In that case, I think it depends on how you phrased the question.. SP2 has been available as an auto update for a while now.. if you upgraded to the new version of Windows Update, I believe..
They want *me* to pay for games.. so that I can see advertisements??!
I absolutely do not see how this benefits gamers in any way.. game prices will NOT go down (exclusive scoop.. you heard it here, folks!), and game quality will suffer (progammers will be forced to change their mindset from "what will make this a good game?" to "how can we maximize the ad space?")
I prefer the "fake" ads in many games s/a GTA.. they're funny (I want a Mibatsu Monstrosity:-> )
I don't remember Apple saying 'No you can't put music on it' I think they said 'No real, we don't want you to dick with our stuff'
That is exactly what Apple is saying. If I purchase songs through Real's online store, Apple intends to make it as difficult as possible for me to play my music on my iPod.
You know, if Real had just done this in a vacuum without talking to Apple, I'd have some sympathy for them. But, Real asked to license the FairPlay technology so that songs purchased through their store could be played on the iPod. Apple basically said f* off, so Real went it alone..
WTF are you talking about? I've ripped my entire collection of 500+ CD's to MP3 on my powerbook and put them on my iPod without a single problem.
Exactly. You are able to play any songs you legally purchased on your iPod. Apple is publicly threatening through innuendo to intentionally disable this ability for people who choose to purchase their music through Real's online store.
As a music consumer, I expect to be able to play any music I own on any device I choose with as little difficulty as physically possible. The RIAA's actions (through copy protected DRM POS) and Apple's threatened actions are contrary to the expectation.. and I for one do not accept or support this, and will do whatever is in my power to stop them. The most effective action for a consumer is to vote with their wallet, and that's exactly what I intend to do by avoiding copy protected CDs, and Apple's iPod.
Apple is probably the biggest user advocate in the OS market today
By threatening to intentionally lock consumers' legally purchased music off of the iPod, Apple is definately not a user advocate in this case.
I agree. Although it's also an issue that the base Windows OS is a few years old now, where OTOH, when you download a Linux ISO, it's usually mostly up to date on bug fixes (perhaps not so with the retail versions..)
My recommendations: 1) Apply SP1 with network unattached (use network installer from CD.. in my case, I had it on a hard drive I installed to migrate my data) 2) Install anti-virus software 3) Connect network 4) Update anti-virus software 5) Apply critical security fixes
Of course, I'm behind a router (w/basic firewall-type abilities) the whole time..
No. IBM is only required to give a royalty free license to everyone who uses Linux if IBM's contributions specifically contain the patented code. I do not believe IBM would do this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't courts treat willful ignorance differently than genuine ignorance?
I recall for some other case (I cannot remember the details, but I think it related to transporting drugs), the protection for ignorance is much less strong if said ignorance is willful..
It's only a patent license for those who *distribute* the GPLed software. Linux is still vulnerable to patents owned by any company that does not release a distribution (and AFAIK, IBM does not.. but it would be stupid for them to try to enforce their patents, given their investment in Linux).
this seems a smart move by the Big Blue to help counter the FUD going around
FUD, "fear, uncertainty, doubt" generally is used in the context where said fears, uncertainties, and doubts are unwarranted.
However, in this case, the danger to Linux is very, very real. Of the 283 patents Linux potentially infringes upon (220 or so once you remove IBM's), there is a very high likelihood that at least a few of them will be completely valid, and that they'll (distros, users, developers, etc.) be sued. Just think of SCO, only with valid claims this time.
The current "ignore the problem and hope it goes away" attitude of many of the core Linux developers (this includes "show us the code, and we'll remove it") does not help. They (developers/distros) should be proactively attempting to remove any patented code (or, alternatively, challenge in court/patent office, or get a license)..
For hobbyists and home users, Linux's patent troubles aren't significant, but for any government of large company considering adopting Linux, it's a very big issue.
It's more a case of the "ignore it and hope it goes away" approach to problem solving coming back to bite you in the ass.
The core Linux developers, including Mr. Torvalds, discourage developers from doing patent searches. So, inevitably, some of the code in Linux is going to infringe on patents. A recent study by the Open Source Risk Management company showed the Linux kernel potentially infringes on 283 patents.
The Linux developers/distros/etc. need to respect intellectual property rights, and either: a) Remove and replace the patented code b) Challenge the patent as invalid c) Get a license for the patent.
What free (as in beer) distributions of Linux support x86-64? (ie. will let me run in 64-bit mode)
As well, do these distributions play nice with a dual boot setup with Windows? (That leaves Fedora out.. unless they've fixed the bug I'm thinking about..)
