I propose a boycott... of giving them money.;) We can still use the products, just don't give them any money for them. Yeah, that'll show 'em. (only half kidding)
Right, that keeps out amateurs and lazy hackers. Somebody that really, really wants in can still find a way eventually (except for WPA2... that hasn't been cracked yet has it?)
On mine, I've also taken the steps of disabling DHCP, and setting my network subnet mask to 248 as the last octet. This leaves only 6 IP's available, exactly the number of devices on my network. A hacker would not only have to clone a MAC address, but take one of my in-use IP addresses. Not an impossible task, but a pain in the ass and probably not worth the effort.
Because if they download kiddie pr0n, it's *MY* IP address that gets logged, and my house the FBI raids looking for said kiddie pr0n. Not worth the risk to be a good Samaritan to the neighbor's who can't afford their own internet.
If someone posted it in a forum, it's unlikely that they just wrote it on the spot.
Why make that assumption? I've written tons of small code examples on the spot on forums before. I've also copy/pasted out of the IDE for a more complex example I wrote that required more debug tinkering. I'll go as far to say that someone who posts their own code on the internet, as an example, or to help someone would have to be daft to expect it won't be copied and used in some manner, by someone. If you're that concerned about keeping a couple hundred lines of code private, don't post it.
What does that mean? Verizon only sells their customized version of the phone, not a "basic" and "premium" model of each one. Or do you mean we should just buy an unlocked one from elsewhere if we want the features that came on the phone to, you know, actually work as intended?
If somebody else wanted to do this, they would be. I highly doubt Thompson's existence is hindering that. He is so inept, that any intelligent lawyer who felt the same way would be trying to take over his role already, because he's screwing things up.
force a company to allow an audit or "investigation"? What do they do when a small business owner says, "I use strictly Linux on my computers, no, you can't come in and look around, go pound sand."
Who asked them to? You weren't reading my posts. All I claim is the right to modify a piece of hardware I purchase. I don't care what Apple decides to do with said hardware in a business sense, nor cater to any whims. *I* was responding to someone who basically said it's inappropriate to hack hardware you own, and that you shouldn't buy it if you need or want to hack it. You're making up arguments that have nothing to do with what I said.
No, there is NO contractual obligation to ATT when you buy an iPhone. You don't sign a little form that says "I promise to sign up to ATT", like those ISP-discounted computer deals that used to be big. The closest they come is that it comes with documentation that says it will only work on ATT. But that's easily fixed. It's not my problem that Apple subsidized the price of the phone assuming some profit from ATT subscriptions. What you call entitlement, I call will of the market. The only entitlement I see, is the entitlement of being allowed to hack a piece of hardware that I own, to make it do what I want. Just as Apple is allowed to try to lock down that hardware to stop me from doing it. And yes, I am entitled to do just that. Once a product is in my hands, and there have been no contractual obligations contrary, I am free to do as I see fit with it. I find nothing inappropriate about that.
"...as though in a free market you have the "right" to purchase and use an iPhone.... The iPhone isn't intended for everyone, and if you have to jump through hoops to get it on your terms, it certainly isn't meant for you."
If a market is truly a "free" market, then yes, any consumer does have the right to purchase an item if they choose. Maybe you don't quite understand what free means? If I wanted that particular phone, for whatever reason, and wanted to use it on t-mobile, I would just buy it and do what I needed to make it work. Apple's intended market be damned. Unless they contractually forbid it (and even then, prove it), I also have every right to modify a piece of hardware that I purchased to do what I want it to do. I didn't buy a license to use the phone, I bought the phone. It's mine. I can mess with it all I want.
If you apply your strange logic to any other industry, you see how silly it is. Don't buy aftermarket parts for that Honda, if you have to modify it, it's not right for you. Don't install Linux on that Dell! If you have to wipe out the original OS, then that Dell just wasn't right for you. They chose to put XP on there for a reason, and you shouldn't have the right to buy it and then change that!
It's not fallacious if you are using US and European sales to subsidize. Development is a sunk, fixed cost. It will not change no matter how many or few of the product are sold. If Valve is expecting it's western hemisphere prices to cover the development costs, then selling the game to other countries at reduced price does not increase their costs any more than not selling them at reduced price at all. There is no increase in marginal costs, except in media and packaging.
Considering the physical costs of the disk and packaging (even less so for downloaded purchases), I doubt they will lose money no matter how many are sold in those countries.
1), 2) They're British, and use peculiar (to me) wording all the time (whether through illiteracy or cultural differences I'll leave to you) 3) Isn't this feature built into windows, so it's never truly "uninstalled"? Sure you can go into add/remove, windows components and uncheck it, but it's still there. I thought this was the new version of the Windows Indexing component, which most of us disable? Can anyone confirm? I keep my windows updates disabled.
