You might be joking, but Heifer Internationalisn't. They give animals to low income third-world areas, and when the animals mate, they pass some of the offspring on to other poor people. My grandparents donate a Flock of Ducks or Chicks from every grandchild in our family at Christmas.
All I was trying to say is that money counterfeiting charges are probably like automatic in those instances, especially with Secret Service involvement. For instance, possessing a certain threshold of drugs, or possessing them within a set distance of some landmarks (schools, for example) automatically gets you "intent to distribute" instead of straight possession. Similarly, if I stole a nuclear warhead, I'd be charged with attempted terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, regardless of what I claim my plans to have been.
That probably includes all the conspiracy stuff. If the Secret Service was involved, they probably thought he was trying to forge money, which is a serious federal felony.
Microsoft wants to own not only the console space, but also the STB space. In front, Microsoft wants to own the entire "computing" and "consumer electronics" markets.
Imagine this Microsoft Dream World: You use Windows at work, hear about a cool new show, and schedule the recording via your Windows Mobile smartphone, and come home to your XBox, which has recorded all of your TV shows to your Windows Home Server in the closet. You can fire up your Windows Media Center computer, and watch them from there or from the XBox, or sync them to your Zune to watch on the go.
Microsoft wants to compete with basically every technology company out there. Not necessarily unlike Apple. The goal that both companies have is domination of your computing lifestyle.
Not gonna happen. That'd essentially be advertising for the competition. As TPB is funded by advertisements on its torrent search pages, it doesn't want you watching video online, it wants you using its torrents.
Who said subscribers have two dedicated servers to read the main page? The article/summary says that two servers serve for ACs reading the main page, and 4 for logged-in users. I saw no subscriber/non-subscriber distinction.
Incorrect. 95/98/ME were not a part of the Windows NT family. It had been the workstation/server/professional Windows until the release of Windows 2000. NT started at version 3.1 to have version number parity with Windows 3.1.
Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 Windows XP was NT 5.1 Windows Server 2003 was NT 5.2 Vista is NT 6.0 Windows Server 2k8 and Vista SP1 will be like NT 6.1 or something.
Again, grow the hell up. It's really that much harder to do a Google search for 'The Daily Show' and following the first link as opposed to doing a search on YouTube for 'The Daily Show'? If you owned the content would you want YouTube raking in the ad dollars for something THAT YOU CREATED?
Actually, it's better than YouTube. It's got all the episodes, and I assume that they'll have some sort of method of ordering them or some kind of consistent naming. Especially with clip ratings and quality tagging, it'll be a lot easier to find the right episode on the official site than on YouTube, even assuming there's no take-down issues.
Cannibalizing record sales is well worth it if it increases concert attendance. If they can sell their shows to promoters for $150,000 instead of $125,000* 4-5 nights a week on tour for a few months, that's well worth it. Higher attendance also results in higher merch sales. At the concert, they'll sell a boatload of $30 T-shirts that cost them about $5 to make. That's where the real money is. That alone probably offsets the $1-2/CD they'd make through a record deal.
* = I haven't seen Radiohead's pricing, but it's almost certainly over $100k, and probably over $150k. I'd suspect it's under $250k, because only "super-hot, right now" bands can charge that most of the time.
Maybe not the firmware, but it does write over a lot of the software. That's why it's a 250 MB download - it's overwriting most of the libraries altogether (this is not uncommon on Macs, especially 3rd-party Macintosh applications, which often update themselves like this).
Note also that "jailbreak" and "unlock" are different. "Jailbreak" means "Can run third party userspace code" (generally 3rd party apps). By contrast, "unlock" means "Can use with a different carrier". Jailbreaks generally involve the software (the OS and things that run on it) and unlocks require access to the lower-level firmware that controls the radio components. The confusion arises because "firmware" can technically mean anything running on a piece of consumer electronics that's designed to be unmodified - note that many routers or set-top boxes run some brand of Linux (generally with a real-time patchset) but the entire package is generally considered firmware.
I looked at his user history. He has good karma and had several recent upmods. One bad comment does not a troll make. He's an enthusiastic new-ish user (based on UID, and number of posts with posting rate), and the comment in this thread was an honest question.
I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them. But I did so with each of them with the complete understanding of how much money I could lose if anything happened that I couldn't control.
Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.
