And what on earth is wrong with that?? What I love about Wikipedia is that just about ANYTHING I might care to look up is probably in there. The fact is there are articles on most things in a printed encyclopedia, but also articles on many other things. And why shouldn't there be? If there's a reasonable chance someone might want to know it, then it should be in there. You can't do that with a physical book, but that's what's great about a purely web based resource like this. The day I can't look up both the Crimean War and Cmdr. Data in Wikipedia will be a sad one.
Of course, this also means that printing it is pretty stupid.
The scanner problem is a difficult one, but as for your concern about allowing other people that you trust to access your house, car, etc, I don't think it's a big hurdle.
Your under-skin RFID tag would have a number associated with it say: 141740. Your house, car, etc would be programmed to open/start when they scan the tag with that number (though obviously the number would be much bigger...). If you want to let Bob borrow your car you just add Bob (and his associated number) to the list of authorized users.
I can imagine it being kinda like introducing Bob to your car: Scan your chip to "login" tell the system you want to add a driver (user) and then Bob scans his chip.
I think they were refering to stability, since DVD authoring/ripping or any other "feature" can easily be done 3rd party.
I thought about that, and then I realized something. I can also use those 3rd party apps on XP. Plus it doesn't have all that pesky DRM. I'll stick with what I've got.
One final note worth mentioning is that this strategy does remove the "corporate Windows XP" option from the hands of pirates. Volume licensing for Pro, SBE, and EE may still mean that there will be copies of Windows Vista out there that don't "call home" for Windows Product Activation, but as you can see, Microsoft has removed most of the features that most pirates would want from those OSes. You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition.
So, no volume licences for versions with all the fancy multimedia bells and whistles (HDTV, DVD authoring, DVD ripping, etc). They seem to figure potential pirates would want these features and businesses will not. Though speaking as someone who has worked in a school's IT department I can say there's at least one environment that may well want features like that but still has enough installs to do to make per machine activiation impractical.
This system is quite a bit harder to fake than a simple finger print. It couldn't be lifted off a doorknob or the like. As an added plus it can tell the difference between attached living hand from one that's been separated from its owner.
No, because with MS we have no idea of how long it takes between when THEY know about a potentially exploitable bug and when the patch is released. We only know how long it takes between the public announcemnt of the bug or a specific exploit of said bug and the release of a patch. Thus seeing how long it takes Mozilla to release a patch from NOW is really the only comparison we can make. Of course, the better comparison would be time between learning about the bug and the patch, but that option is not available.
No they're not! I can do anything I want my MY IP. If I write a piece of software, I have copyright and I can release or not release it. If I release it under the GPL, anyone who gets a copy is bound by the terms of the GPL, but I'm not! Of course, I can't close the source that I've already released to the world (from a practical OR legal POV). However, I can produce version 2.0 of MY software, that has much of the same code, and release it under the Evil Closed Licence that requires anyone obtaining a copy to give me their first born.
So, if I sell the copyright to someone else (corporation or individual) they acquire all the rights I previously held, including the right to produce a new closed version of the software. (Or even, I suppose, an identical version of the software that doesn't come with source or the GPL, to sell to idiots...)
You're exactly right. Parents are either geeks or not. If not, they will NOT know how to prevent (or at least make it damn hard) for their kids to get around this. They also probably won't know how easy it would be to circumvent (no doubt exactly what the company is counting on). And if they do how to do that, they could lock down their computers more effectively for free. This is just silly.
Not to mention the fact that they could actually keep an eye on what their kids are doing....grumble...
Damn! Now this is the type of content the State should really protect me from. How the hell am I supposed to know that a page at bugshit.com is fake???
Yes, but AFAIK once you have distributed a GPL'd work you CANNOT place restrictions on how the recipient of that work can further distribute it.
Having said that I think it's a very good point that distributing a document with a GPL'd font internally within an organization would NOT force you to distribute to anyone in the outside world.
However, the problem arises if you do want to share the document with only SOME people in the outside world. If you give the work to someone external, does the GPL force you to grant licence to that person to redistribute as he sees fit? I don't know, but that's the real question.
