you must be doing something illegal that needs to be searched for.
And as you pointed out, how does one exactly know when you are doing something illegal. One can play chicken and egg with the question all day. However, as someone else has pointed out, if you have something in a safe and a search warrant has included a safe to be searched, then you need to hand over the keys or face obstruction of justice.
US law isn't byzantine in that it is, "characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation." US law is complex, and not everyone understands it. You ask,
it's a question of how do you protect yourself?
and I have replied in a round about fashion but I'll make it more direct. US law is not made for you to understand completely. I want to underscore that "completely" part. Obviously the basics of law are understandable. We know murder is illegal, slavery is illegal, stealing is illegal, and so forth. However, the more distinct pieces of law are not always known or understood. For that you need a lawyer that can protect you. It is that lawyer that will understand the consequences for obstruction justice and weigh in on whatever dirty secret you might be hiding on your encrypted hard drive is worth the time you will serve for withholding information.
If it is mommy and daddy's sex tapes the lawyer can have the judge and DA view the video in private and the whole thing be dismissed. If it is because of a secret girlfriend, again, viewed in private and dismissed. Never on the record and disclosure of that by the DA could have him in jail. Again, if it is nothing illegal most lawyers will ask to have the evidence reviewed by judge and prosecution and then promptly sealed. Flat out refusal when a judge has ordered it is just straight up obstruction. Unless, of course, the person just simply forgot the password. However, you will never know that unless you speak to an attorney.
You are under the impression that somehow you can protect yourself and that assumption will get you burnt every time. You cannot protect yourself because most people's knowledge of the law is very limited. Just like (using the Slashdot time honored car analogy,) I don't try to fix my own car because I have no idea how all the pieces work. I can change my oil, because I have enough general knowledge to do just that. I can change my own air filter. However, if something goes wrong with the transmission, I take it to someone who has better insight on the matter.
However, the more concerning issue that rises from all of this is the general Google-pedia mentality that has become more and more rampant today. A lot of people are under the impression that they do not need professionals because, "oh I can just learn everything I need to know from teh Intertubes!" It's like paper MCSEs but with specific domains of discipline. As pointed out in the youtube video that you so kindly provide a link to, do not talk to cops and get a lawyer. As pointed out early on in the video, it is impossible for you to know every single law, and as #1 on his top ten (or eight) list, there isn't anything you can say to get out of being arrested. Don't be stupid and think you can somehow "protect" yourself.
So two points, one, specifically talking about this case, if a judge orders you to unlock something, safe, encrypted hard drive, safety deposit box, network system, or anything else that uses a method to keep something else from public knowledge. You cannot find a defense in the fifth amendment, period. You can ask a lawyer why that is, but absolutely none would recommend you continue to keep it a secret unless it implicates you on the crime in question. Yes, that is one of the first questions lawyers ask their clients starting out,
Two, generally speaking, there is a sense of gratification in crime. Sometimes that is unknowable like the fish example that is presented in the video. You take the
Well I was speaking more in general terms as opposed to specifically about this case.
the 5th Amendment is supposed to protect us against being required to give evidence against ourselves.
Well if I remember correctly FTA, the judge did say indeed that they cannot force the person in question if they forgot their password. However, allegations that are well founded are the foundation for search warrants. The fifth amendment does not protect us from our actions that tell others that we are up to no good. If I look half asleep and I am driving all over the place, it's not unfounded to allege that I might very well be drunk. That may not be the case, but the only way to know is to gain more insight on the matter. For all the officer knows, I might be narcoleptic.
We are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Yes as far as the court system goes, you are innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the burden of proof being on you to prove innocence. However, the line pretty much ends there at the court room doors. To say that newspapers cannot espouse how "guilty as sin" you are, would be to deny them their first amendment right to tell everyone that "you are guilty as sin." Police on the other hand straddle that fine line and they get a lot of flak for it, which I will admit they deserve a lot of the flak that they receive. They have to presume that you are guilty because they have a job to put people who are indeed engaging in illegal activities behind bars, at some point someone has to play devil's advocate, that burden usually falls onto the police and the district attorney. When you look at any depiction of Justice, you will see a scale. That whole analogy is based on the notion that there are those that will present evidence opposing and in favor of your innocence.
feeding people information, planting information, and pulling every dirty trick they can come up with to try to get a conviction, innocent or not.
Don't get me wrong. There comes a point when there are those that over step their boundaries. It is our job as the public to push back on that. Freedom is not something that just idly happens. We have a constitution but none of those will apply unless a person chooses to make them apply, if you walk into a court room and say nothing, exactly what verdict do you think will be returned? Also, the system's not perfect, I think anyone who feels that it is needs help. Innocent people are wrongfully convicted, but that conviction won't be overturned by just sitting there.
I'm not advocating doing illegal stuff, but I am suggesting that you probably want to keep your affairs under wraps anyways, even if fully legal.
That's good that you are not advocating that, I think we need less cheerleaders for crime, but that's just my take on the matter. I digress, you should keep your affairs under wraps. It's not anybody's business what you say or do. However, you must actively pursue your innocence when accused of guilt in a court of law. Indifference is usually seen as unwillingness to follow procedure and in turn law. At least to most judges and juries I've ever witnessed. Remember that the handing out of a verdict is within the hands of ordinary people. One would do well to remember that not only do you need to appeal to their intellect, but to their emotional state of mind. Indifference turns people off faster than a clerk can type.
Again, I won't say the system is perfect. It's pretty sad when something like the Troy Davis case happens, but we only know that it did happen because people pushed for truth, not staying content with the status quo. So I will reiterate, a person's freedom is directly tied to the amount of fight that they have to have a continuation of that freedom. Keep your stuff under wraps e
I commend you on your post. It doesn't stray from the fact that once someone physically has your device, it leaves few options to the former owner to remove incriminating evidence no matter the tool used. Eventually, you loose because the deck was never shuffled in your favor.
However, I would like to suggest an alternative. As naive as it may sound, why not just do less illegal stuff? That way when they do take your hard drive, you really don't have anything to get you into trouble. Better yet, if you are so inclined to do illegal stuff, why not just do all that illegal stuff on a different computer that's not located somewhere where you might spend 70%+ of your time.
I think really, if you want to do more illegal stuff on your computer, it may behoove some to take a mafia style approach to computers. Have a front, a fence, and some goons that move more of the illegal action away from you as a person and more towards plausible deniability. For goodness sake, at least if you are going to have a bunch of incriminating evidence deny that you can actually get access to it and that you've gone insane as well, just for good measure.
You're pointing the finger at the hired gun, and purposefully ignoring the crime boss that gave him a fist-full of cash!
Um? The first subject matter in the line you quoted is Apple, I'm not sure how you see that I'm missing the real culprit here. The good intentions part is sarcasm.
Wait, that's neither government nor born of good intentions!