All true. Expecting Apple to support hacked models with new firmware is a bit silly. The iPhone updater completely re-flashes the iPod, and then re-adds the data from iTunes. So any update will at least wipe Apps, unless Apple does special work to preserve them.
But just as importantly, there's nothing saying you "have to" update the firmware. It's voluntary. Sure, you've got to if you want the bugfixes and new features, but that's hardly mandatory. Users can continue to use the 1.0.2 firmware for as long as they want to, or until there's some sort of iPhone virus out there.
according to the article since the TIFF exploit can be patched. I understand it's a "cat and mouse game", but I was wondering why there can't be a more permanent solution, like creating an image that can be restored using the iTunes Restore function.
Any exploit can be patched, but odds are good that there are at least dozens of exploits in mobileSafari. Once you run out of those, there's mobileMail, and the Wireless iTMS. Finally, you could clone the software on the iPhone, modify it on a computer, and impersonate iTunes to the iPhone and convince it to "update" off of that.
The difficulty with having a cracked image that you just copy back over after updates is that you would then lose the benefit of the updates. Hackers would have to update the changed libraries selectively. This is sort of what OSx86 does, and it results in an ugly patchwork of "half-1.1.1, half-1.0.2" software. It kinda works, but it can seriously compromise stability.
You can distribute a collection of programs (like Linux or BSD distro) under more than one license. The fact that Linux is GPLv2 doesn't mean that distros can't distribute GPLv3 stuff like the GNU toolchain or SAMBA or permissive stuff like Apache with it. In the case of file-systems, it's more complicated, and I don't fully understand the rules, but it's possible to have some sort of wrapper that's GPLv2 that interfaces directly with the kernel and then have file-system use that wrapper's public APIs or something. That might not be feasible for a file-system, but that's how they have some proprietary drivers in Linux.
Also, the difference between the various BSD kernels and the differing Linux kernels is that there is an "official" Linux kernel. There are plenty of modified version and patch-sets and whatever, but there's only one official Linux kernel release with a lead developer and official releases. By contrast, there is no official consensus default BSD kernel, only the various kernels the various BSD groups use.
Guys, that's an honest question from the new user! Don't slam on the Troll mod the second someone says GPL3 and Linux in the same post!
For the foreseeable future, Linux will be under the GPLv2 license. A lot of Linux code is only available under that license, and isn't forward compatible without developer permission. Given that many Linux devs either won't give permission or can't be located (died, stopped contributing, whatever), relicensing will be a major effort, even if leaders were so inclined. Basically, if Linux goes GPLv3, you'll hear about it at least 6 months in advance, and probably weekly during those 6 months if you read Slashdot.
The green-red-yellow is probably based on traffic lights in the US (and many other countries), which commonly use those colors. While it's not a decision targeted towards accessibility, it's one that should allow most users to partially understand the map easily.
No, it's more like: "We have patents such that no-one else can make an OS without infringing on them. We've got a few examples, but we don't want to tell anyone, because you'd probably just find ways to toss them based on prior art or obviousness or re-implement around them, so we won't show you."
There isn't a smoking gun, because all of MS's patents probably fall into a few groups:
Can be engineered around (either semi-painfully or trivially)
Have prior art (UNIX, XEROX PARC, and about a dozen smaller OSes all predate Windows)
Are obvious, and could be thrown out
Make MS a monopoly, and thus cause the EU and/or DOJ (ha) to have concerns.
That's why MS doesn't want to list them. They probably do have them, however.
there's a possibility SCO 'may run low or even completely out of cash during the process of trying to reorganize, We can only hope.
Actually, that's the last thing we want. If SCO goes Chaper 7 (gets dismantled) before Novell gets a ruling against it, then they've won a partial victory.
Right now, SCO hasn't yet been defeated completely in the courts. They're mortally wounded but still standing. SCO needs to be an instance where they're made brutal example of. The result can't be "SCO ran out of cash arguing its claims", but rather "SCO's claims were baseless and found so by the courts". Given the power of the spinmeisters, the issue isn't resolved until the Novell case and ideally the IBM case are decided against SCO.
Then there's the SCO execs themselves. Personally, I think that they need to be brought to justice for their perversion and mockery of the US judicial system, and also for their stock antics. People like Darl McBride have gotten rich off of this whole thing. I want their butts behind bars, or at least under suit for malpractice or whatever. If they can walk out profiting from riding SCO into the ground and attacking Linux, it'll just encourage other trolls.
