Err.. wait, actually, it was terribly biased. Kinda funny how a bunch of Word's features got lumped into one "unique features" category (which presumably is weighted the same as any other category in determining the "verdict").
Grammar checker, translation, multiple clipboard.. all things that put Word well above OO (at least, Word 2003.. I haven't "upgraded" - upgraded in quotes because I'm skeptical if it's actually an upgrade - to 2007).
Me write sentence english good, -- OO thinks there's NOTHING WRONG with this sentence.
Not to say that Word's perfect (it isn't), nor to say that it's the best value for your dollar (hard to say no to something that's free if it does most of what you need..), but overall, IMHO, it is the better word processor.. at least, for my needs it is.
Everything that the security expert says in his submission to the court is, of course, true. But in the same way as the RIAA's submission doesn't tell the whole story, neither does this.
Universities have large IP blocks, and - for the most part - are in no danger of running out of IP addresses (negating the need - but not necessarily the use) of NAT technologies to get around this.
So while all of the assertions are true - there is still a reasonable (if not completely deterministic) chance that the IP address of the P2P user can be tied to a person (or, at least, network account).
So.. while there is no guarantee that they'll be able to identify the correct person.. there certainly are reasonable grounds for further investigation.. and so, IMO, the judge should side with the RIAA on this one.
A constitutional issue was raised, and that's what the DOJ is getting involved with. I guess they must think that the defendant has a reasonable chance of making their case - or else they wouldn't bother.
The source code is the crown jewels for any non-OSS software company. This is what they build their business on. So you can be damned sure that they'll protect it, and will scrutinize any disclosure of source code to ensure they do not give up anything more than is legally required.
SWSoft isn't saying they'll not release any code they need to.. they're just saying they're not ready to do so yet.
Like, you know, "trials". Gee, wouldn't it be a good idea if Microsoft/other software companies offered some of these "trials" so that people would be able to try out their product before buying it.
If ONLY there were some way to try out software before you bought it.. then there would be no need to pirate it, right?
Too bad software companies haven't thought of that..
Palm OS has fallen quite far behind Windows Mobile.. this is no more apparent than for a developer for these devices. The Garnet (v5) platform is hideously out of date, and Cobalt(v6) has never been released.. after years.
Developing for Windows Mobile with.NET is significantly easier than for the Palm API. And where go the developers, so too go the applications. And where go the applications, so too go the users.
WM is not perfect, but it is better than PalmOS. My Axim X50V gets used every day, while my Tungsten TX sits collecting dust.
That tag seems to apply here.. No DVD support, no proprietary codecs? Good grief. I would have hoped Dell would have at least paid the $2 or so for the licensing fees for this stuff!
If this is any indication, it doesn't look like pre-installing Linux will be the panecea some think it will be to beat Windows on the desktop..
First off, let me say I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who is unable to recover their PC after this snafu because they were running a pirated version of Windows. No sympathy whatsoever.
Now, for all of those who were running a legitimate version of Windows and a legitimate version of Norton who were affected by this problem (probably a small percentage of all systems actually affected..) it really does suck.. and there are two sources of fault, here:
1) MS. Aren't critical OS files supposed to be protected, such that they can't be unwillingly be deleted or modified? Maybe this is part of the reason why MS didn't want AV vendors to have kernel mode access to Vista..
2) Norton (duh). How they could manage to screw this up so badly boggles the mind.
There's no advantage (from the gamer's POV) to exclusives. I hope PS3 owners enjoy these games as much as we 360 owners will.. and hope some PS3-exclusive devs will give us 360 gamers some lovin' by releasing their game for our consoles..
The problem is not with the laws we have now (although I'm not happy with the private copying tax, er.. levy), it's a problem of enforcement and penalties for those found breaking the law. Like many other crimes in Canada, offenders get a slap on the wrist..
Because I don't see Mozilla coughing up the $10K it takes to get an app tested to be "Vista certified".. (I really wonder how much value for the money developers get from this.. and how much is pure profit for MS..)
Oh, of course! How could I be so foolish? Because it's blatantly obvious that "usenet groups used by pedophiles" are not used by anyone else (purposefully or not), and there's no way the trojan horse could spread elsewhere in the Internets.
Sarcasm aside, it makes you wonder.. if the trojan/image he posted was meant to be viewed by pedophiles.. what type of image did he use for this purpose?
The "hacker" should be punished. Out of the 3000 or so systems he has infected with his trojan.. how many have contained illegal content? Why has he not been charged for violating the privacy/tresspassing/etc. for (at least) those whose computers are "clean"?
Slashdot Mirror
Can you convert a mp3 to ogg without having a mp3 codec? I would think not (but I've never tried such a thing, so I wouldn't know for sure..)
Err.. wait, actually, it was terribly biased. Kinda funny how a bunch of Word's features got lumped into one "unique features" category (which presumably is weighted the same as any other category in determining the "verdict").
Grammar checker, translation, multiple clipboard.. all things that put Word well above OO (at least, Word 2003.. I haven't "upgraded" - upgraded in quotes because I'm skeptical if it's actually an upgrade - to 2007).