I think that's a bit naive view point. At least the "neither government" part. Company's influence our government via many methods, like the promise to locate a facility there during election run ups, that ability to overcome some pestering problem within the district for a slightly reduced cost to the member's local government, and other things that make the member of Congress look better to their constituents. To say both the company and government official are to blame is pretty limited. For example, the city I live in has a very nice greenway system (that's basically a highway for bikes and people who just want to go walk.) 90% of it was built with federal money, back room deals, and pretty shady political tactics. One part of shame can fall to the Congressman for being the middle man, however, one part of shame can also fall on the local concrete union that influenced him. However, we'd be stupid to not include the 55K+ people who decided that, well it really doesn't matter that it was a no bid and that now the companies that aren't in the concrete union are being pushed either into the union MPAA style/leaving town, people who decided to reelect him over and over and over and over, because right around election time we'd get all these little goodies from him and flyers saying "Re-elect me!"
So is it fair that a company wants non-free/non-open markets? Is it fair for our elected officials to be the mediators in these environments of anti-competitive behavior? Is it right for the people to demand something/receive something at such an unbelievably low cost because it was born of anti-competitive labor that they just kiss the ground that the official walks on?
You mention Occupy movements, I've been to the one in New York City four times and have had the opportunity to talk with some of the protestors. Most of them are just there for random reasons, but that's not my point here, that's just the surface of the issue. Here you have a group of people with Apple cellphones, and laptops, and other electrical devices. You pretty much have a big old feedback loop, company's are evil and use the government as the middleman, because that's what we the people demand. Because our demand gets bigger with each new shiny release of whatever, company's are only more than happy to oblige by find more and more ways to dodge rules that they can't buy enough senators...
Ah forget it... I'm clubbing a dead horse. In the end it really doesn't matter, I cannot change the masses and I don't need to pretend that I can, but people who think that it's just a big business and government problem are missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
Apple are a business, and free to build in as much lock-in on their platforms as they please.
Until it is widely used and are sued by the United States government until they open the platform. I really wish people would stop thinking that just because a company is a non-person, it is also a non-entity. Companies like Apple have no problem influencing laws with nice cashy money, that usually doesn't affect them, or mandates that education facilities use their baked in DRM. Which in the end, like all things government, screw us all with good intentions (nice sharp non-lubricated intentions.)
So while on the surface we'd like to say open-market, free market. Once a company starts buying votes that affect the public at large, they cease to operate IMHO as open and free market, and more along the lines of a cog within the machinery of government. So we'd like to think that Apple is a business that is free to build as much lock-in as they want in their product; they are more along the lines of a piece of our government that we should have a say in.
I was under the understanding that they would be manufacturing battery packs in Smyrna as well, with the electric motors being made in Decherd.
I have some friends out in Winchester and they know some people who work inside the powertrian plant there in Decherd. I'll ask them. I've not heard that, but makes sense since they railroad the stuff from there to Smyrna. I'll have to get back with you on that. Of course, you'll have to remember that anything about Decherd that I would have, would be like third hand information so take it with a grain of salt.
There has been talk about moving the battery packs to Smyrna, but I believe the ones that are going in now are not made there. I don't know exactly how concrete the plans are for the battery packs. That might actually create some jobs, but I don't know where they would be doing this. Everyone I've talked to that works at the Smyrna plant say that they would need some add-on to be built to have the room to do something like that. However, I can confirm that I *have* heard talk about the battery packs being assembled there.
I don't work there personally but I have a couple of friends that work there and I've done some network contract work there back in 2001. So again, don't cite me as some universal source.
Smyrna, TN
That's the town right next to where I live. They've had billboards up in the area talking about how the Leaf is coming to Smyrna and how awesome it's going to be to live in the same area as they are made in. However, as someone pointed out. Pretty much the only thing they will do there is put the pieces together. All the parts will be sourced from elsewhere.
Total impact? Well they aren't opening a new wing (you can tell when they are doing that because Nissan Blvd and Enon Springs road becomes a nightmare with all the heavy construction. Traffic usually backs up onto US 41/70S (aka Murfreesboro Road). So no one new is getting hired at the plant. Instead I think they are phasing out some sort of truck they use to make. So no new construction, no new hire, pretty much the Nissan Leaf has brought zero new jobs... Oh I take that back! CSX hired sixty some odd workers for about nine months to expand the capacity of the rail yard at the Nissan plant.
However, aside from the job issue. The local malls (Stones River, The Avenue, etc...) have added EV charge stations to welcome our new Leaf overlords. So I'm guessing that's good that we are suddenly going from zero EV charging stations to now twenty-six, three packs, and counting.
However I will say that Nissan is doing something with their site in the back. You can see that they are leveling the ground from Florence Rd but there has yet to be any structures added. So more likely we'll be seeing little white canopies going up soon or we'll see the start of, hopefully, a new building.
No. I've heard many a lectures that debunks studies that come to this conclusion. APEC has no idea what exactly the hell they are talking about in regards to the process that you are talking about, and I dare say that ITRI has become a mouthpiece for Terrabon. That's my and a couple of hundred others opinion on the matter.
But now we see the strategy of Canonical and why the (at the time) weird decisions were being made
Um duh, it was made for Instant-On web devices, it just so happens that tablets fall into that category nicely.
But let's look at each point individually because not everything you stated relates to Canonical's desire to go to Tablet's, it's more along the lines of, "it just happens to also help them out towards tablets."
1) The nasty split, isn't any more nasty than other things in the Linux world. Canonical wants Canonical stuff in Canonical's distro. GNOME 3 is still used in Unity, but just differently. It's hard for me to explain because I suck at summing things up, but trust me, Unity is GNOME 3 at the core and Unity runs more with how people predicted GNOME3 to be used more as a platform and less like a standard desktop. The main facet is that it removes a lot of upstream push from the GNOME community. Canonical wants their desktop to look the way they want it to look, not what GNOME developers want it to look like. You'll see this type of mentality in a lot of Ubuntu. Also, let's face it GNOME developers are difficult to work with at best. It's very easy to paint the main developers as being the pearly towers (metaphor for someone who dictates how things should happen, but have little to zero real-world experience to back up exactly why that's right.)
2) The choice to use Wayland over X boils down to the same debate that was had on xgl versus aiglx. Mark thinks running direct to the video card is a better method than the way X provides. This has been a common thing that comes up ooo, I'd say every five to six years. Someone comes up with a better way to run direct to the card and someone jumps on the band wagon. Usually there is just too much inertia to make the jump from X to the something else happen and we all go back to using X happily. There's a lot of misconception that Xorg (specifically) and X11 (in general) are bloated, slow, won't run well on older machines. X11 is a pretty hefty "standard," but not everything in it is in every implementation. There are multiple of X11 implementations (I'm given too, Google can help you see more) that target embedded systems that run quite well. Xorg implements a lot of stuff to keep backwards compatibility with older machines. Wayland doesn't. However, don't confuse that because just because it is implemented does not mean that it gets loaded if it is not needed. You aren't going to be using XRender when your video card offers the ability to use OpenGL pixmap to texture. The biggest problem with X is drivers (and that shouldn't surprise anyone) and the low quality those drivers exist in. That problem will not go away with Wayland. The idea is, and to me it's a bad bet, if we make the model more simple (remember the X11 "spec" is a pretty big tome) then vendors will be more incline to write better drivers since the model for those drivers is more simplistic. However, as bets go, that's immaterial to why Canonical wants to go Wayland. It really boils down to the fact that they want to do Window Decorations the way they want to do Window Decora
There's a difference. I've heard of some schools in the area where I live that accept printed out homework and then there are two that require that homework be turned in a docx format, printed out version not allowed.
