The OS itself is almost unimportant, it's the service that goes with it that matters. corporations never did just buy site licenses, they bought massive support contracts. In many cases there is no competition here. When was the last time that anyone, support contract or not, received a fix to Windows, MS Office or other major commercial 'mass market' software in response to a bug report without having to wait for either the next version (for which you normally have to pay) or a scheduled 'patch drop'? Yet with Linux and much other open-source software, the opposite is true - a bug report often results in a timely fix to the problem. So I would think that if you want support and actual fixes to problems, rather than simply 'hand holding' or suggestions as to workarounds, then open-source software often provides better support than much commercial software.
The difference is that with a search warrant, the police have to find the evidence/items themselves. You are under no obligation to assist them in locating what they are looking for. If you have a secret door on your premises (physical equivalent of a hidden encrypted partition on your computer) then the police have to find it themselves, you do not have to tell them either of its existence nor tell them where it is if they know or suspect its existence.
The main reason why iPlayer uses Windows DRM is because the companies who produce content for the BBC didn't want their shows streamed without some kind of rights management, because, god forbid, it should end up on bit torrent. Which should be a non-argument. The BBC broadcast their programming in digital both on satellite and Digital Terrestrial TV. Anyone with an internet connection and a PVR which can transfer files to a computer could record any programme broadcast by the BBC and share it using bittorrent or any other p2p program or upload it to a video sharing site.
It's a big corporation, and all the parts aren't always working in the same direction In which case the senior management are obviously not doing a very good job of creating company policy and ensuring that the different divisions are all 'singing from the same hymn sheet'.
Almost right. In legal English, "or" means exclusive or. So, when it says "or any future version" it means you get to pick a single version. Thus, if GPLv2 allows X and prohibits Y and version 3 allows Y and prohibits X, you can do only X, only Y, or neither, but you can't do both, because that would require somehow mixing the two licenses. You get to pick which license terms you want to adhere to, but you don't get to mix and match provisions of both. That seems OK in this context but not in general legal usage. If for an example a law was drafted so that it is offense to do A or to do B, then by your reasoning if you did both A and B then you would not have committed the offense - which does not sound right.
Typically a wireless card is a microcontroller with ROM, RAM, and a CPU --- usually an ARM. As wireless cards are intelligent with their own processor it should have been relatively simple for a high level API to have been defined (in a similar way to VESA for display cards) by which all wireless cards communicate with the host computer.
Because it is decidedly NOT in the broadcaster's best interest at this time.. So why in Europe, Australia, and probably many other places as well is it almost universal for digital TV to include the EPG (Electronic Programme Guide) in the transmission? I suspect that North America may be the 'odd one out' in not providing an on-air TV guide. Apart from anything else, the EPG has an advantage over printed listings in that it can be kept up-to-date with schedule changes, even last minute ones caused by (for example) live events overrunning or extended news bulletins.
Simply put, if I don't get information about the schedule of tv station X, I will in all likelihood watch tv station Y instead. Which should be an incentive for the stations to broadcast their schedules via the EPG.
If the network is completely unsecured, it should be assumed that it's public access.
So if you don't lock the door on your house, it's OK for me to come in and take what I want then?
There is actually a slight difference. The unsecured wireless network is probably broadcasting its presence. Therefore it is more like not only leaving your door unlocked but leaving it wide open with a sign over it saying "Please Enter". Or maybe a more accurate analogy would be that it is like a shop with an unlocked door with the sign "Connect to the Internet Here".
IMHO, by setting up an open wireless router the owner is not only giving permission for others to use it but actually inviting them to do so. It might be argued that the owner does so purely out of ignorance, but ignorance is no defense in law. It should be assumed that the owner/user of an item of equipment knows how to use it. With so much 'security' nowadays being electronic, it should be assumed that any electronic equipment controlling access (be it physical, or to some service such as to a bank account or to the internet) is acting on behalf of its owner and applying its owners access policies and therefore it granting (or rejecting) access based on supplied credentials (username, password, swipe card, PIN entry etc) should be equivalent to the owner doing so in person.
Well, it's actually quite simple.EVERY ISP will "overbook" their bandwidth, and bet on users NOT using it to the fullest all the time, hence being able to get away with it.Do you honestly believe an ISP expected you, as a "home user", to use up your full bandwidth 24/7 a couple of years ago when they started offering "cheap, unlimited broadband" ? I think that the 24/7 is a red herring. The important figure is the maximum bandwidth that the users are attempting to use at any one time. The ISPs should have expected that most home users would be using bandwidth during the evening 'peak' period, so should have provisioned their network to cater for a certain percentage of home users to be simultaneously using a high percentage of the advertised bandwidth. Usage outside of the period of peak demand the bandwidth is in effect free.