Me write sentence english good, -- OO thinks there's NOTHING WRONG with this sentence.
Not to say that Word's perfect (it isn't), nor to say that it's the best value for your dollar (hard to say no to something that's free if it does most of what you need..), but overall, IMHO, it is the better word processor.. at least, for my needs it is.
Then again.. :->
an OS with a mascot of a bird that can't fly on an airplane doesn't seem to be too good for appearances, either
Everything that the security expert says in his submission to the court is, of course, true. But in the same way as the RIAA's submission doesn't tell the whole story, neither does this.
Universities have large IP blocks, and - for the most part - are in no danger of running out of IP addresses (negating the need - but not necessarily the use) of NAT technologies to get around this.
So while all of the assertions are true - there is still a reasonable (if not completely deterministic) chance that the IP address of the P2P user can be tied to a person (or, at least, network account).
So.. while there is no guarantee that they'll be able to identify the correct person.. there certainly are reasonable grounds for further investigation.. and so, IMO, the judge should side with the RIAA on this one.
Why would Ubuntu consider looking at such a thing?
Am I missing something here?
A constitutional issue was raised, and that's what the DOJ is getting involved with. I guess they must think that the defendant has a reasonable chance of making their case - or else they wouldn't bother.
I recall using it quite a bit in Physics classes for lab results.
Sure, the "consumer". More like the government looks out for the criminal.
That is one thing I completely agree with Stallman. And I don't find myself saying that often..
Richard Stallman should not reproduce!
The source code is the crown jewels for any non-OSS software company. This is what they build their business on. So you can be damned sure that they'll protect it, and will scrutinize any disclosure of source code to ensure they do not give up anything more than is legally required.
SWSoft isn't saying they'll not release any code they need to.. they're just saying they're not ready to do so yet.
Wouldn't the water be radioactive from the bomb fallout?
Like, you know, "trials".
Gee, wouldn't it be a good idea if Microsoft/other software companies offered some of these "trials" so that people would be able to try out their product before buying it.
If ONLY there were some way to try out software before you bought it.. then there would be no need to pirate it, right?
Too bad software companies haven't thought of that..
Oh, wait..
Palm OS has fallen quite far behind Windows Mobile.. this is no more apparent than for a developer for these devices. The Garnet (v5) platform is hideously out of date, and Cobalt(v6) has never been released.. after years.
.NET is significantly easier than for the Palm API. And where go the developers, so too go the applications. And where go the applications, so too go the users.
Developing for Windows Mobile with
WM is not perfect, but it is better than PalmOS. My Axim X50V gets used every day, while my Tungsten TX sits collecting dust.
That tag seems to apply here..
No DVD support, no proprietary codecs? Good grief. I would have hoped Dell would have at least paid the $2 or so for the licensing fees for this stuff!
If this is any indication, it doesn't look like pre-installing Linux will be the panecea some think it will be to beat Windows on the desktop..
First off, let me say I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who is unable to recover their PC after this snafu because they were running a pirated version of Windows. No sympathy whatsoever.
Now, for all of those who were running a legitimate version of Windows and a legitimate version of Norton who were affected by this problem (probably a small percentage of all systems actually affected..) it really does suck.. and there are two sources of fault, here:
1) MS. Aren't critical OS files supposed to be protected, such that they can't be unwillingly be deleted or modified? Maybe this is part of the reason why MS didn't want AV vendors to have kernel mode access to Vista..
2) Norton (duh). How they could manage to screw this up so badly boggles the mind.
C'mon.. you must call it the GNU/R.M.S. move.. it's only fair given the contribution GNU made.. somehow.. for.. this?
There's no advantage (from the gamer's POV) to exclusives.
I hope PS3 owners enjoy these games as much as we 360 owners will.. and hope some PS3-exclusive devs will give us 360 gamers some lovin' by releasing their game for our consoles..
nt.
Isn't this the same guy who said that Canada should butt out on Arar being on the no-fly list, because it is an internal US matter?
Hmm.. surely he has the same attitude towards internal Canadian matters, right? Otherwise, he'd just be hypocritical. Right? Oh, wait..
The problem is not with the laws we have now (although I'm not happy with the private copying tax, er.. levy), it's a problem of enforcement and penalties for those found breaking the law. Like many other crimes in Canada, offenders get a slap on the wrist..
but my distinct opinion is Ray Beckerman is a dick.
Because, you know, the fucktard deserves it.
Because I don't see Mozilla coughing up the $10K it takes to get an app tested to be "Vista certified"..
(I really wonder how much value for the money developers get from this.. and how much is pure profit for MS..)
Oh, of course! How could I be so foolish?
Because it's blatantly obvious that "usenet groups used by pedophiles" are not used by anyone else (purposefully or not), and there's no way the trojan horse could spread elsewhere in the Internets.
Sarcasm aside, it makes you wonder.. if the trojan/image he posted was meant to be viewed by pedophiles.. what type of image did he use for this purpose?
The "hacker" should be punished. Out of the 3000 or so systems he has infected with his trojan.. how many have contained illegal content? Why has he not been charged for violating the privacy/tresspassing/etc. for (at least) those whose computers are "clean"?