At some point I think schools can get carried away with technology that they miss the notion that the whole point is just to convey information. It's just like those PHB that want everything in Excel, even though Word would be a better choice. They're missing the entire idea that if the point is to get information from one person to another, then the best tool to complete that action should be used, not some favored technology.
So I do feel this guys pain somewhat. Some teachers can be irrational as to demands, especially if the teacher demands that you purchase a Windows license and a MS Office license, you can't say no and you can't write it off on taxes, so essentially you have to go blow $250+ just so your kid can stay in public school. Add that cost to the other slew of fees that public schools require, at least the MS Office lasts you until you snag another irrational teacher that says that you must have Office 2010 or better or your kid cannot attend their class.
Trust me my sister had a lot of these issues with the county schools here with my niece. Her 9th grade teacher (2009) required Office 2007 or better so an upgrade to 2003 had to be bought. Then her 10th grade teacher required Office 2010 so the very next school year yet another Office upgrade had to be bought. Of course, I hear about it all the time because my sister is asking me what technically is the difference.
So yeah, some schools, not saying all, but some can be pretty damn irrational about the whole thing.
There's a version of Tomcat that won't run with OpenJDK? Can you give a version combination? I've not heard this issue come up until now. Is it Tomcat or a WAR that is deployed to the server that holds it back?
I agree on your point with Jigsaw. OSGi and Jigsaw are pretty much the same approach to two different problems. OSGi looks to make applications modular, Jigsaw looks to make the JVM modular. Using one doesn't mean it precludes the other as they are just using modularization at different levels of the stack.
Also the Java Licensing issue is pretty mute. Sun and now Oracle have been banging the OpenJDK gong like its going out of style. OpenJDK is better kept up with and everyone should start moving over to OpenJDK. Yes it seems a bit dickish that they have changed the licensing agreement just to make the point, but at some point when distros aren't listening (mostly Ubuntu) somethings got to be done.
As far as security issues go, the Java Control Panel already allows the ability to disable the option where end-users get to decide if untrusted or invalid code gets ran. I highly suggest anyone wanting to work with Java and keep a secure environment to check out the options offered there.
Yes and Apple owns Mac. I think you are missing the point. Google does own Android does that mean they get to say that Yahoo search cannot be used on their phones and tablets? Likewise, Ford owns well Ford vehicles, does that mean that Ford can prevent generic parts from working on their vehicles?
It's a pretty heated debate no doubt. Does ownership mean you can prevent others from working with you? Some say yes, some say no. However, the yahoos (no pun) that are calling the shots about it seem to be the ones less educated about the matter (not saying their dumb, they just have bigger fish to fry.)
Coke has a monopoly on Coke and Pepsi has a monopoly on Pepsi but neither have a monopoly on soft drinks. Likewise, Google has a search advertising business, so does Bing. So like you I fail to see the monopoly. However, where politicians gets their wires crossed is they see Android like they see PCs. So Android just like PCs in the EU should offer a ballot for picking who you want to search with, because that means money in ad revenue. So by forcing PCs with Microsoft to ballot up the search and web browser, they (incorrectly) think the same should apply to Android.
Just like Windows is to PC, Android is being blurred to mean tablet. Just like Mac is opposite to PC, iPad is opposite to tablet. People who own an iPad don't say check out my tablet, they say check out my iPad. That's how Apple has avoided monopoly on their systems because they present it as a complete package, just about as much as PLCs and traffic lights are presented. Google has gone the way of Microsoft with their OS. They don't tie it to just one machine, they allow it to branch out to hardware vendors. Just like Windows isn't tied to one type of Dell or better yet, MS PC.
So draw enough parallels and high up figure heads will start to think the two are exactly the same, which we know they aren't but how are you going to tell that to some bureaucrat? MS = monopoly - Google = monopoly. So like it or leave it, the image is getting a bashing from people who don't understand things, especially things like Google OWNS Android.
"Google is using their monopoly in _ANDROID__ to keep the competition out of _SEARCH__."
I know it doesn't make sense, but politicians rarely make sense. Basically, Android "in the eyes of people who love to regulate things here" should allow anyone to change anything, even if that breaks the whole concept of what Android does or works. So if Google creates an OS, then it is a monopoly (not to a sane person but then again we're not talking about those) for Google to make their OS use Google services. Google's OS should be allowed to use whoever's services.
Does that break it down as to where I was trying to go with my comment?
Simply because we slapped someone on the wrist, we've made it okay to just start saying monopoly all over the damn place, even when we know that's not all too much the case. Yeah it would be nice if Google allowed Yahoo search integrated with Android, but that's like saying that Ford has to allow GM parts to be installed on their cars. It's half crazy, half... Well mostly crazy. It's being noncompetitive in the name of monopoly, and its the type of environment that governments have fostered because they know jack about how computers work.
Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.
Now this wouldn't have been that big a fuss, if someone hadn't made such a big fuss about IE being so tightly integrated with Bing, which it really isn't but I digress; that's really a different conversation altogether. Anyway, so if we are going to slap Microsoft's hands for IE/Bing, then we need to slap the hands of Android/Google.
Also the South Korean office of Google's has been pretty up in arms as of late. Now this one office could or could not be a representation of Google as a whole, again that's up for debate and not really what I came to comment on. However, it is clear that Google's South Korean office has been acting a bit mighty fishy and the one thing police don't like is when people start acting funny.
However, I agree, I think Google should provide some options for changing up the search engine for the search button. It's not like I would ever change it, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I get options.
Now I know what people would say about Google and Android tied together like they are, but we have to remember, tablet's and phone's are being held as the way casual computing is heading. Now a lot wasn't done until after the fact with Microsoft and ever since their antitrust case, I think people have been trigger happy to protect end-users. When in reality I think that the people who proclaim to be protecting end-users seem to understand computers less. Anyway, this shouldn't come as a surprise.
I'd be surprised if South Korea actually did the same thing to say Apple! Apple usually argues that their stuff isn't a phone or a tablet or a computer. It's an Apple product and changing the options, search, or OS on an Apple product is like asking a microwave maker to provide a method for installing custom software on their microwave.
Anyway, not trying to start a war here. Just wanted to say: 1. Not surprised, 2. S. Korean office is indeed acting fishy which tends to agitate police.
Looks like they're pulling the same shit Ubuntu pulled with upstart (init replacement). "Let's replace something simple and elegant with something complex, incomplete, and very difficult to fix when it goes wrong".
There is a fine line to walk when one starts talking in this way. You have to ask yourself, "Are we doing it this way because there is no better way, ever from this point forward this is the best way to do things? Or are we doing it this way because that's how we've always done it and to do it differently would just be stupid because we've always done it this way."
There once was a point where the goal was for Linux to be as good as UNIX. Now that we are there, some might argue this point, what's next? Was an OS developed many decades ago the apex of servers? Shall we come this far and no further?
I understand a lot of people don't like how distros are bending and breaking the traditional ways servers were handled or how desktops should work or whatever. At some point we should give it a try and see if it works. If it doesn't well, that's why Slackware doesn't have PAM.