I've been running an unpatched XP, pre-service packs, on a VMware session on a DMZ for a while now. Obviously trying to catch something. I think maybe my ISP might be actually protecting its customers by filtering, because this box has yet to catch anything. I was hoping to get a bot worm on it, just so I could do some packet logging, and try to see some of the command and control packets the bot uses. I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or happy that my ISP is filtering traffic.
That, or what we'll start seeing is Bittorrent clients that simply start ignoring those packets. Many of them are open source, so you can figure somebody will make the change and start distributing copies.
What he said. I don't think the design is "impossible", but it certainly can't be done with wood. At the least, the base frame and engine attachments should have been welded metal of some type, and the engines much larger to compensate for the weight. It still wouldn't fly straight, but it wouldn't disintegrate 10 feet off the ground.
The rant used to be that it was "just about seeing the source code"... but now that they can actually SEE the source code... they whine about the license.
No, it's always been about the license. However, one key component of the license just happens to be, seeing the source. There are several other major components. Just meeting one criteria does not make it "open". Just "visible". And I'm sure anonymous troll knew this, he just wanted to latch onto the topmost post he could find that even remotely fit his rant topic./feeding the trolls//have another cookie
The Lisa was not a bad move. It was one of the first GUI based systems available, and helped shape things to come. Its major problem lay in the fact that the damn thing cost too much. And to be honest, acquiring NextStep back when they did was a failure. NextOS and those cubes, as cool as they were, pretty much tanked. It took them a decade to actually start using a derivation of that OS commercially again (the original OS X Server), and a few more years after that before it was truly ready as a desktop/workstation environment.
Exactly but suing the cable companies will do nothing. they need to sue the content providers. If a ruling makes it illegal for the cable companies to force packages on their customers, then the content providers cannot compel them to do so. If none of the cable companies were allowed to comply with this demand, what would the content producers do? Not give content to anyone? No, any contract that asks one party to do something illegal becomes void. So I think it could definitely be effective. And I hope they're successful. I'm tired of paying $120 a month in packages just to get the few channels I want.
Slashdot Mirror
I propose a boycott... of giving them money. ;)
We can still use the products, just don't give them any money for them. Yeah, that'll show 'em.
(only half kidding)
Yes, this news makes me oh, so sad.
All the bands I like never get signed by any big labels anyway. Such is the fate of industrial/ebm music.
Right, that keeps out amateurs and lazy hackers. Somebody that really, really wants in can still find a way eventually (except for WPA2... that hasn't been cracked yet has it?)
On mine, I've also taken the steps of disabling DHCP, and setting my network subnet mask to 248 as the last octet. This leaves only 6 IP's available, exactly the number of devices on my network. A hacker would not only have to clone a MAC address, but take one of my in-use IP addresses. Not an impossible task, but a pain in the ass and probably not worth the effort.
Because if they download kiddie pr0n, it's *MY* IP address that gets logged, and my house the FBI raids looking for said kiddie pr0n.
Not worth the risk to be a good Samaritan to the neighbor's who can't afford their own internet.
Black, meet white. We banished gray, he was too annoying.
If someone posted it in a forum, it's unlikely that they just wrote it on the spot.
Why make that assumption? I've written tons of small code examples on the spot on forums before. I've also copy/pasted out of the IDE for a more complex example I wrote that required more debug tinkering.
I'll go as far to say that someone who posts their own code on the internet, as an example, or to help someone would have to be daft to expect it won't be copied and used in some manner, by someone. If you're that concerned about keeping a couple hundred lines of code private, don't post it.
What does that mean? Verizon only sells their customized version of the phone, not a "basic" and "premium" model of each one.
Or do you mean we should just buy an unlocked one from elsewhere if we want the features that came on the phone to, you know, actually work as intended?
If somebody else wanted to do this, they would be. I highly doubt Thompson's existence is hindering that.
He is so inept, that any intelligent lawyer who felt the same way would be trying to take over his role already, because he's screwing things up.
How the bloody fuck is this a troll? It's a valid statement, idiot mod.
If no one wanted their product, they wouldn't make it.
Wouldn't they need to have some kind of proof of wrongdoing for the police to get involved? Especially since software licensing is a civil matter.
I was trying to google a story/example of a company who fought against an audit, and what happened, but come up empty.
And meanwhile, by churning out the same scrotum-popping torture porn that they've been accused of....
fap...fap...fapfapfapfapfapfap
Is it really Rockstar's fault that there are a ton of people who want to buy scrotum-popping torture porn? If no one bought it, they wouldn't make it.
force a company to allow an audit or "investigation"?
What do they do when a small business owner says, "I use strictly Linux on my computers, no, you can't come in and look around, go pound sand."
Who asked them to? You weren't reading my posts.