Yet rather than provision for the peaks, quite a few 'popular' UK ISPs put restrictions, throttling etc during the only hours when most home users (who goes to work, school or college) are at home to use the service.
If it is made a legal requirement to vote then it should also be a requirement that every ballot paper have a 'none of the above' option. A win for 'none of the above' would both make all the defeated candidates ineligible to stand again and require that parties to rethink their policies/manifestos.
The thing I do not like about Amazon's recommendations is that when you buy an 'X', where X is something that you are likely to only want one of (such as digital camera, computer monitor, PVR etc), it recommends lots of other X's. Even with books, CDs and DVDs if you buy one version/edition it will often recommend other copies of the same title. It is good for recommending book, CD & DVD titles which might be of interest, but for other goods I find it is poor.
Cryptographic signatures are the solution to preventing forgeries. Until we get them into wide use on the user level, DomainKeys is a fairly good solution. SFP is a poor one. I use SPF, SRS, DomainKeys and DKIM (both setting in outgoing mail, and checking on incoming). I see far more 'false positives' where legitimate incoming mail fails the checks from DomainKeys and DKIM than I do from SPF. For example since collecting DKIM statistics on the mail server here, of mails from gmail.com 50 had DKIM signatures which validate correctly but 1179 had signatures which failed DKIM validation. The only case of valid mails failing SPF that I have seen (as the postmaster) was where a company was taken over by another and their outgoing mail was routed via the new companies servers but the SPF record for the domain had not been updated to reflect this.
The only advantage you gain from a subscription is the ability to watch subscription only channels. You do not need to use it as a solid state VCR. The EPG shows details of the programmes for up to a week in advance and most (if not all) PVRs can be programmed to record using the EPG so that if a show changes time then the recording will be at the altered time. Some PVRs also have 'series' mode so it automatically records all the episodes in a series but the repeat showings.
There is no reason why you cannot be running the thing you are compiling. Granted in some cases it is better not to be running the program when the newly compiled one installs itself, but even such cases are rare. Normally this only applies to applications which dynamically load libraries or plugins while running rather than at startup where loading a newer version of the library or plugin than that of the 'base' application might cause problems.
ISPs and phone companies have been oversubscribing for years. True, but when was the last time anyone either picked up their phone and did not get dial tone or the call could not be connected because of congestion in the phone company's network (as opposed to the called party being busy)? These events do happen, but luckily they are very rare and the phone companies upgrade their infrastructure to ensure that they are rare. Broadband should be the same, it is not reasonable for someone to expect to be able to use the full bandwidth 24x7 but it should be reasonable to expect that when they do want to access 'real time' (eg audio-video streaming, VOIP, IM webcam chats etc) services that sufficient bandwidth will be available.
DKIM does NOT re-writing headers for forwarding. Unlike SPF (which I also use) it requires absolutely no action on the part of forwarders to preserve the validity of the signature. That is, unless the forwarder changes an existing header such as mailing lists adding [listname] to the start of the subject. With use of the 'l=' parameter it will even survive those forwarders who add a footer to the body. Though it could be argued that use of the 'l=' feature, and not making it obvious to the recipient where the signed part of the body ends, defeats the purpose of signing
In the past, courts have rules that an encryption key is analogous to a physical key, and like a physical key, can be demanded with a warrant. Does anyone know why they came to that decision rather than treating encrypted computer documents the same way as paper documents (journals, diaries etc) which are written in code? IANAL but AFAIK the precedent with the latter is that they cannot force you to decode them. In both cases they are in possession of the physical document - that they are unable to understand it is their problem.
Before we had DST, it was HELL. All year, it got dark at like 2:00pm. If without daylight saving time it was dark by 2pm, then unless it was also not light until 10am (which unless you are close to either the Arctic or Antarctic circle is very unlikely) then you are in the wrong timezone. In the correct timezone, there should be approximately equal periods of light either side of noon.