We are at a point where we can either stop trying to do new stuff and just refine how cron and syslog and init work and make them slightly better, or we can try something new and see if it makes it better than slightly better. We won't know until we try it out and if it's a dud we can always go back, the code is there.
Let's face it, init's linear method of doing things means that simple services starting up could prevent a login screen until that service is done loading, upstart tries to address that with threading. Maybe this isn't idea for a server and I'd agree with you there. There are plenty of distros that still use the good ol' System-V init.
We all need to realize that Linux cannot just continue to be a UNIX clone or Linux will just fade in popularity like UNIX itself. Does that mean we need to go all crazy and try not to be UNIX? No, that's ridiculous. But it is time to start tossing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. So yeah it is a period of a lot of flux and I don't expect a lot of people to be happy in the interim, but we just cannot continue to kick the same can ten, fifteen years from now, and at some point the change has got to start.
So in the end, I scream when I see GNOME 3 and Unity. I really dislike how complicated the/etc folder has become. I'm tried of/sysfs,/srv, and other suddenly needed root level directories. However, I understand that change cannot be escaped and I need to learn to adapt to that. Some of the changes I really like PAM, iptables, devfs, and so on. It's just a matter of trying stuff out and seeing what happens. If you don't like it, you are free to not like it and continue using whatever meets your needs.
Most importantly let's not confuse KISS with that's just the way we've always done it. I would dare say that's a major hold back currently with IPv6. People just don't want to not use what they've been using for the last ump-teen years.
Why is this marked troll? Is suddenly a healthy does of reality mean your a troll on Slashdot?! Look graphene is an incredibly rare substance and we have yet to figure out how to manufacture large amounts of the stuff to overcome that rare part. There are a lot of papers out there that address all the amazing stuff that can be done with graphene but until there is an appreciable amount of the stuff its all pipe dreams.
So I fail to see why, when someone points out this fact, they get modded troll? This is not to say the technology is flawed or a bad idea or what-have-you, it's just outside of our reach and until we overcome the production problem, it will remain so. This draws so many parallels to the current debate of oil as the basis of our motor fuels. I love the idea of electric cars, but we're not totally there yet. There is a lot that needs to be figured out, infrastructure, manufacturers, TOC, energy production... Without getting too off-topic here, the same applies. The technology sounds awesome but we have yet to make it viable. Sometimes I think it just infuriates Slashdotters that no matter how clever humanity gets, we still have to convince the idiots to go along with us as well or we get zero traction on things.
Crime is an element of action and will as defined by our and most legal systems. The action and willfulness determine the crime, the action alone is not enough to convict a person. This is why motive and what not must be established during a trail where the crime accused is one of passion or intent.
If I violate someone's patent and didn't know it was patented. They can haul me off to court, however, if they cannot establish that they have tried to make contact with me to inform me of their patent, it's a pretty hard case to show willful violation. Thus, the biggest thing they could hit me with is lack of due diligence, a lessor to willful patent violation.
Likewise, if I'm in some building and fall down an elevator shaft, then my surviving family can sue the pants off the building owner. The building owner must show that he did not intend for me to fall down the shaft. If my family proves that he negligent to take care of the elevator car, they can show willful negligent. Which would hurt more in a tort case.
Intent is an element of the crime at hand, not a measure of the accused charges. One could charge someone with assault with intent to harm, but the burden of proof is much higher than say domestic assault. The former needs to not only prove that the accused assaulted the defendant, but also intended to cause bodily harm. The later, one just needs to prove that the accused assaulted the defendant, the ultimate goal of that assault is unknown or not disclosed.
So when a judge says that they will try damages and willfulness, what they are saying is that Google will stand before the court to be tried on the amount of damage that may/may not have been done; and how evil Google was in implementing those plans. If could very well be that Google cause billions of damages but was totally blindsided by this whole Oracle thing (they could show that Sun was very warm and cozy with the idea of Google's Dalvik and that this legal challenge is a total surprise to them which is most likely due to the cold heart bastards at Oracle.) Or Google only cause a couple of hundred million of damages but totally knew what was going on and did it anyway (Oracle could show the court that Google saw Sun as evil and near rock bottom, thinking that Sun's demise was just around the corner, Google began to create their own solution to Java to deliver the final crushing blow to Sun. Google took the keep my friends close and my enemies closer approach with Sun, until Oracle the bastion of light and hope came to save Sun from their untimely demise brought on by the evil hoard that is Google.)
The difference is the first one carries less penalties than the latter. The first one may be damages + cost + interest + licence fees, the latter could be injunction + cease operations + jail time + DoJ inspections + everything from the first one. Hence why all of this is in the third phase. IF the trail makes it to the third phase, then the only thing left is to determine what damages and intent Google had for violation. The first phase is to determine if the copyright claims hold water, the second phase will be did Google violate those terms, the third and final phase will be to see how evil Google was while violating those terms (to kinda simplify that all up.)
Zebra in Java is quite easy. Just setup a mapping to the printer as a RAW printer. Then head over to Zebra for the ZPL II guide. I think the rest will explain itself. A couple of the chapters cover sending TTF to ZPL and converting PCX into RAW image data for ZPL processing.
Is it just me or did anyone notice in the story that they were hush on if this was just desktop or desktop/phone browsing?
I noticed that Chrome and Safari had the largest growth. Both of which are the default browsers for pretty much the majority of phones. I don't know anyone that seeks out Firefox mobile or for that matter knows it exists. With mobile web browsing becoming more and more the way people access the Internet, I think Firefox will loose users quick when people buy a droid or iphone and want to snyc their desktop with the phone's bookmarks and history.
at this point they're at least 3 versions of Windows behind
Not saying your point is invalid but I just want to point out, that's exactly where a lot of IT people want an OS to be. Up-to-date on the core stuff, willing to run a Windows XPish environment. ReactOS has long been identified as being the biggest risk to Microsoft's business. If an OS came to market that said, "Hey, here's an OS that is exactly like XP but is up-to-date and open source." I know for sure that my IT department would be all over it and I know quite a few others that would drop MS like it's hot.
Ultimately people that are willing to try it would probably be willing to try Linux + Wine.
To a point you're correct here too. Except ReactOS can use Windows drivers and has a DE that mimics W2K in a pretty convincing fashion. Linux, and I love me some Linux, has GNOME and KDE which would require way too much retraining to get user up to snuff. Whole heartily, I believe if anyone stands to challenge Windows on the desktop and workstation (other than Apple and Google), it's ReactOS.
The only downside to all of this is that ReactOS lacks so many developers it's hard to take it serious. Also with a potential to find itself staring down a deluge of lawsuits from Microsoft should it ever gain traction, really turns off people wanting to be developers. However, if ReactOS started getting government (any government) support, it may have a fighting chance to get an exception for compatibility carved out for it (much like SMB and MAPI/RPC.)
Again, I agree with all your points, however, believe it or not, there very well might be a big market for ReactOS if the support is there and the drum can get beaten enough for it.
Microsoft labels this release as pre-beta, after test driving it for about six hours (non-continuous), "probably," would be a ghastly understatement of the OS' current state.
Slashdot Mirror
you must be doing something illegal that needs to be searched for.
And as you pointed out, how does one exactly know when you are doing something illegal. One can play chicken and egg with the question all day. However, as someone else has pointed out, if you have something in a safe and a search warrant has included a safe to be searched, then you need to hand over the keys or face obstruction of justice.
