With 200 year old articles, certainly the copyright has ended on these. Is there anything stopping people from mirroring Google's paid content for free?
would you want to promote this method? The only real reason to go around WGA is if you're using a pirated copy of Windows. Does Slashdot promote piracy?
From wikipedia: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) is an open source and Free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1. The CDDL was submitted for approval to the Open Source Initiative on December 1, 2004 and approved as an open source license in mid January 2005
What's wrong with this? Meh.. I don't really care. Nero Burning ROM handles all the burning I need to do:->
Allow all to benefit from the lectures (whether students of the university or not).
And post them immediately after the lecture takes place.. bad students are going to be bad students, and it's not your job in college to coddle them to get them to do their work. They have to take some responsibility for themselves. If you post them late (ie. a class,week,etc. behind) then you're only inconveniencing "good" students who happen to miss a class due to illness/etc. (ie. if you miss a class, the next class doesn't make a lot of sense if it built on the previous one.. )
I'm actually referring to both. On the balance of probabilities, if someone on a filesharing network has P2P sharing turned on, it's likely that they've distributed at least some files to other users.
Whether file sharing is turned on, and how many files are actually in the shared folder are the factors at play here, to determine if distribution likely took place (remember the standard of proof in a civil case is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal ones..). If file sharing was on and the 200 files were in the shared folder, the penalties would likely go towards the higher end, while if sharing was off/no files in shared folder, it's likely there was no distribution (and hence the lower penalty for copyright infringement). The defendant's computer setup would determine which of these scenerios existed. But given that the defendant destroyed evidence (unequivocally, a very bad thing to do, no matter what your opinion on P2P filesharing is..) the court will assume the worst.
Now, the big question is (I've sort of assumed it above) is.. is having copyright protected files in a P2P shared folder, with sharing turned on in the P2P program, enough to conclude that illegal distribution has taken place? I don't think the courts have answered that question, yet..
Yes, it is *could have*. But, by destroying evidence, the defendant gives the plaintiff no way of ascertaining whether or not this *could have* is, in fact, true. By deliberately destroying evidence, the defendant prejudiced the case against her, and will likely have to pay a substantial penalty, because the *could have* becomes a *probably did*.
it always traces back to Microsoft's untenable policy of maintaining gaps in Windows security to avoid competing with 3rd party vendors and certified partners. Apple's taking a different approach: What users need is in the box: Anti-virus, anti-spam, encryption, image backup and restore, offsite safe storage through.Mac, and launchd. Pretty soon any debate with Microsoft over security can be ended in one round when Apple stands up, says 'launchd', and sits back down. No, it's more like anti-trust policy prevents Microsoft from doing these things.
Some of the criticisms in the article are perfectly valid, but many of them are (supposedly) going to be fixed in Vista (whenever that gets out..)
She dubbed internet-wary employers "digital immigrants" and said the new wave of younger workers were "digital natives". Is that the right image we want? We all know what happened to the real natives once the European immigrants made it to North America...
Does Apple have a trademark on "pod"? They probably have a trademark on iPod, but that doesn't mean they have one on Pod. Think about it - if they could just break up their trademark like that, and claim a trademark on the constituent parts.. then they'd have one on I as well. I don't like that. (aw, damn.. Apple's gonna sue me for that last sentence!)
Now, tell me.. how many times have you looked at a wikipedia article? And of those times, how many have you checked the history of it? Personally, unless I find something I think is a bit unbelievable, I don't.
How so? I think Colbert proved the point he wanted to make quite nicely. The fact that many entries contained the false statistics for at least some portion of time shows the inherent flaws with the wiki system. (Sure, it was only a short period of time - but imagine you're writing a paper on elephants.. and just happen to come upon the entry at that point in time.)
Windows Update -> Install critical patches. Simple. And I've never had a compatibility problem.. (could be even easier if I turned on automatic updates.. but I don't like the idea of Microsoft choosing what is "critical" to put on my machine - they have made some poor choices of what is "critical".. like WGA, or their Eolas patent workaround..)
I'm still using 1.04 (on this machine).. because upgrading has proved to be too much of a pain in the ass... I just leave whichever version of FF was originally installed.
Sorry, but downloading a completely different installer (NOT an upgrade), which doesn't uninstall the previous version, and doesn't take into account previous preferences (ie. install location, etc.).. which also breaks previous functionality (particularily extensions) is a no-go for me. Apparently, this is fixed with 1.5.. but that requires that I go through the painful process at least once more.. No thanks.
Fcuk Eolas. I don't want to apply that update, which will break countless websites (or, at least, render them less convenient to use)... SO SUE ME. GO, ON, YOU FCUKERS, SUE ME.
Slashdot Mirror
That actually translates shit right?
With 200 year old articles, certainly the copyright has ended on these. Is there anything stopping people from mirroring Google's paid content for free?
Don't install WGA notifications (seperate download, unneeded to download genuine Windows software). No phone home. Problem solved.
would you want to promote this method? The only real reason to go around WGA is if you're using a pirated copy of Windows. Does Slashdot promote piracy?
