Keurig has every right to place DRM checking into the brewers. And we have every right to get rid of it
Actually, it's CRM - coffer right management:-)
Their problem is (apart from upsetting people who buy their coffee makers) that as long as you don't copy the software in their machines, which you obviously wouldn't want to anyway, there is nothing in their machines that is actually in fact protected by the DMCA. They are in the same situation as Lexmark was. When they read the DMCA they read "...yadda yadda yadda encryption yadda yadda yadda protected yadda yadda yadda..." but they didn't bother actually reading the other words. Just because there is encryption _somewhere_ in your product doesn't mean you can prevent people from doing things.
This is like having a DVD player that plays encrypted DVDs just fine, and using it to play unencrypted DVDs. DMCA cannot stop you from doing that.
I have to disagree with you. This wasn't a case of "hey, let's try this new, innovative thing" followed by "whups, unintended consequences, we need to stop doing that". This was a case of "Hey, those printer ink guys can get away with this stunt,
The printer ink guys didn't get away with it. They went to court, and were told that the DMCA didn't mean what they thought it meant. Their biggest problem was that nobody actually copied their software, so their argument failed completely.
Wouldn't these be considered trade secrets and under the responsibility of the sorority to guard against disclosure?
They are not trade secrets, because they are not involved in trade. It is a trade secret if you keep it secret, and the fact that you know it and others don't gives you an advantage in trade. For example, if you knew how to make nice burgers for 10 cent less than your competitor, that would give you an advantage as long as your competitor doesn't know about. it.
But otherwise, just because you want to keep it secret doesn't mean it has legal protection.
Regardless of your thoughts on Uber, this does leave me a little confused given the good Governer's pro-business, small government stance. Isn't this government regulation? Isn't this the OPPOSITE of the political principles of the conservative Republican base? Shouldn't the marketplace be allowed to take care of the question?
The problem is that there is one very well financed business that refuses to play by the rules that were forced for many years on all the other businesses. Giving an unfair advantage to one business isn't "business friendly".
He's actually helping their customers, because their customers have bought a flawed product that isn't fit for purpose. By disclosing the vulnerabilities, these customers are now aware and can demand a fix or switch to an alternative product.
You would surely love to be helped if I posted how anyone could crack the locks of your car and drive away with it.
It's not "no expectation of privacy". It's "no expectation that your location is kept private". Different thing.
If you call me on the phone, and the police asks me what you said, I can tell them. I don't know what rights I have to refuse to tell them if I don't want to, but you have no right to stop me if I decide to tell them.
The phone company has no right to know what we were talking about, but the have the right to know your location. They can't make the phone call work without knowing your location. Again, I don't know if they have the right to refuse to give the information to the police, but I expect they have the right to give it to the police.
The code resembles something you expect from a first-year programming student - there's an input buffer overflow bug waiting to happen, the array size is odd (80 byte array? why? scanf() is still called without a field length specifier, and you only use 9 of those 80 bytes in a normal case).
You seem to be very optimistic in your views of first year programming students.
Here's what I see: Many years ago, I had a lovely job helping to teach people to program, and I had to review their homework. There were some whose thought processes were all over the place. There was one guy who managed to write the most convoluted code that always worked perfectly well, but I would never have hired him because reviewing it was just too painful. And there was one student who wrote code that I could scan in half a minute and see that it was correct and worked. And that's what this guy's code looks like.
"Perhaps it was written by him in his spare time". OF COURSE it was written in his spare time. His a prime minister, he doesn't write code on the job. What comments do you want? The code is simple and obvious. What data structures to explain? If you are too stupid to understand them immediately, then you shouldn't be programming. What lack of error checking? What scenario do you suggest where error checking would help?
Your last sentence is a totally unfounded, vicious attack on the intellectual honesty of the man. It's disgusting. Unless you have any evidence for it, you should apologise.
Well... probably more accurate to call that C code. It's compilable under a C++ complier, but offhand I didn't spot anything that really made it C++-specific. Not a knock on the Prime Minister, but it might even be a little more geek cred to call it a Sudoku solver in C.