US law isn't byzantine in that it is, "characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation." US law is complex, and not everyone understands it. You ask,
it's a question of how do you protect yourself?
and I have replied in a round about fashion but I'll make it more direct. US law is not made for you to understand completely. I want to underscore that "completely" part. Obviously the basics of law are understandable. We know murder is illegal, slavery is illegal, stealing is illegal, and so forth. However, the more distinct pieces of law are not always known or understood. For that you need a lawyer that can protect you. It is that lawyer that will understand the consequences for obstruction justice and weigh in on whatever dirty secret you might be hiding on your encrypted hard drive is worth the time you will serve for withholding information.
If it is mommy and daddy's sex tapes the lawyer can have the judge and DA view the video in private and the whole thing be dismissed. If it is because of a secret girlfriend, again, viewed in private and dismissed. Never on the record and disclosure of that by the DA could have him in jail. Again, if it is nothing illegal most lawyers will ask to have the evidence reviewed by judge and prosecution and then promptly sealed. Flat out refusal when a judge has ordered it is just straight up obstruction. Unless, of course, the person just simply forgot the password. However, you will never know that unless you speak to an attorney.
You are under the impression that somehow you can protect yourself and that assumption will get you burnt every time. You cannot protect yourself because most people's knowledge of the law is very limited. Just like (using the Slashdot time honored car analogy,) I don't try to fix my own car because I have no idea how all the pieces work. I can change my oil, because I have enough general knowledge to do just that. I can change my own air filter. However, if something goes wrong with the transmission, I take it to someone who has better insight on the matter.
However, the more concerning issue that rises from all of this is the general Google-pedia mentality that has become more and more rampant today. A lot of people are under the impression that they do not need professionals because, "oh I can just learn everything I need to know from teh Intertubes!" It's like paper MCSEs but with specific domains of discipline. As pointed out in the youtube video that you so kindly provide a link to, do not talk to cops and get a lawyer. As pointed out early on in the video, it is impossible for you to know every single law, and as #1 on his top ten (or eight) list, there isn't anything you can say to get out of being arrested. Don't be stupid and think you can somehow "protect" yourself.
So two points, one, specifically talking about this case, if a judge orders you to unlock something, safe, encrypted hard drive, safety deposit box, network system, or anything else that uses a method to keep something else from public knowledge. You cannot find a defense in the fifth amendment, period. You can ask a lawyer why that is, but absolutely none would recommend you continue to keep it a secret unless it implicates you on the crime in question. Yes, that is one of the first questions lawyers ask their clients starting out,
Two, generally speaking, there is a sense of gratification in crime. Sometimes that is unknowable like the fish example that is presented in the video. You take the
Who says they are doing illegal stuff?
Well I was speaking more in general terms as opposed to specifically about this case.
the 5th Amendment is supposed to protect us against being required to give evidence against ourselves.
Well if I remember correctly FTA, the judge did say indeed that they cannot force the person in question if they forgot their password. However, allegations that are well founded are the foundation for search warrants. The fifth amendment does not protect us from our actions that tell others that we are up to no good. If I look half asleep and I am driving all over the place, it's not unfounded to allege that I might very well be drunk. That may not be the case, but the only way to know is to gain more insight on the matter. For all the officer knows, I might be narcoleptic.
We are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Yes as far as the court system goes, you are innocent until proven guilty as opposed to the burden of proof being on you to prove innocence. However, the line pretty much ends there at the court room doors. To say that newspapers cannot espouse how "guilty as sin" you are, would be to deny them their first amendment right to tell everyone that "you are guilty as sin." Police on the other hand straddle that fine line and they get a lot of flak for it, which I will admit they deserve a lot of the flak that they receive. They have to presume that you are guilty because they have a job to put people who are indeed engaging in illegal activities behind bars, at some point someone has to play devil's advocate, that burden usually falls onto the police and the district attorney. When you look at any depiction of Justice, you will see a scale. That whole analogy is based on the notion that there are those that will present evidence opposing and in favor of your innocence.
feeding people information, planting information, and pulling every dirty trick they can come up with to try to get a conviction, innocent or not.
Don't get me wrong. There comes a point when there are those that over step their boundaries. It is our job as the public to push back on that. Freedom is not something that just idly happens. We have a constitution but none of those will apply unless a person chooses to make them apply, if you walk into a court room and say nothing, exactly what verdict do you think will be returned? Also, the system's not perfect, I think anyone who feels that it is needs help. Innocent people are wrongfully convicted, but that conviction won't be overturned by just sitting there.
I'm not advocating doing illegal stuff, but I am suggesting that you probably want to keep your affairs under wraps anyways, even if fully legal.
That's good that you are not advocating that, I think we need less cheerleaders for crime, but that's just my take on the matter. I digress, you should keep your affairs under wraps. It's not anybody's business what you say or do. However, you must actively pursue your innocence when accused of guilt in a court of law. Indifference is usually seen as unwillingness to follow procedure and in turn law. At least to most judges and juries I've ever witnessed. Remember that the handing out of a verdict is within the hands of ordinary people. One would do well to remember that not only do you need to appeal to their intellect, but to their emotional state of mind. Indifference turns people off faster than a clerk can type.
Again, I won't say the system is perfect. It's pretty sad when something like the Troy Davis case happens, but we only know that it did happen because people pushed for truth, not staying content with the status quo. So I will reiterate, a person's freedom is directly tied to the amount of fight that they have to have a continuation of that freedom. Keep your stuff under wraps e
I commend you on your post. It doesn't stray from the fact that once someone physically has your device, it leaves few options to the former owner to remove incriminating evidence no matter the tool used. Eventually, you loose because the deck was never shuffled in your favor.
However, I would like to suggest an alternative. As naive as it may sound, why not just do less illegal stuff? That way when they do take your hard drive, you really don't have anything to get you into trouble. Better yet, if you are so inclined to do illegal stuff, why not just do all that illegal stuff on a different computer that's not located somewhere where you might spend 70%+ of your time.
I think really, if you want to do more illegal stuff on your computer, it may behoove some to take a mafia style approach to computers. Have a front, a fence, and some goons that move more of the illegal action away from you as a person and more towards plausible deniability. For goodness sake, at least if you are going to have a bunch of incriminating evidence deny that you can actually get access to it and that you've gone insane as well, just for good measure.
You're pointing the finger at the hired gun, and purposefully ignoring the crime boss that gave him a fist-full of cash!
Um? The first subject matter in the line you quoted is Apple, I'm not sure how you see that I'm missing the real culprit here. The good intentions part is sarcasm.
Wait, that's neither government nor born of good intentions!
I think that's a bit naive view point. At least the "neither government" part. Company's influence our government via many methods, like the promise to locate a facility there during election run ups, that ability to overcome some pestering problem within the district for a slightly reduced cost to the member's local government, and other things that make the member of Congress look better to their constituents. To say both the company and government official are to blame is pretty limited. For example, the city I live in has a very nice greenway system (that's basically a highway for bikes and people who just want to go walk.) 90% of it was built with federal money, back room deals, and pretty shady political tactics. One part of shame can fall to the Congressman for being the middle man, however, one part of shame can also fall on the local concrete union that influenced him. However, we'd be stupid to not include the 55K+ people who decided that, well it really doesn't matter that it was a no bid and that now the companies that aren't in the concrete union are being pushed either into the union MPAA style/leaving town, people who decided to reelect him over and over and over and over, because right around election time we'd get all these little goodies from him and flyers saying "Re-elect me!"