Thank you! I was beginning to think everyone else (or maybe possibly I) was crazy! It was very painful. Personally, I got through half of the first episode, stopped it and deleted the entire series from my harddrive and did a DoD compliant wipe out of empty space just to be extra safe.
Maybe he has. But maybe he doesn't REALLY read the essays either. However, just because he hasn't been doing his job up until now is certainly now excuse to do his job less in the future.
Ya! That's the solution to spam!! We just shut down e-mail for, I dunno, 6 months. Then we arrest anyone who offers to trade servers for food. Problem solved.
Yes it will! We all know that the monopoly is what keeps the house of cards from crashing down. If enough individual users switch away from Windows it will make it easier for companies to move away from Windows too, or at least remove the advantage of using Windows. That's why I think Redmond couldn't care less if I have a pirated copy of XP and why they do care if non-paying customers switch away.
So build your own highway system then. I'm sure you can come up with the measily trillion or two.
First of all the information gathered about me probably has next to nothing to do with the administration and maintaintance of the road I'm driving on. So, though I appreciate that the government has spent a lot of money on that road (appreciation I show by paying my taxes, btw) this point is irrelevant.
If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection.
Sure that's true up to a point. However, most people would agree that the right to privacy is an extrmely important one. But the right to have privacy in your home doesn't sound so great if (having committed no crime) you're subject to intense scrutiny every time you step outside.
Even having said that, while the government is within its rights to ensure you're not breaking the law while using the public highway (or walking down the sidewalk to the corner store) a question arises as to what they do with that information. I wouldn't have much problem with this if, having determined that I'm a law-abiding citizen, the information gathered about me was destroyed. I think we all know that this is not what's happening. On the contrary incresingly these pieces of information, which individually are harmless are being collected to build a picture of how we live our lives. This is information that neither the government nor corporations for that matter have any right to.
Slashdot Mirror
They do if they're a software company! Or did I miss the slashdot story: RedHat now available in Arkansas!
And what on earth is wrong with that?? What I love about Wikipedia is that just about ANYTHING I might care to look up is probably in there. The fact is there are articles on most things in a printed encyclopedia, but also articles on many other things. And why shouldn't there be? If there's a reasonable chance someone might want to know it, then it should be in there. You can't do that with a physical book, but that's what's great about a purely web based resource like this. The day I can't look up both the Crimean War and Cmdr. Data in Wikipedia will be a sad one.
Of course, this also means that printing it is pretty stupid.
The scanner problem is a difficult one, but as for your concern about allowing other people that you trust to access your house, car, etc, I don't think it's a big hurdle.
Your under-skin RFID tag would have a number associated with it say: 141740. Your house, car, etc would be programmed to open/start when they scan the tag with that number (though obviously the number would be much bigger...). If you want to let Bob borrow your car you just add Bob (and his associated number) to the list of authorized users.
I can imagine it being kinda like introducing Bob to your car: Scan your chip to "login" tell the system you want to add a driver (user) and then Bob scans his chip.
Well actually, that's part of the plan: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/09/21/airplanes.cam eras.ap/index.html.
The perps watch what happens to be sure they know what the signal is. Then they communicate this info through their lawyers to their partners.
Whoa, whoa, slow down...we'll just see if they get lawyers or not. But to me if feels like a "no" day.
While it is certainly true that video in iTunes doesn't definately imply a video iPod, you have to keep in mind where Apple makes money from.
Not iTMS.
*Hardware*, the iPod.
Their primary reason to make iTMS and iTunes better is to make the iPod more desireable.
Well...either way, it's spoofable.
But I guess you're not going to warn someone you're selling a stolen laptop to not to plug it in at a certain location unless their spoofing their IP.
I think they were refering to stability, since DVD authoring/ripping or any other "feature" can easily be done 3rd party.
I thought about that, and then I realized something. I can also use those 3rd party apps on XP. Plus it doesn't have all that pesky DRM. I'll stick with what I've got.
From TFA:
One final note worth mentioning is that this strategy does remove the "corporate Windows XP" option from the hands of pirates. Volume licensing for Pro, SBE, and EE may still mean that there will be copies of Windows Vista out there that don't "call home" for Windows Product Activation, but as you can see, Microsoft has removed most of the features that most pirates would want from those OSes. You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition.