Extra points then to him for writing code to solve a problem, and not writing code to demonstrate his cleverness. Which is what the worst of C++ programmers usually do.
A hidden port is surely something that appeals to any geek. But geeks are not the ones buying an Apple Watch. What will it look like if you attach anything to this hidden port? Dead ugly? In that case, nobody who buys an Apple Watch will want it.
Arson isn't a stupid mistake. Arson can kill people. Whenever arson happens, there might be people at the place that is put on fire, who might die. Whenever arson happens, firefighters put themselves into danger. Even if nobody gets killed or hurt, huge damage can happen. A fifteen year old can understand these things.
Copying a piece of music is not stealing because it does not suddenly disappear from the hard drive of the musician or render the musician unable to perform it.
It is not stealing. You are absolutely right. It is copyright infringement. Punishable with fines up to $150,000 per work (unless the copyright holder can prove that the actual damage is higher).
If you want a tattoo on your wrist, either put it on the wrist where you wouldn't wear a watch, or go to some competent tattoo artist who will be able to advise you what kind of ink will affect your skin more or and which one will affect it less; consider that the Apple Watch is just the start of wearing things around your wrist. .
What I'm wondering is what would have happened had this iPad crash occurred during the flight post-takeoff. Why do they not carry the paper manuals as a backup in case this sort of thing happens?
Nothing would have happened. The pilot knows how to take off from A. And he knows how to land at B. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, he might not be able to land at B but might get redirected to any of a large number of airports. And for that, he has this huge set of maps that describe exactly how to start/land at each of those airports.
What happens if the iPrecious crashes mid flight? And if they do still have the old maps, why the delay? Who thought it was a bright idea to create cascading chaos in daily airtraffic just for pilot convenience
If the iPad (I assume you were just trying to make a stupid joke there) crashes mid flight, you reboot it. Then you take the co-pilots iPad.
The information is there in triplicate. Pilot's iPad. Co-pilot's iPad. Bag of papers. As a passenger, you are safe with one copy. The rules say that three copies must be there when the plane takes off, to guarantee that at least one is there when it is needed. The delay happened because there were no three complete and up-to-date copies.
Let's see these AA iPads and the software for what they really are: pieces of business-critical software / hardware. Which means that they have to treat it like any other combination of business critical software and hardware. The entire configuration is frozen, software, OS, patches and all, and any change is thoroughly tested before it is pushed to the production devices.
So what happened? One news item hints at a recent update causing the issue. Where did the update come from? Was iOS updated, or the app? Was this update tested before being rolled out?
They can't freeze the configuration unless they freeze all the airports. These devices carry maps. Maps need to be updated all the time.
What happened here wasn't that an update caused a problem. What happened was that two iPads in a cockpit didn't manage to receive an update that they should have received, so they had to take the iPads into the airport, and the data update worked just fine. Obviously this took time, so the flight got delayed.
All it takes for this strategy to fail is that the most disruptive students being in some way "special". And I'm not even meaning that they're retarded or belonging to some minority and failing them could get the PC crowd breathing down your neck. All it takes is that the parents of such an asshole student are "important" because they donate money into the school's coffers, basically buying their precious little dud a degree.
That is assuming that rich parents donating to schools actually want to buy their little boy or girl a degree. Plenty of people are rich because they worked hard for it (maybe with a little luck added, but still..) and are not really keen on them just relying on their parents instead of their own work.
The gov't should convince insurance companies to band together and pony up the cash.
Insurance companies won't be interested. This doesn't save expensive buildings. It gives people a chance to get out of buildings just in time. For an insurance, dead people are cheap.
Couldn't this system be easily defeated by using an inflatable person or maybe even just a stick with a cut out of Bill Oddie's face glued on the top, resting on your passengers seat?
You're asking "couldn't I defeat this by committing fraud"? Quite obviously if you get caught, you won't be fined for driving in the carpool lane, but for driving in the carpool lane and committing fraud to get away with it. I could easily see you getting a criminal conviction.
Simple way to level things is what is used in Germany - fees are limited to a fixed small percentage of the value being argued about, but if you demand a large amount and get only a small amount, you actually count as the loser (so a large corporation suing you for 100 million dollars and awarded $100 would actually pay 99.9999% of the total cost).