So is it fair that a company wants non-free/non-open markets? Is it fair for our elected officials to be the mediators in these environments of anti-competitive behavior? Is it right for the people to demand something/receive something at such an unbelievably low cost because it was born of anti-competitive labor that they just kiss the ground that the official walks on?
You mention Occupy movements, I've been to the one in New York City four times and have had the opportunity to talk with some of the protestors. Most of them are just there for random reasons, but that's not my point here, that's just the surface of the issue. Here you have a group of people with Apple cellphones, and laptops, and other electrical devices. You pretty much have a big old feedback loop, company's are evil and use the government as the middleman, because that's what we the people demand. Because our demand gets bigger with each new shiny release of whatever, company's are only more than happy to oblige by find more and more ways to dodge rules that they can't buy enough senators...
Ah forget it... I'm clubbing a dead horse. In the end it really doesn't matter, I cannot change the masses and I don't need to pretend that I can, but people who think that it's just a big business and government problem are missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
Apple are a business, and free to build in as much lock-in on their platforms as they please.
Until it is widely used and are sued by the United States government until they open the platform. I really wish people would stop thinking that just because a company is a non-person, it is also a non-entity. Companies like Apple have no problem influencing laws with nice cashy money, that usually doesn't affect them, or mandates that education facilities use their baked in DRM. Which in the end, like all things government, screw us all with good intentions (nice sharp non-lubricated intentions.)
So while on the surface we'd like to say open-market, free market. Once a company starts buying votes that affect the public at large, they cease to operate IMHO as open and free market, and more along the lines of a cog within the machinery of government. So we'd like to think that Apple is a business that is free to build as much lock-in as they want in their product; they are more along the lines of a piece of our government that we should have a say in.
Of course, that's my two cents. Don't mind me.
I was under the understanding that they would be manufacturing battery packs in Smyrna as well, with the electric motors being made in Decherd.
I have some friends out in Winchester and they know some people who work inside the powertrian plant there in Decherd. I'll ask them. I've not heard that, but makes sense since they railroad the stuff from there to Smyrna. I'll have to get back with you on that. Of course, you'll have to remember that anything about Decherd that I would have, would be like third hand information so take it with a grain of salt.
There has been talk about moving the battery packs to Smyrna, but I believe the ones that are going in now are not made there. I don't know exactly how concrete the plans are for the battery packs. That might actually create some jobs, but I don't know where they would be doing this. Everyone I've talked to that works at the Smyrna plant say that they would need some add-on to be built to have the room to do something like that. However, I can confirm that I *have* heard talk about the battery packs being assembled there.
I don't work there personally but I have a couple of friends that work there and I've done some network contract work there back in 2001. So again, don't cite me as some universal source.
Smyrna, TN
That's the town right next to where I live. They've had billboards up in the area talking about how the Leaf is coming to Smyrna and how awesome it's going to be to live in the same area as they are made in. However, as someone pointed out. Pretty much the only thing they will do there is put the pieces together. All the parts will be sourced from elsewhere.
Total impact? Well they aren't opening a new wing (you can tell when they are doing that because Nissan Blvd and Enon Springs road becomes a nightmare with all the heavy construction. Traffic usually backs up onto US 41/70S (aka Murfreesboro Road). So no one new is getting hired at the plant. Instead I think they are phasing out some sort of truck they use to make. So no new construction, no new hire, pretty much the Nissan Leaf has brought zero new jobs... Oh I take that back! CSX hired sixty some odd workers for about nine months to expand the capacity of the rail yard at the Nissan plant.
However, aside from the job issue. The local malls (Stones River, The Avenue, etc...) have added EV charge stations to welcome our new Leaf overlords. So I'm guessing that's good that we are suddenly going from zero EV charging stations to now twenty-six, three packs, and counting.
However I will say that Nissan is doing something with their site in the back. You can see that they are leveling the ground from Florence Rd but there has yet to be any structures added. So more likely we'll be seeing little white canopies going up soon or we'll see the start of, hopefully, a new building.
No. I've heard many a lectures that debunks studies that come to this conclusion. APEC has no idea what exactly the hell they are talking about in regards to the process that you are talking about, and I dare say that ITRI has become a mouthpiece for Terrabon. That's my and a couple of hundred others opinion on the matter.
But now we see the strategy of Canonical and why the (at the time) weird decisions were being made
Um duh, it was made for Instant-On web devices, it just so happens that tablets fall into that category nicely.
But let's look at each point individually because not everything you stated relates to Canonical's desire to go to Tablet's, it's more along the lines of, "it just happens to also help them out towards tablets."
1) The nasty split, isn't any more nasty than other things in the Linux world. Canonical wants Canonical stuff in Canonical's distro. GNOME 3 is still used in Unity, but just differently. It's hard for me to explain because I suck at summing things up, but trust me, Unity is GNOME 3 at the core and Unity runs more with how people predicted GNOME3 to be used more as a platform and less like a standard desktop. The main facet is that it removes a lot of upstream push from the GNOME community. Canonical wants their desktop to look the way they want it to look, not what GNOME developers want it to look like. You'll see this type of mentality in a lot of Ubuntu. Also, let's face it GNOME developers are difficult to work with at best. It's very easy to paint the main developers as being the pearly towers (metaphor for someone who dictates how things should happen, but have little to zero real-world experience to back up exactly why that's right.)
2) The choice to use Wayland over X boils down to the same debate that was had on xgl versus aiglx. Mark thinks running direct to the video card is a better method than the way X provides. This has been a common thing that comes up ooo, I'd say every five to six years. Someone comes up with a better way to run direct to the card and someone jumps on the band wagon. Usually there is just too much inertia to make the jump from X to the something else happen and we all go back to using X happily. There's a lot of misconception that Xorg (specifically) and X11 (in general) are bloated, slow, won't run well on older machines. X11 is a pretty hefty "standard," but not everything in it is in every implementation. There are multiple of X11 implementations (I'm given too, Google can help you see more) that target embedded systems that run quite well. Xorg implements a lot of stuff to keep backwards compatibility with older machines. Wayland doesn't. However, don't confuse that because just because it is implemented does not mean that it gets loaded if it is not needed. You aren't going to be using XRender when your video card offers the ability to use OpenGL pixmap to texture. The biggest problem with X is drivers (and that shouldn't surprise anyone) and the low quality those drivers exist in. That problem will not go away with Wayland. The idea is, and to me it's a bad bet, if we make the model more simple (remember the X11 "spec" is a pretty big tome) then vendors will be more incline to write better drivers since the model for those drivers is more simplistic. However, as bets go, that's immaterial to why Canonical wants to go Wayland. It really boils down to the fact that they want to do Window Decorations the way they want to do Window Decora
There's a difference. I've heard of some schools in the area where I live that accept printed out homework and then there are two that require that homework be turned in a docx format, printed out version not allowed.