SCO is using this bankruptcy time to spend their money in a way that either enriches them or enriches their partners. They're trying to steer their allies onto the bankruptcy committee, and giving huge bonuses to their execs, and hiring temps at exorbitant fees.
Finally, if they run out of money, they can't pay Novell and IBM anything. They owe Novell millions of dollars, with only the amount now in dispute. Essentially, this is Novell's money they're burning through, according to the Novell v. SCO judge. They probably owe IBM some money too on the counterclaims (if they ever get to them).
And you're quite wrong in stating that a copyright can't be purchased -- they can indeed be transferred, but that transfer needs to be explicit, and the APA didn't qualify.
(IANAL)
While you're correct that he's wrong and that a copyright is purchasable, the APA not only doesn't qualify as a copyright purchase, the APA itself specifically says that it did not include a transfer of copyright. It had a list of things that it did grant SCO (and copyright was not on that list at all) and a list of things it specifically DID NOT grant SCO (and the UNIX copyright was at the top of that list).
This has always been the retard thing about the "APA grants copyrights" claim - the APA would have to be wrong twice, and have had no-one notice for years. And if the APA actually sold SCO the copyrights, then it wouldn't have made SCO pay Novell the royalties it collected. So it's not a question of SCO saying there's a typo or misconstrual in the APA, but rather a dispute of every aspect of the APA.
The laptop currently costs $170ish to manufacture. The idea is that within a year or two, as orders pick up and they get more efficient at manufacturing, the price will drop to $100.
If the key in a player gets revoked, it is bricked (at least insofar as playing HD stuff) until the firmware is updated. To date, they'll only revoked software keys. hackers haven't tried to hit hardware keys because it's easier to get the software ones. If/when they revoke hardware keys, there may be a big mess. Or sheeple may just roll over...
What I meant to say was that the bottleneck is in the video card (I wrote that kind of fast). Even a sub-$150 processor in a new system will not be the bottleneck, whereas increasing video-card power is very helpful.
Skulltrail isn't a gaming system, it's a dual-socket graphics workstation. Intel would love to up-sell some idiot on it as a gaming station, but barring exotic set-ups (a personal Counter-Strike server in your basement), a dual-socket system is a workstation system. 2x quad-core processors with 2-4 graphics cards and 4GB+ of RAM is hitting $2500-3000.
Most of the work on a modern video game is in the video card. If you have a quad-core processor at >2GHz, you have the processor requirements for games handled for the next 2-3 years. And as you point out elsewhere, quad-SLI or quad-Crossfire is basically useless, as I'm paying 4x the price to get 2.6x the performance. So really, the only thing that's a "good" gaming platform is a single-socket SLI or Crossfire platform with DDR2, because that's the only way to build a performance system for under $2500, and in that field, Intel's Wolfdale and new high-end Motherboard are pretty solid.
No one disputes that downloading a song without the rights to it is copyright infringement. Noncommercial infringement (listening to a pirated song, etc.) is (or should be) different from commercial infringement. One person downloading songs to check them out is one thing, and using code illegally in a product you charge top dollar for is another. Arguing that one song is worth $3000 or so is crazy, but saying that illegitimately using Busybox in their product is worth money is another.
There's also a correlation argument. The correlation between downloaded MP3s and lost sales is likely pretty low. However, their product needs a Linux toolkit, so they would inevitably have used Busybox or the GNU toolchain.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be joking, but Heifer International isn't. They give animals to low income third-world areas, and when the animals mate, they pass some of the offspring on to other poor people. My grandparents donate a Flock of Ducks or Chicks from every grandchild in our family at Christmas.
All I was trying to say is that money counterfeiting charges are probably like automatic in those instances, especially with Secret Service involvement. For instance, possessing a certain threshold of drugs, or possessing them within a set distance of some landmarks (schools, for example) automatically gets you "intent to distribute" instead of straight possession. Similarly, if I stole a nuclear warhead, I'd be charged with attempted terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, regardless of what I claim my plans to have been.
That probably includes all the conspiracy stuff. If the Secret Service was involved, they probably thought he was trying to forge money, which is a serious federal felony.