In the case of patent trolls demanding huge money, even if they are rewarded a small amount, they would have to pay all the cost.
So Disney ensures that every quarter, at least one copy of Steamboat Willy is sold. Or they simply show it once a year on the Disney Channel, which means they are making money off it.
We are talking about Germany here. Judges there don't like it if you game the system. Steamboat Willy would have to be on sale publicly, so that everyone who wants to watch it can do so. And judges can see if the price is exorbitant so that no actual sales are made.
So it covers my reasoning against eternal copyright: That copyright makes works disappear if the copyright owner doesn't care about it anymore. It doesn't cover lots of people's reasoning: That eternal copyright is bad because we want things for free.
Before software was protected by copyright, which happened sometime in the 80's or so, in Germany software was protected by "unfair competition law". Quite simply, if A hires developers for a million to write software and sells it, and B just copies the software, that is unfair competition. However, "unfair competition" only applies if A is actually selling the software; if A doesn't sell it, then B isn't competing with A at all, whether fair or unfair. Obviously now software is under copyright, so things have changed.
With very old works the same could be done: Let them run out of copyright. However, it would be "unfair competition" and thus illegal to compete with the copyright holder. So as long as Disney is selling Steamboat Willy, it would be protected. If they stop selling it, you can copy it and even sell it freely.
However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film.
There is monetary incentive if you can put the movie onto a shelf in the shops and sell it. Most people don't actually copy stuff. And those with huge illegal collections don't actually listen to or watch all the stuff that they copied. So you have to be careful estimating how many sales would be lost. And at last, you _can_ put DRM onto works in the public domain if you feel like it.
On the other hand, if people are worried about cultural values being lost, and these people are not the copyright holders, then works being in the public domain is actually very helpful for society. Because these people _can_ restore movies without having one foot in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Keurig has every right to place DRM checking into the brewers. And we have every right to get rid of it
Actually, it's CRM - coffer right management :-)
Their problem is (apart from upsetting people who buy their coffee makers) that as long as you don't copy the software in their machines, which you obviously wouldn't want to anyway, there is nothing in their machines that is actually in fact protected by the DMCA. They are in the same situation as Lexmark was. When they read the DMCA they read "...yadda yadda yadda encryption yadda yadda yadda protected yadda yadda yadda..." but they didn't bother actually reading the other words. Just because there is encryption _somewhere_ in your product doesn't mean you can prevent people from doing things.
This is like having a DVD player that plays encrypted DVDs just fine, and using it to play unencrypted DVDs. DMCA cannot stop you from doing that.
I have to disagree with you. This wasn't a case of "hey, let's try this new, innovative thing" followed by "whups, unintended consequences, we need to stop doing that". This was a case of "Hey, those printer ink guys can get away with this stunt,
The printer ink guys didn't get away with it. They went to court, and were told that the DMCA didn't mean what they thought it meant. Their biggest problem was that nobody actually copied their software, so their argument failed completely.
Wouldn't these be considered trade secrets and under the responsibility of the sorority to guard against disclosure?
They are not trade secrets, because they are not involved in trade. It is a trade secret if you keep it secret, and the fact that you know it and others don't gives you an advantage in trade. For example, if you knew how to make nice burgers for 10 cent less than your competitor, that would give you an advantage as long as your competitor doesn't know about. it.
But otherwise, just because you want to keep it secret doesn't mean it has legal protection.
Regardless of your thoughts on Uber, this does leave me a little confused given the good Governer's pro-business, small government stance. Isn't this government regulation? Isn't this the OPPOSITE of the political principles of the conservative Republican base? Shouldn't the marketplace be allowed to take care of the question?
The problem is that there is one very well financed business that refuses to play by the rules that were forced for many years on all the other businesses. Giving an unfair advantage to one business isn't "business friendly".
He's actually helping their customers, because their customers have bought a flawed product that isn't fit for purpose. By disclosing the vulnerabilities, these customers are now aware and can demand a fix or switch to an alternative product.
You would surely love to be helped if I posted how anyone could crack the locks of your car and drive away with it.