At some point I think schools can get carried away with technology that they miss the notion that the whole point is just to convey information. It's just like those PHB that want everything in Excel, even though Word would be a better choice. They're missing the entire idea that if the point is to get information from one person to another, then the best tool to complete that action should be used, not some favored technology.
So I do feel this guys pain somewhat. Some teachers can be irrational as to demands, especially if the teacher demands that you purchase a Windows license and a MS Office license, you can't say no and you can't write it off on taxes, so essentially you have to go blow $250+ just so your kid can stay in public school. Add that cost to the other slew of fees that public schools require, at least the MS Office lasts you until you snag another irrational teacher that says that you must have Office 2010 or better or your kid cannot attend their class.
Trust me my sister had a lot of these issues with the county schools here with my niece. Her 9th grade teacher (2009) required Office 2007 or better so an upgrade to 2003 had to be bought. Then her 10th grade teacher required Office 2010 so the very next school year yet another Office upgrade had to be bought. Of course, I hear about it all the time because my sister is asking me what technically is the difference.
So yeah, some schools, not saying all, but some can be pretty damn irrational about the whole thing.
There's a version of Tomcat that won't run with OpenJDK? Can you give a version combination? I've not heard this issue come up until now. Is it Tomcat or a WAR that is deployed to the server that holds it back?
I agree on your point with Jigsaw. OSGi and Jigsaw are pretty much the same approach to two different problems. OSGi looks to make applications modular, Jigsaw looks to make the JVM modular. Using one doesn't mean it precludes the other as they are just using modularization at different levels of the stack.
Also the Java Licensing issue is pretty mute. Sun and now Oracle have been banging the OpenJDK gong like its going out of style. OpenJDK is better kept up with and everyone should start moving over to OpenJDK. Yes it seems a bit dickish that they have changed the licensing agreement just to make the point, but at some point when distros aren't listening (mostly Ubuntu) somethings got to be done.
As far as security issues go, the Java Control Panel already allows the ability to disable the option where end-users get to decide if untrusted or invalid code gets ran. I highly suggest anyone wanting to work with Java and keep a secure environment to check out the options offered there.
Google OWNS android.
Yes and Apple owns Mac. I think you are missing the point. Google does own Android does that mean they get to say that Yahoo search cannot be used on their phones and tablets? Likewise, Ford owns well Ford vehicles, does that mean that Ford can prevent generic parts from working on their vehicles?
It's a pretty heated debate no doubt. Does ownership mean you can prevent others from working with you? Some say yes, some say no. However, the yahoos (no pun) that are calling the shots about it seem to be the ones less educated about the matter (not saying their dumb, they just have bigger fish to fry.)
Coke has a monopoly on Coke and Pepsi has a monopoly on Pepsi but neither have a monopoly on soft drinks. Likewise, Google has a search advertising business, so does Bing. So like you I fail to see the monopoly. However, where politicians gets their wires crossed is they see Android like they see PCs. So Android just like PCs in the EU should offer a ballot for picking who you want to search with, because that means money in ad revenue. So by forcing PCs with Microsoft to ballot up the search and web browser, they (incorrectly) think the same should apply to Android.
Just like Windows is to PC, Android is being blurred to mean tablet. Just like Mac is opposite to PC, iPad is opposite to tablet. People who own an iPad don't say check out my tablet, they say check out my iPad. That's how Apple has avoided monopoly on their systems because they present it as a complete package, just about as much as PLCs and traffic lights are presented. Google has gone the way of Microsoft with their OS. They don't tie it to just one machine, they allow it to branch out to hardware vendors. Just like Windows isn't tied to one type of Dell or better yet, MS PC.
So draw enough parallels and high up figure heads will start to think the two are exactly the same, which we know they aren't but how are you going to tell that to some bureaucrat? MS = monopoly - Google = monopoly. So like it or leave it, the image is getting a bashing from people who don't understand things, especially things like Google OWNS Android.
Here's a picture top left corner
"Google is using their monopoly in _ANDROID__ to keep the competition out of _SEARCH__." I know it doesn't make sense, but politicians rarely make sense. Basically, Android "in the eyes of people who love to regulate things here" should allow anyone to change anything, even if that breaks the whole concept of what Android does or works. So if Google creates an OS, then it is a monopoly (not to a sane person but then again we're not talking about those) for Google to make their OS use Google services. Google's OS should be allowed to use whoever's services. Does that break it down as to where I was trying to go with my comment? Simply because we slapped someone on the wrist, we've made it okay to just start saying monopoly all over the damn place, even when we know that's not all too much the case. Yeah it would be nice if Google allowed Yahoo search integrated with Android, but that's like saying that Ford has to allow GM parts to be installed on their cars. It's half crazy, half... Well mostly crazy. It's being noncompetitive in the name of monopoly, and its the type of environment that governments have fostered because they know jack about how computers work.
Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.
Now this wouldn't have been that big a fuss, if someone hadn't made such a big fuss about IE being so tightly integrated with Bing, which it really isn't but I digress; that's really a different conversation altogether. Anyway, so if we are going to slap Microsoft's hands for IE/Bing, then we need to slap the hands of Android/Google.
Also the South Korean office of Google's has been pretty up in arms as of late. Now this one office could or could not be a representation of Google as a whole, again that's up for debate and not really what I came to comment on. However, it is clear that Google's South Korean office has been acting a bit mighty fishy and the one thing police don't like is when people start acting funny.
However, I agree, I think Google should provide some options for changing up the search engine for the search button. It's not like I would ever change it, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I get options.
Now I know what people would say about Google and Android tied together like they are, but we have to remember, tablet's and phone's are being held as the way casual computing is heading. Now a lot wasn't done until after the fact with Microsoft and ever since their antitrust case, I think people have been trigger happy to protect end-users. When in reality I think that the people who proclaim to be protecting end-users seem to understand computers less. Anyway, this shouldn't come as a surprise.
I'd be surprised if South Korea actually did the same thing to say Apple! Apple usually argues that their stuff isn't a phone or a tablet or a computer. It's an Apple product and changing the options, search, or OS on an Apple product is like asking a microwave maker to provide a method for installing custom software on their microwave.
Anyway, not trying to start a war here. Just wanted to say: 1. Not surprised, 2. S. Korean office is indeed acting fishy which tends to agitate police.
Looks like they're pulling the same shit Ubuntu pulled with upstart (init replacement). "Let's replace something simple and elegant with something complex, incomplete, and very difficult to fix when it goes wrong".
There is a fine line to walk when one starts talking in this way. You have to ask yourself, "Are we doing it this way because there is no better way, ever from this point forward this is the best way to do things? Or are we doing it this way because that's how we've always done it and to do it differently would just be stupid because we've always done it this way."
/etc folder has become. I'm tried of /sysfs, /srv, and other suddenly needed root level directories. However, I understand that change cannot be escaped and I need to learn to adapt to that. Some of the changes I really like PAM, iptables, devfs, and so on. It's just a matter of trying stuff out and seeing what happens. If you don't like it, you are free to not like it and continue using whatever meets your needs.
There once was a point where the goal was for Linux to be as good as UNIX. Now that we are there, some might argue this point, what's next? Was an OS developed many decades ago the apex of servers? Shall we come this far and no further?