It is very counter-intuitive if you think about software as a product that you buy, but then again, the same thing applies to things like video game consoles as well. Isn't there a principle that courts have upheld several times that "If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then as far as the court is concerned it is a duck irrespective of what any of the parties may claim."? In the case of software and video games, you go into a store, select a box from the shelf, pay the clerk and take it away with you. This is the same as any other retail transaction, so irrespective of what the software manufacturer may say - it is a retail transaction.
I disagree. I think that the copy of the program you purchased is yours. In the same as when you buy a painting, a photograph or a postcard, you own that particular painting, photograph or postcard even though you do not own the copyright to the image portrayed on it. Microsoft retain the copyright in the program, but I suggest that you own the actual copy you purchased.
The wording is somewhat odd, but it's probably partially because the idea of VMs is pretty new and they are just trying to adjust traditional licensing terms to the idea. The idea of VMs is certainly not new, they actually pre-date the original IBM PC. I was working with one in the early 1980s, where a guest operating system (for different hardware) was running in a VM. This was as the end-user of a commercial product, not in a research environment.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that with a search warrant, the police have to find the evidence/items themselves. You are under no obligation to assist them in locating what they are looking for. If you have a secret door on your premises (physical equivalent of a hidden encrypted partition on your computer) then the police have to find it themselves, you do not have to tell them either of its existence nor tell them where it is if they know or suspect its existence.
I remember back in the days of 360k floppies when hard disks were not common that many games did come on a bootable floppy.
So if you don't lock the door on your house, it's OK for me to come in and take what I want then?
There is actually a slight difference. The unsecured wireless network is probably broadcasting its presence. Therefore it is more like not only leaving your door unlocked but leaving it wide open with a sign over it saying "Please Enter". Or maybe a more accurate analogy would be that it is like a shop with an unlocked door with the sign "Connect to the Internet Here".IMHO, by setting up an open wireless router the owner is not only giving permission for others to use it but actually inviting them to do so. It might be argued that the owner does so purely out of ignorance, but ignorance is no defense in law. It should be assumed that the owner/user of an item of equipment knows how to use it. With so much 'security' nowadays being electronic, it should be assumed that any electronic equipment controlling access (be it physical, or to some service such as to a bank account or to the internet) is acting on behalf of its owner and applying its owners access policies and therefore it granting (or rejecting) access based on supplied credentials (username, password, swipe card, PIN entry etc) should be equivalent to the owner doing so in person.
Yet rather than provision for the peaks, quite a few 'popular' UK ISPs put restrictions, throttling etc during the only hours when most home users (who goes to work, school or college) are at home to use the service.
If it is made a legal requirement to vote then it should also be a requirement that every ballot paper have a 'none of the above' option. A win for 'none of the above' would both make all the defeated candidates ineligible to stand again and require that parties to rethink their policies/manifestos.
The thing I do not like about Amazon's recommendations is that when you buy an 'X', where X is something that you are likely to only want one of (such as digital camera, computer monitor, PVR etc), it recommends lots of other X's. Even with books, CDs and DVDs if you buy one version/edition it will often recommend other copies of the same title. It is good for recommending book, CD & DVD titles which might be of interest, but for other goods I find it is poor.
The only advantage you gain from a subscription is the ability to watch subscription only channels. You do not need to use it as a solid state VCR. The EPG shows details of the programmes for up to a week in advance and most (if not all) PVRs can be programmed to record using the EPG so that if a show changes time then the recording will be at the altered time. Some PVRs also have 'series' mode so it automatically records all the episodes in a series but the repeat showings.
There is no reason why you cannot be running the thing you are compiling. Granted in some cases it is better not to be running the program when the newly compiled one installs itself, but even such cases are rare. Normally this only applies to applications which dynamically load libraries or plugins while running rather than at startup where loading a newer version of the library or plugin than that of the 'base' application might cause problems.
DKIM does NOT re-writing headers for forwarding. Unlike SPF (which I also use) it requires absolutely no action on the part of forwarders to preserve the validity of the signature. That is, unless the forwarder changes an existing header such as mailing lists adding [listname] to the start of the subject. With use of the 'l=' parameter it will even survive those forwarders who add a footer to the body. Though it could be argued that use of the 'l=' feature, and not making it obvious to the recipient where the signed part of the body ends, defeats the purpose of signing
I disagree. I think that the copy of the program you purchased is yours. In the same as when you buy a painting, a photograph or a postcard, you own that particular painting, photograph or postcard even though you do not own the copyright to the image portrayed on it. Microsoft retain the copyright in the program, but I suggest that you own the actual copy you purchased.