No expectation of privacy when using a cellphone?
It's not "no expectation of privacy". It's "no expectation that your location is kept private". Different thing.
If you call me on the phone, and the police asks me what you said, I can tell them. I don't know what rights I have to refuse to tell them if I don't want to, but you have no right to stop me if I decide to tell them.
The phone company has no right to know what we were talking about, but the have the right to know your location. They can't make the phone call work without knowing your location. Again, I don't know if they have the right to refuse to give the information to the police, but I expect they have the right to give it to the police.
The code resembles something you expect from a first-year programming student - there's an input buffer overflow bug waiting to happen, the array size is odd (80 byte array? why? scanf() is still called without a field length specifier, and you only use 9 of those 80 bytes in a normal case).
You seem to be very optimistic in your views of first year programming students.
Here's what I see: Many years ago, I had a lovely job helping to teach people to program, and I had to review their homework. There were some whose thought processes were all over the place. There was one guy who managed to write the most convoluted code that always worked perfectly well, but I would never have hired him because reviewing it was just too painful. And there was one student who wrote code that I could scan in half a minute and see that it was correct and worked. And that's what this guy's code looks like.
"Perhaps it was written by him in his spare time". OF COURSE it was written in his spare time. His a prime minister, he doesn't write code on the job. What comments do you want? The code is simple and obvious. What data structures to explain? If you are too stupid to understand them immediately, then you shouldn't be programming. What lack of error checking? What scenario do you suggest where error checking would help?
Your last sentence is a totally unfounded, vicious attack on the intellectual honesty of the man. It's disgusting. Unless you have any evidence for it, you should apologise.
Well... probably more accurate to call that C code. It's compilable under a C++ complier, but offhand I didn't spot anything that really made it C++-specific. Not a knock on the Prime Minister, but it might even be a little more geek cred to call it a Sudoku solver in C.
Extra points then to him for writing code to solve a problem, and not writing code to demonstrate his cleverness. Which is what the worst of C++ programmers usually do.
A hidden port is surely something that appeals to any geek. But geeks are not the ones buying an Apple Watch. What will it look like if you attach anything to this hidden port? Dead ugly? In that case, nobody who buys an Apple Watch will want it.
Comcast online application has the question "Are you older than 49 or younger".
For just slightly under 99% of all people in work or looking for jobs, the answer is "yes".
Arson isn't a stupid mistake. Arson can kill people. Whenever arson happens, there might be people at the place that is put on fire, who might die. Whenever arson happens, firefighters put themselves into danger. Even if nobody gets killed or hurt, huge damage can happen. A fifteen year old can understand these things.
Copying a piece of music is not stealing because it does not suddenly disappear from the hard drive of the musician or render the musician unable to perform it.
It is not stealing. You are absolutely right. It is copyright infringement. Punishable with fines up to $150,000 per work (unless the copyright holder can prove that the actual damage is higher).
If you want a tattoo on your wrist, either put it on the wrist where you wouldn't wear a watch, or go to some competent tattoo artist who will be able to advise you what kind of ink will affect your skin more or and which one will affect it less; consider that the Apple Watch is just the start of wearing things around your wrist. .
What I'm wondering is what would have happened had this iPad crash occurred during the flight post-takeoff. Why do they not carry the paper manuals as a backup in case this sort of thing happens?
Nothing would have happened. The pilot knows how to take off from A. And he knows how to land at B. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, he might not be able to land at B but might get redirected to any of a large number of airports. And for that, he has this huge set of maps that describe exactly how to start/land at each of those airports.
What happens if the iPrecious crashes mid flight? And if they do still have the old maps, why the delay? Who thought it was a bright idea to create cascading chaos in daily airtraffic just for pilot convenience
If the iPad (I assume you were just trying to make a stupid joke there) crashes mid flight, you reboot it. Then you take the co-pilots iPad.
The information is there in triplicate. Pilot's iPad. Co-pilot's iPad. Bag of papers. As a passenger, you are safe with one copy. The rules say that three copies must be there when the plane takes off, to guarantee that at least one is there when it is needed. The delay happened because there were no three complete and up-to-date copies.
