.'
Mozilla's ability to "put it into the user's hands" is NOT better than Microsoft's. For IE, all you have to do is go to Windows Update, and select the patch.. and it will automagically do everything for you (even more automatic if you have automatic updates turned on). With Mozilla, you must download the latest version of the browser (which usually has more stuff than just the bug fix you're interested in), uninstall the old one, and install the new one from scratch (including specifying options like install directory and other preferences Mozilla *should* already know and use).
Patches from Microsoft take more time (amongst other reasons) because they do more extensive regression testing than Mozilla.. how many times have I downloaded the latest FF only to find several things broken (especially extensions)?
To be sure, Microsoft's response time leaves much to be desired (I'd personally rather receive a fix as soon as it's available, rather than waiting for a once-a-month patch, for one), but Mozilla's process leaves much to be desired as well.
OTOH, I wonder if GNU/the FSF will accept the "show us the offending code, and we'll remove it" line for GPL violators that they use whenever anyone makes a patent/copyright claim against a "free software" project (most notably SCO)
As I understand it, no. If you link to the GPL program, you are forced to release it under the GPL.. hence the program you originally link to could not be licensed under the LGPL.