Microsoft wants to own not only the console space, but also the STB space. In front, Microsoft wants to own the entire "computing" and "consumer electronics" markets.
Imagine this Microsoft Dream World: You use Windows at work, hear about a cool new show, and schedule the recording via your Windows Mobile smartphone, and come home to your XBox, which has recorded all of your TV shows to your Windows Home Server in the closet. You can fire up your Windows Media Center computer, and watch them from there or from the XBox, or sync them to your Zune to watch on the go.
Microsoft wants to compete with basically every technology company out there. Not necessarily unlike Apple. The goal that both companies have is domination of your computing lifestyle.
Not gonna happen. That'd essentially be advertising for the competition. As TPB is funded by advertisements on its torrent search pages, it doesn't want you watching video online, it wants you using its torrents.
Who said subscribers have two dedicated servers to read the main page? The article/summary says that two servers serve for ACs reading the main page, and 4 for logged-in users. I saw no subscriber/non-subscriber distinction.
Incorrect. 95/98/ME were not a part of the Windows NT family. It had been the workstation/server/professional Windows until the release of Windows 2000. NT started at version 3.1 to have version number parity with Windows 3.1.
Windows 2000 was NT 5.0
Windows XP was NT 5.1
Windows Server 2003 was NT 5.2
Vista is NT 6.0
Windows Server 2k8 and Vista SP1 will be like NT 6.1 or something.
Therefore the next Windows is NT 7.
Again, grow the hell up. It's really that much harder to do a Google search for 'The Daily Show' and following the first link as opposed to doing a search on YouTube for 'The Daily Show'? If you owned the content would you want YouTube raking in the ad dollars for something THAT YOU CREATED?
Actually, it's better than YouTube. It's got all the episodes, and I assume that they'll have some sort of method of ordering them or some kind of consistent naming. Especially with clip ratings and quality tagging, it'll be a lot easier to find the right episode on the official site than on YouTube, even assuming there's no take-down issues.
Cannibalizing record sales is well worth it if it increases concert attendance. If they can sell their shows to promoters for $150,000 instead of $125,000* 4-5 nights a week on tour for a few months, that's well worth it. Higher attendance also results in higher merch sales. At the concert, they'll sell a boatload of $30 T-shirts that cost them about $5 to make. That's where the real money is. That alone probably offsets the $1-2/CD they'd make through a record deal.
* = I haven't seen Radiohead's pricing, but it's almost certainly over $100k, and probably over $150k. I'd suspect it's under $250k, because only "super-hot, right now" bands can charge that most of the time.
Maybe not the firmware, but it does write over a lot of the software. That's why it's a 250 MB download - it's overwriting most of the libraries altogether (this is not uncommon on Macs, especially 3rd-party Macintosh applications, which often update themselves like this).
Note also that "jailbreak" and "unlock" are different. "Jailbreak" means "Can run third party userspace code" (generally 3rd party apps). By contrast, "unlock" means "Can use with a different carrier". Jailbreaks generally involve the software (the OS and things that run on it) and unlocks require access to the lower-level firmware that controls the radio components. The confusion arises because "firmware" can technically mean anything running on a piece of consumer electronics that's designed to be unmodified - note that many routers or set-top boxes run some brand of Linux (generally with a real-time patchset) but the entire package is generally considered firmware.
I looked at his user history. He has good karma and had several recent upmods. One bad comment does not a troll make. He's an enthusiastic new-ish user (based on UID, and number of posts with posting rate), and the comment in this thread was an honest question.
Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.
All true. Expecting Apple to support hacked models with new firmware is a bit silly. The iPhone updater completely re-flashes the iPod, and then re-adds the data from iTunes. So any update will at least wipe Apps, unless Apple does special work to preserve them.
But just as importantly, there's nothing saying you "have to" update the firmware. It's voluntary. Sure, you've got to if you want the bugfixes and new features, but that's hardly mandatory. Users can continue to use the 1.0.2 firmware for as long as they want to, or until there's some sort of iPhone virus out there.
Any exploit can be patched, but odds are good that there are at least dozens of exploits in mobileSafari. Once you run out of those, there's mobileMail, and the Wireless iTMS. Finally, you could clone the software on the iPhone, modify it on a computer, and impersonate iTunes to the iPhone and convince it to "update" off of that.