I agree completely. The problem is, the legal system doesn't work in computer time.. if these people were able to get the patent they applied for back in 1999 instead of year(s) down the road, it may have been innovative at the time.
So what's needed is a patent system that expadites: granting revoking (ie. challenge the patent) transferring to the public domain
for software.
While we're at it, software is copyrighted for too long a period, as well.. 15 years ought to be more than enough.
Software functionality should not be patentable (ex. One-Click shopping carts.), but software algorithms should be patentable.
No, that doesn't mean someone can go and patent the bubble sort (as if anyone would want to?). But let's take, for instance, the circuit CAD design companies. They invest huge amounts of money in developing proprietary heuristic algorithms to optimize circuits (for speed, power consumption, size, etc.). Copyrights are insufficient to protect such algorithms, because copyrights only protect the implementation (ie. the code) and not the logic (ie. the algorithm).
So the revolutionary way your company has found to do X that just blows the competition away is completely lost if someone explains how it works..
Do YOU have a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 with 4GB of RAM? And an X800/6800 video card? No? I didn't think so! Out where I live, you can't even BUY this hardware, let alone at reasonable prices.. I wouldn't doubt it were the same elsewhere. And when did I EVER say I have shitty hardware? Where? I don't see it!
A piece of advice: Speak not about things you know nothing about, little man
The point is, he gives no correlation between the math and the physical phenomena.. now, for people with a PHd in Cosmology, this is probably obvious.. but for the rest of us..
It's like saying that hydrogen has a low mass, therefore a velocity of > 11100 m/s and that's why there's no hydrogen in our atmosphere.. without telling us that the 11100 m/s is the escape velocity of the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, I think it depends on how you phrased the question.. SP2 has been available as an auto update for a while now.. if you upgraded to the new version of Windows Update, I believe..
I'm seeing it everywhere nowadays, and it's just stupid.. it makes absolutely no sense in this context.
They want *me* to pay for games.. so that I can see advertisements??!
:-> )
I absolutely do not see how this benefits gamers in any way.. game prices will NOT go down (exclusive scoop.. you heard it here, folks!), and game quality will suffer (progammers will be forced to change their mindset from "what will make this a good game?" to "how can we maximize the ad space?")
I prefer the "fake" ads in many games s/a GTA.. they're funny (I want a Mibatsu Monstrosity
I don't remember Apple saying 'No you can't put music on it' I think they said 'No real, we don't want you to dick with our stuff'
That is exactly what Apple is saying. If I purchase songs through Real's online store, Apple intends to make it as difficult as possible for me to play my music on my iPod.
You know, if Real had just done this in a vacuum without talking to Apple, I'd have some sympathy for them. But, Real asked to license the FairPlay technology so that songs purchased through their store could be played on the iPod. Apple basically said f* off, so Real went it alone..
WTF are you talking about? I've ripped my entire collection of 500+ CD's to MP3 on my powerbook and put them on my iPod without a single problem.
Exactly. You are able to play any songs you legally purchased on your iPod. Apple is publicly threatening through innuendo to intentionally disable this ability for people who choose to purchase their music through Real's online store.
As a music consumer, I expect to be able to play any music I own on any device I choose with as little difficulty as physically possible. The RIAA's actions (through copy protected DRM POS) and Apple's threatened actions are contrary to the expectation.. and I for one do not accept or support this, and will do whatever is in my power to stop them. The most effective action for a consumer is to vote with their wallet, and that's exactly what I intend to do by avoiding copy protected CDs, and Apple's iPod.
Apple is probably the biggest user advocate in the OS market today
By threatening to intentionally lock consumers' legally purchased music off of the iPod, Apple is definately not a user advocate in this case.
Rather, I'd not buy anything from Apple in hopes of it working with the songs I legally purchased.
Apple has no right to tell *me* what *I* can or cannot do with *my* hardware and *my* music.
I agree. Although it's also an issue that the base Windows OS is a few years old now, where OTOH, when you download a Linux ISO, it's usually mostly up to date on bug fixes (perhaps not so with the retail versions..)
My recommendations:
1) Apply SP1 with network unattached (use network installer from CD.. in my case, I had it on a hard drive I installed to migrate my data)
2) Install anti-virus software
3) Connect network
4) Update anti-virus software
5) Apply critical security fixes
Of course, I'm behind a router (w/basic firewall-type abilities) the whole time..
No. IBM is only required to give a royalty free license to everyone who uses Linux if IBM's contributions specifically contain the patented code. I do not believe IBM would do this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't courts treat willful ignorance differently than genuine ignorance?