So, no volume licences for versions with all the fancy multimedia bells and whistles (HDTV, DVD authoring, DVD ripping, etc). They seem to figure potential pirates would want these features and businesses will not. Though speaking as someone who has worked in a school's IT department I can say there's at least one environment that may well want features like that but still has enough installs to do to make per machine activiation impractical.
This system is quite a bit harder to fake than a simple finger print. It couldn't be lifted off a doorknob or the like. As an added plus it can tell the difference between attached living hand from one that's been separated from its owner.
No, because with MS we have no idea of how long it takes between when THEY know about a potentially exploitable bug and when the patch is released. We only know how long it takes between the public announcemnt of the bug or a specific exploit of said bug and the release of a patch. Thus seeing how long it takes Mozilla to release a patch from NOW is really the only comparison we can make. Of course, the better comparison would be time between learning about the bug and the patch, but that option is not available.
Couldn't we just disconnect AOL from the internet? It might take a while for their users to notice...
So, if I sell the copyright to someone else (corporation or individual) they acquire all the rights I previously held, including the right to produce a new closed version of the software. (Or even, I suppose, an identical version of the software that doesn't come with source or the GPL, to sell to idiots...)
Not to mention the fact that they could actually keep an eye on what their kids are doing....grumble...
Damn! Now this is the type of content the State should really protect me from. How the hell am I supposed to know that a page at bugshit.com is fake???
Yes, but AFAIK once you have distributed a GPL'd work you CANNOT place restrictions on how the recipient of that work can further distribute it.
Having said that I think it's a very good point that distributing a document with a GPL'd font internally within an organization would NOT force you to distribute to anyone in the outside world.
However, the problem arises if you do want to share the document with only SOME people in the outside world. If you give the work to someone external, does the GPL force you to grant licence to that person to redistribute as he sees fit? I don't know, but that's the real question.
Thank you! I was beginning to think everyone else (or maybe possibly I) was crazy! It was very painful. Personally, I got through half of the first episode, stopped it and deleted the entire series from my harddrive and did a DoD compliant wipe out of empty space just to be extra safe.
basically delete them from their files after 6 months, if the business at fault is, or becomes, a dues-paying member
THAT I didnt' know. Makes me wonder if it's a front for businesses of just a high-class protection racket...
I doubt the construction bot will do much because the unions will halt it. it would just remove too many jobs.
Yeah, but only until someone invents the union boss robot...
Maybe he has. But maybe he doesn't REALLY read the essays either. However, just because he hasn't been doing his job up until now is certainly now excuse to do his job less in the future.
Ya! That's the solution to spam!! We just shut down e-mail for, I dunno, 6 months. Then we arrest anyone who offers to trade servers for food. Problem solved.
Yes it will! We all know that the monopoly is what keeps the house of cards from crashing down. If enough individual users switch away from Windows it will make it easier for companies to move away from Windows too, or at least remove the advantage of using Windows. That's why I think Redmond couldn't care less if I have a pirated copy of XP and why they do care if non-paying customers switch away.
So build your own highway system then. I'm sure you can come up with the measily trillion or two.
First of all the information gathered about me probably has next to nothing to do with the administration and maintaintance of the road I'm driving on. So, though I appreciate that the government has spent a lot of money on that road (appreciation I show by paying my taxes, btw) this point is irrelevant.
If you are on public roads, you should be under public scrutiny. There's no fundamental right in the Constitution to travel around anonymously. The government is well within its rights to stop those who are using the public resources for inspection.
Sure that's true up to a point. However, most people would agree that the right to privacy is an extrmely important one. But the right to have privacy in your home doesn't sound so great if (having committed no crime) you're subject to intense scrutiny every time you step outside.
Even having said that, while the government is within its rights to ensure you're not breaking the law while using the public highway (or walking down the sidewalk to the corner store) a question arises as to what they do with that information. I wouldn't have much problem with this if, having determined that I'm a law-abiding citizen, the information gathered about me was destroyed. I think we all know that this is not what's happening. On the contrary incresingly these pieces of information, which individually are harmless are being collected to build a picture of how we live our lives. This is information that neither the government nor corporations for that matter have any right to.
Are you sure you're not blinding people BECAUSE you've got no clothes on?