All I claim is the right to modify a piece of hardware I purchase. I don't care what Apple decides to do with said hardware in a business sense, nor cater to any whims.
*I* was responding to someone who basically said it's inappropriate to hack hardware you own, and that you shouldn't buy it if you need or want to hack it. You're making up arguments that have nothing to do with what I said.
No, there is NO contractual obligation to ATT when you buy an iPhone.
You don't sign a little form that says "I promise to sign up to ATT", like those ISP-discounted computer deals that used to be big. The closest they come is that it comes with documentation that says it will only work on ATT. But that's easily fixed. It's not my problem that Apple subsidized the price of the phone assuming some profit from ATT subscriptions.
What you call entitlement, I call will of the market.
The only entitlement I see, is the entitlement of being allowed to hack a piece of hardware that I own, to make it do what I want. Just as Apple is allowed to try to lock down that hardware to stop me from doing it.
And yes, I am entitled to do just that. Once a product is in my hands, and there have been no contractual obligations contrary, I am free to do as I see fit with it. I find nothing inappropriate about that.
"...as though in a free market you have the "right" to purchase and use an iPhone. ...
The iPhone isn't intended for everyone, and if you have to jump through hoops to get it on your terms, it certainly isn't meant for you."
If a market is truly a "free" market, then yes, any consumer does have the right to purchase an item if they choose. Maybe you don't quite understand what free means?
If I wanted that particular phone, for whatever reason, and wanted to use it on t-mobile, I would just buy it and do what I needed to make it work. Apple's intended market be damned. Unless they contractually forbid it (and even then, prove it), I also have every right to modify a piece of hardware that I purchased to do what I want it to do. I didn't buy a license to use the phone, I bought the phone. It's mine. I can mess with it all I want.
If you apply your strange logic to any other industry, you see how silly it is. Don't buy aftermarket parts for that Honda, if you have to modify it, it's not right for you.
Don't install Linux on that Dell! If you have to wipe out the original OS, then that Dell just wasn't right for you. They chose to put XP on there for a reason, and you shouldn't have the right to buy it and then change that!
It's not fallacious if you are using US and European sales to subsidize.
Development is a sunk, fixed cost. It will not change no matter how many or few of the product are sold. If Valve is expecting it's western hemisphere prices to cover the development costs, then selling the game to other countries at reduced price does not increase their costs any more than not selling them at reduced price at all. There is no increase in marginal costs, except in media and packaging.
Considering the physical costs of the disk and packaging (even less so for downloaded purchases), I doubt they will lose money no matter how many are sold in those countries.
1), 2) They're British, and use peculiar (to me) wording all the time (whether through illiteracy or cultural differences I'll leave to you)
3) Isn't this feature built into windows, so it's never truly "uninstalled"? Sure you can go into add/remove, windows components and uncheck it, but it's still there. I thought this was the new version of the Windows Indexing component, which most of us disable? Can anyone confirm? I keep my windows updates disabled.
I've been running an unpatched XP, pre-service packs, on a VMware session on a DMZ for a while now. Obviously trying to catch something.
I think maybe my ISP might be actually protecting its customers by filtering, because this box has yet to catch anything. I was hoping to get a bot worm on it, just so I could do some packet logging, and try to see some of the command and control packets the bot uses.
I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or happy that my ISP is filtering traffic.
That, or what we'll start seeing is Bittorrent clients that simply start ignoring those packets. Many of them are open source, so you can figure somebody will make the change and start distributing copies.
One doesn't need to be trained in mythology to know it's it's not reality.
What he said.
I don't think the design is "impossible", but it certainly can't be done with wood. At the least, the base frame and engine attachments should have been welded metal of some type, and the engines much larger to compensate for the weight.
It still wouldn't fly straight, but it wouldn't disintegrate 10 feet off the ground.
The rant used to be that it was "just about seeing the source code"... but now that they can actually SEE the source code... they whine about the license.
/feeding the trolls //have another cookie
No, it's always been about the license. However, one key component of the license just happens to be, seeing the source. There are several other major components.
Just meeting one criteria does not make it "open". Just "visible".
And I'm sure anonymous troll knew this, he just wanted to latch onto the topmost post he could find that even remotely fit his rant topic.
The Lisa was not a bad move. It was one of the first GUI based systems available, and helped shape things to come. Its major problem lay in the fact that the damn thing cost too much.
And to be honest, acquiring NextStep back when they did was a failure. NextOS and those cubes, as cool as they were, pretty much tanked. It took them a decade to actually start using a derivation of that OS commercially again (the original OS X Server), and a few more years after that before it was truly ready as a desktop/workstation environment.
So I think it could definitely be effective.
And I hope they're successful. I'm tired of paying $120 a month in packages just to get the few channels I want.