I recall for some other case (I cannot remember the details, but I think it related to transporting drugs), the protection for ignorance is much less strong if said ignorance is willful..
So, will that be a $1 Billion dollar fine, or $3 Billion?
The problem won't go away by ignoring it..
It's only a patent license for those who *distribute* the GPLed software. Linux is still vulnerable to patents owned by any company that does not release a distribution (and AFAIK, IBM does not.. but it would be stupid for them to try to enforce their patents, given their investment in Linux).
OF COURSE you don't have your users install a service pack without sufficent testing!!
GEEZ!! This is news??!
this seems a smart move by the Big Blue to help counter the FUD going around
FUD, "fear, uncertainty, doubt" generally is used in the context where said fears, uncertainties, and doubts are unwarranted.
However, in this case, the danger to Linux is very, very real. Of the 283 patents Linux potentially infringes upon (220 or so once you remove IBM's), there is a very high likelihood that at least a few of them will be completely valid, and that they'll (distros, users, developers, etc.) be sued. Just think of SCO, only with valid claims this time.
The current "ignore the problem and hope it goes away" attitude of many of the core Linux developers (this includes "show us the code, and we'll remove it") does not help. They (developers/distros) should be proactively attempting to remove any patented code (or, alternatively, challenge in court/patent office, or get a license)..
For hobbyists and home users, Linux's patent troubles aren't significant, but for any government of large company considering adopting Linux, it's a very big issue.
Firefox
:->
Bugmenot extension
Adblock extension
No targeted ads.. hell, no ads AT ALL once you configure it (very easy). And you get past those annoying website registrations.
If it weren't for these features, I'd be using IE right now
It's more a case of the "ignore it and hope it goes away" approach to problem solving coming back to bite you in the ass.
The core Linux developers, including Mr. Torvalds, discourage developers from doing patent searches. So, inevitably, some of the code in Linux is going to infringe on patents. A recent study by the Open Source Risk Management company showed the Linux kernel potentially infringes on 283 patents.
The Linux developers/distros/etc. need to respect intellectual property rights, and either:
a) Remove and replace the patented code
b) Challenge the patent as invalid
c) Get a license for the patent.
LOL!
What free (as in beer) distributions of Linux support x86-64? (ie. will let me run in 64-bit mode)
As well, do these distributions play nice with a dual boot setup with Windows? (That leaves Fedora out.. unless they've fixed the bug I'm thinking about..)
I agree completely. The problem is, the legal system doesn't work in computer time.. if these people were able to get the patent they applied for back in 1999 instead of year(s) down the road, it may have been innovative at the time.
So what's needed is a patent system that expadites:
granting
revoking (ie. challenge the patent)
transferring to the public domain
for software.
While we're at it, software is copyrighted for too long a period, as well.. 15 years ought to be more than enough.
Compuserve patented the GIF compression algorithm, didn't they?
Software functionality should not be patentable (ex. One-Click shopping carts.), but software algorithms should be patentable.
No, that doesn't mean someone can go and patent the bubble sort (as if anyone would want to?). But let's take, for instance, the circuit CAD design companies. They invest huge amounts of money in developing proprietary heuristic algorithms to optimize circuits (for speed, power consumption, size, etc.). Copyrights are insufficient to protect such algorithms, because copyrights only protect the implementation (ie. the code) and not the logic (ie. the algorithm).
So the revolutionary way your company has found to do X that just blows the competition away is completely lost if someone explains how it works..
We also can't discount the risk of terrorism.. imagine a rocketful of plutonium being hijacked (or sabatoged) by Al Qaeda ..
All the computer companies, anyway (lousy restricted length subject!)
My patent:
A METHOD for receiving a patent that
a) is obvious
b) has prior art
c) no one in their right mind would think is patentable
Do YOU have a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 with 4GB of RAM? And an X800/6800 video card? No? I didn't think so!
Out where I live, you can't even BUY this hardware, let alone at reasonable prices.. I wouldn't doubt it were the same elsewhere.
And when did I EVER say I have shitty hardware? Where? I don't see it!
A piece of advice: Speak not about things you know nothing about, little man
I fail to see how this is of any importance.
The point is, he gives no correlation between the math and the physical phenomena.. now, for people with a PHd in Cosmology, this is probably obvious.. but for the rest of us..
It's like saying that hydrogen has a low mass, therefore a velocity of > 11100 m/s and that's why there's no hydrogen in our atmosphere.. without telling us that the 11100 m/s is the escape velocity of the earth.