Let's see these AA iPads and the software for what they really are: pieces of business-critical software / hardware. Which means that they have to treat it like any other combination of business critical software and hardware. The entire configuration is frozen, software, OS, patches and all, and any change is thoroughly tested before it is pushed to the production devices.
So what happened? One news item hints at a recent update causing the issue. Where did the update come from? Was iOS updated, or the app? Was this update tested before being rolled out?
They can't freeze the configuration unless they freeze all the airports. These devices carry maps. Maps need to be updated all the time.
What happened here wasn't that an update caused a problem. What happened was that two iPads in a cockpit didn't manage to receive an update that they should have received, so they had to take the iPads into the airport, and the data update worked just fine. Obviously this took time, so the flight got delayed.
than the climate skeptics like. But maybe they are right, maybe he should just give them spiritual guidance to stop lying for money.
All it takes for this strategy to fail is that the most disruptive students being in some way "special". And I'm not even meaning that they're retarded or belonging to some minority and failing them could get the PC crowd breathing down your neck. All it takes is that the parents of such an asshole student are "important" because they donate money into the school's coffers, basically buying their precious little dud a degree.
That is assuming that rich parents donating to schools actually want to buy their little boy or girl a degree. Plenty of people are rich because they worked hard for it (maybe with a little luck added, but still..) and are not really keen on them just relying on their parents instead of their own work.
The gov't should convince insurance companies to band together and pony up the cash.
Insurance companies won't be interested. This doesn't save expensive buildings. It gives people a chance to get out of buildings just in time. For an insurance, dead people are cheap.
Couldn't this system be easily defeated by using an inflatable person or maybe even just a stick with a cut out of Bill Oddie's face glued on the top, resting on your passengers seat?
You're asking "couldn't I defeat this by committing fraud"? Quite obviously if you get caught, you won't be fined for driving in the carpool lane, but for driving in the carpool lane and committing fraud to get away with it. I could easily see you getting a criminal conviction.
Simple way to level things is what is used in Germany - fees are limited to a fixed small percentage of the value being argued about, but if you demand a large amount and get only a small amount, you actually count as the loser (so a large corporation suing you for 100 million dollars and awarded $100 would actually pay 99.9999% of the total cost).
In the case of patent trolls demanding huge money, even if they are rewarded a small amount, they would have to pay all the cost.
... PT Barnum. You know the famous quote.
Of course. Didn't he say "Only a fool wouldn't buy an Apple Watch"?
So Disney ensures that every quarter, at least one copy of Steamboat Willy is sold. Or they simply show it once a year on the Disney Channel, which means they are making money off it.
We are talking about Germany here. Judges there don't like it if you game the system. Steamboat Willy would have to be on sale publicly, so that everyone who wants to watch it can do so. And judges can see if the price is exorbitant so that no actual sales are made.
So it covers my reasoning against eternal copyright: That copyright makes works disappear if the copyright owner doesn't care about it anymore. It doesn't cover lots of people's reasoning: That eternal copyright is bad because we want things for free.
Before software was protected by copyright, which happened sometime in the 80's or so, in Germany software was protected by "unfair competition law". Quite simply, if A hires developers for a million to write software and sells it, and B just copies the software, that is unfair competition. However, "unfair competition" only applies if A is actually selling the software; if A doesn't sell it, then B isn't competing with A at all, whether fair or unfair. Obviously now software is under copyright, so things have changed.
With very old works the same could be done: Let them run out of copyright. However, it would be "unfair competition" and thus illegal to compete with the copyright holder. So as long as Disney is selling Steamboat Willy, it would be protected. If they stop selling it, you can copy it and even sell it freely.
However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film.
There is monetary incentive if you can put the movie onto a shelf in the shops and sell it. Most people don't actually copy stuff. And those with huge illegal collections don't actually listen to or watch all the stuff that they copied. So you have to be careful estimating how many sales would be lost. And at last, you _can_ put DRM onto works in the public domain if you feel like it.
On the other hand, if people are worried about cultural values being lost, and these people are not the copyright holders, then works being in the public domain is actually very helpful for society. Because these people _can_ restore movies without having one foot in jail.