From wikipedia:
:->
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) is an open source and Free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1. The CDDL was submitted for approval to the Open Source Initiative on December 1, 2004 and approved as an open source license in mid January 2005
What's wrong with this?
Meh.. I don't really care. Nero Burning ROM handles all the burning I need to do
Allow all to benefit from the lectures (whether students of the university or not).
And post them immediately after the lecture takes place.. bad students are going to be bad students, and it's not your job in college to coddle them to get them to do their work. They have to take some responsibility for themselves. If you post them late (ie. a class,week,etc. behind) then you're only inconveniencing "good" students who happen to miss a class due to illness/etc. (ie. if you miss a class, the next class doesn't make a lot of sense if it built on the previous one.. )
I'm actually referring to both. On the balance of probabilities, if someone on a filesharing network has P2P sharing turned on, it's likely that they've distributed at least some files to other users.
Whether file sharing is turned on, and how many files are actually in the shared folder are the factors at play here, to determine if distribution likely took place (remember the standard of proof in a civil case is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal ones..). If file sharing was on and the 200 files were in the shared folder, the penalties would likely go towards the higher end, while if sharing was off/no files in shared folder, it's likely there was no distribution (and hence the lower penalty for copyright infringement). The defendant's computer setup would determine which of these scenerios existed. But given that the defendant destroyed evidence (unequivocally, a very bad thing to do, no matter what your opinion on P2P filesharing is..) the court will assume the worst.
Now, the big question is (I've sort of assumed it above) is.. is having copyright protected files in a P2P shared folder, with sharing turned on in the P2P program, enough to conclude that illegal distribution has taken place? I don't think the courts have answered that question, yet..
Yes, it is *could have*. But, by destroying evidence, the defendant gives the plaintiff no way of ascertaining whether or not this *could have* is, in fact, true. By deliberately destroying evidence, the defendant prejudiced the case against her, and will likely have to pay a substantial penalty, because the *could have* becomes a *probably did*.
it always traces back to Microsoft's untenable policy of maintaining gaps in Windows security to avoid competing with 3rd party vendors and certified partners. Apple's taking a different approach: What users need is in the box: Anti-virus, anti-spam, encryption, image backup and restore, offsite safe storage through .Mac, and launchd. Pretty soon any debate with Microsoft over security can be ended in one round when Apple stands up, says 'launchd', and sits back down.
No, it's more like anti-trust policy prevents Microsoft from doing these things.
Some of the criticisms in the article are perfectly valid, but many of them are (supposedly) going to be fixed in Vista (whenever that gets out..)
She dubbed internet-wary employers "digital immigrants" and said the new wave of younger workers were "digital natives".
Is that the right image we want? We all know what happened to the real natives once the European immigrants made it to North America...
Does Apple have a trademark on "pod"? They probably have a trademark on iPod, but that doesn't mean they have one on Pod. Think about it - if they could just break up their trademark like that, and claim a trademark on the constituent parts.. then they'd have one on I as well. I don't like that. (aw, damn.. Apple's gonna sue me for that last sentence!)
Try running Real Player on Windows.
They don't need to open source their drivers to compete..
Not that you'll be playing any games with Intel integrated graphics, either..
Now, tell me.. how many times have you looked at a wikipedia article? And of those times, how many have you checked the history of it? Personally, unless I find something I think is a bit unbelievable, I don't.
If Vista will become a case study for software engineers about what NOT to do..
How so? I think Colbert proved the point he wanted to make quite nicely. The fact that many entries contained the false statistics for at least some portion of time shows the inherent flaws with the wiki system. (Sure, it was only a short period of time - but imagine you're writing a paper on elephants.. and just happen to come upon the entry at that point in time.)
According to the Univeristy of Toronto ... posting on Slashdot does harm the spelling of posters
For this generation of consoles... esp. given that E3 is where a lot of the big annoucements are made, and hype generated (or lost)..
I haven't played any MMORPGs, but how does playing with a female avatar "gain an advantage in game play"?
I thought Vista would only run signed kernel mode drivers?
Windows Update -> Install critical patches. Simple. And I've never had a compatibility problem.. (could be even easier if I turned on automatic updates.. but I don't like the idea of Microsoft choosing what is "critical" to put on my machine - they have made some poor choices of what is "critical".. like WGA, or their Eolas patent workaround..)
I'm still using 1.04 (on this machine).. because upgrading has proved to be too much of a pain in the ass... I just leave whichever version of FF was originally installed.
Sorry, but downloading a completely different installer (NOT an upgrade), which doesn't uninstall the previous version, and doesn't take into account previous preferences (ie. install location, etc.).. which also breaks previous functionality (particularily extensions) is a no-go for me. Apparently, this is fixed with 1.5.. but that requires that I go through the painful process at least once more.. No thanks.
is the trash tabloid of IT. There is no fucking place for it on sites that claim to be somewhat respectable.
"While the Voles may be disinterested in their own browsers"
that says it all.. The Inquirer is a fucking waste of space.
Fcuk Eolas. I don't want to apply that update, which will break countless websites (or, at least, render them less convenient to use)... SO SUE ME. GO, ON, YOU FCUKERS, SUE ME.