I understand a lot of people don't like how distros are bending and breaking the traditional ways servers were handled or how desktops should work or whatever. At some point we should give it a try and see if it works. If it doesn't well, that's why Slackware doesn't have PAM.
We are at a point where we can either stop trying to do new stuff and just refine how cron and syslog and init work and make them slightly better, or we can try something new and see if it makes it better than slightly better. We won't know until we try it out and if it's a dud we can always go back, the code is there.
Let's face it, init's linear method of doing things means that simple services starting up could prevent a login screen until that service is done loading, upstart tries to address that with threading. Maybe this isn't idea for a server and I'd agree with you there. There are plenty of distros that still use the good ol' System-V init.
We all need to realize that Linux cannot just continue to be a UNIX clone or Linux will just fade in popularity like UNIX itself. Does that mean we need to go all crazy and try not to be UNIX? No, that's ridiculous. But it is time to start tossing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. So yeah it is a period of a lot of flux and I don't expect a lot of people to be happy in the interim, but we just cannot continue to kick the same can ten, fifteen years from now, and at some point the change has got to start.
So in the end, I scream when I see GNOME 3 and Unity. I really dislike how complicated the
Most importantly let's not confuse KISS with that's just the way we've always done it. I would dare say that's a major hold back currently with IPv6. People just don't want to not use what they've been using for the last ump-teen years.
Ah, well I guess that explains it.
Why is this marked troll? Is suddenly a healthy does of reality mean your a troll on Slashdot?! Look graphene is an incredibly rare substance and we have yet to figure out how to manufacture large amounts of the stuff to overcome that rare part. There are a lot of papers out there that address all the amazing stuff that can be done with graphene but until there is an appreciable amount of the stuff its all pipe dreams.
So I fail to see why, when someone points out this fact, they get modded troll? This is not to say the technology is flawed or a bad idea or what-have-you, it's just outside of our reach and until we overcome the production problem, it will remain so. This draws so many parallels to the current debate of oil as the basis of our motor fuels. I love the idea of electric cars, but we're not totally there yet. There is a lot that needs to be figured out, infrastructure, manufacturers, TOC, energy production... Without getting too off-topic here, the same applies. The technology sounds awesome but we have yet to make it viable. Sometimes I think it just infuriates Slashdotters that no matter how clever humanity gets, we still have to convince the idiots to go along with us as well or we get zero traction on things.
Crime is an element of action and will as defined by our and most legal systems. The action and willfulness determine the crime, the action alone is not enough to convict a person. This is why motive and what not must be established during a trail where the crime accused is one of passion or intent.
If I violate someone's patent and didn't know it was patented. They can haul me off to court, however, if they cannot establish that they have tried to make contact with me to inform me of their patent, it's a pretty hard case to show willful violation. Thus, the biggest thing they could hit me with is lack of due diligence, a lessor to willful patent violation.
Likewise, if I'm in some building and fall down an elevator shaft, then my surviving family can sue the pants off the building owner. The building owner must show that he did not intend for me to fall down the shaft. If my family proves that he negligent to take care of the elevator car, they can show willful negligent. Which would hurt more in a tort case.
Intent is an element of the crime at hand, not a measure of the accused charges. One could charge someone with assault with intent to harm, but the burden of proof is much higher than say domestic assault. The former needs to not only prove that the accused assaulted the defendant, but also intended to cause bodily harm. The later, one just needs to prove that the accused assaulted the defendant, the ultimate goal of that assault is unknown or not disclosed.
So when a judge says that they will try damages and willfulness, what they are saying is that Google will stand before the court to be tried on the amount of damage that may/may not have been done; and how evil Google was in implementing those plans. If could very well be that Google cause billions of damages but was totally blindsided by this whole Oracle thing (they could show that Sun was very warm and cozy with the idea of Google's Dalvik and that this legal challenge is a total surprise to them which is most likely due to the cold heart bastards at Oracle.) Or Google only cause a couple of hundred million of damages but totally knew what was going on and did it anyway (Oracle could show the court that Google saw Sun as evil and near rock bottom, thinking that Sun's demise was just around the corner, Google began to create their own solution to Java to deliver the final crushing blow to Sun. Google took the keep my friends close and my enemies closer approach with Sun, until Oracle the bastion of light and hope came to save Sun from their untimely demise brought on by the evil hoard that is Google.)
The difference is the first one carries less penalties than the latter. The first one may be damages + cost + interest + licence fees, the latter could be injunction + cease operations + jail time + DoJ inspections + everything from the first one. Hence why all of this is in the third phase. IF the trail makes it to the third phase, then the only thing left is to determine what damages and intent Google had for violation. The first phase is to determine if the copyright claims hold water, the second phase will be did Google violate those terms, the third and final phase will be to see how evil Google was while violating those terms (to kinda simplify that all up.)
Zebra in Java is quite easy. Just setup a mapping to the printer as a RAW printer. Then head over to Zebra for the ZPL II guide. I think the rest will explain itself. A couple of the chapters cover sending TTF to ZPL and converting PCX into RAW image data for ZPL processing.
Is it just me or did anyone notice in the story that they were hush on if this was just desktop or desktop/phone browsing?
I noticed that Chrome and Safari had the largest growth. Both of which are the default browsers for pretty much the majority of phones. I don't know anyone that seeks out Firefox mobile or for that matter knows it exists. With mobile web browsing becoming more and more the way people access the Internet, I think Firefox will loose users quick when people buy a droid or iphone and want to snyc their desktop with the phone's bookmarks and history.
That's just me and my angle on things.
Someone already beat me to the punch, but I'll just reiterate since it may take that many times for it to sink in.
There is a difference between the Daily Show's "news" and CNN's "news", much like there is a difference between the "games" I play and this "game."
at this point they're at least 3 versions of Windows behind
Not saying your point is invalid but I just want to point out, that's exactly where a lot of IT people want an OS to be. Up-to-date on the core stuff, willing to run a Windows XPish environment. ReactOS has long been identified as being the biggest risk to Microsoft's business. If an OS came to market that said, "Hey, here's an OS that is exactly like XP but is up-to-date and open source." I know for sure that my IT department would be all over it and I know quite a few others that would drop MS like it's hot.
Ultimately people that are willing to try it would probably be willing to try Linux + Wine.
To a point you're correct here too. Except ReactOS can use Windows drivers and has a DE that mimics W2K in a pretty convincing fashion. Linux, and I love me some Linux, has GNOME and KDE which would require way too much retraining to get user up to snuff. Whole heartily, I believe if anyone stands to challenge Windows on the desktop and workstation (other than Apple and Google), it's ReactOS.
The only downside to all of this is that ReactOS lacks so many developers it's hard to take it serious. Also with a potential to find itself staring down a deluge of lawsuits from Microsoft should it ever gain traction, really turns off people wanting to be developers. However, if ReactOS started getting government (any government) support, it may have a fighting chance to get an exception for compatibility carved out for it (much like SMB and MAPI/RPC.)
Again, I agree with all your points, however, believe it or not, there very well might be a big market for ReactOS if the support is there and the drum can get beaten enough for it.
It's probably buggy
Microsoft labels this release as pre-beta, after test driving it for about six hours (non-continuous), "probably," would be a ghastly understatement of the OS' current state.