The difficulty with having a cracked image that you just copy back over after updates is that you would then lose the benefit of the updates. Hackers would have to update the changed libraries selectively. This is sort of what OSx86 does, and it results in an ugly patchwork of "half-1.1.1, half-1.0.2" software. It kinda works, but it can seriously compromise stability.
You can distribute a collection of programs (like Linux or BSD distro) under more than one license. The fact that Linux is GPLv2 doesn't mean that distros can't distribute GPLv3 stuff like the GNU toolchain or SAMBA or permissive stuff like Apache with it. In the case of file-systems, it's more complicated, and I don't fully understand the rules, but it's possible to have some sort of wrapper that's GPLv2 that interfaces directly with the kernel and then have file-system use that wrapper's public APIs or something. That might not be feasible for a file-system, but that's how they have some proprietary drivers in Linux.
Also, the difference between the various BSD kernels and the differing Linux kernels is that there is an "official" Linux kernel. There are plenty of modified version and patch-sets and whatever, but there's only one official Linux kernel release with a lead developer and official releases. By contrast, there is no official consensus default BSD kernel, only the various kernels the various BSD groups use.
Guys, that's an honest question from the new user! Don't slam on the Troll mod the second someone says GPL3 and Linux in the same post!
For the foreseeable future, Linux will be under the GPLv2 license. A lot of Linux code is only available under that license, and isn't forward compatible without developer permission. Given that many Linux devs either won't give permission or can't be located (died, stopped contributing, whatever), relicensing will be a major effort, even if leaders were so inclined. Basically, if Linux goes GPLv3, you'll hear about it at least 6 months in advance, and probably weekly during those 6 months if you read Slashdot.
The green-red-yellow is probably based on traffic lights in the US (and many other countries), which commonly use those colors. While it's not a decision targeted towards accessibility, it's one that should allow most users to partially understand the map easily.
There isn't a smoking gun, because all of MS's patents probably fall into a few groups:
That's why MS doesn't want to list them. They probably do have them, however.
Actually, that's the last thing we want. If SCO goes Chaper 7 (gets dismantled) before Novell gets a ruling against it, then they've won a partial victory.
Right now, SCO hasn't yet been defeated completely in the courts. They're mortally wounded but still standing. SCO needs to be an instance where they're made brutal example of. The result can't be "SCO ran out of cash arguing its claims", but rather "SCO's claims were baseless and found so by the courts". Given the power of the spinmeisters, the issue isn't resolved until the Novell case and ideally the IBM case are decided against SCO.
Then there's the SCO execs themselves. Personally, I think that they need to be brought to justice for their perversion and mockery of the US judicial system, and also for their stock antics. People like Darl McBride have gotten rich off of this whole thing. I want their butts behind bars, or at least under suit for malpractice or whatever. If they can walk out profiting from riding SCO into the ground and attacking Linux, it'll just encourage other trolls.
SCO is using this bankruptcy time to spend their money in a way that either enriches them or enriches their partners. They're trying to steer their allies onto the bankruptcy committee, and giving huge bonuses to their execs, and hiring temps at exorbitant fees.
Finally, if they run out of money, they can't pay Novell and IBM anything. They owe Novell millions of dollars, with only the amount now in dispute. Essentially, this is Novell's money they're burning through, according to the Novell v. SCO judge. They probably owe IBM some money too on the counterclaims (if they ever get to them).
(IANAL)
While you're correct that he's wrong and that a copyright is purchasable, the APA not only doesn't qualify as a copyright purchase, the APA itself specifically says that it did not include a transfer of copyright. It had a list of things that it did grant SCO (and copyright was not on that list at all) and a list of things it specifically DID NOT grant SCO (and the UNIX copyright was at the top of that list).
This has always been the retard thing about the "APA grants copyrights" claim - the APA would have to be wrong twice, and have had no-one notice for years. And if the APA actually sold SCO the copyrights, then it wouldn't have made SCO pay Novell the royalties it collected. So it's not a question of SCO saying there's a typo or misconstrual in the APA, but rather a dispute of every aspect of the APA.
The laptop currently costs $170ish to manufacture. The idea is that within a year or two, as orders pick up and they get more efficient at manufacturing, the price will drop to $100.
If the key in a player gets revoked, it is bricked (at least insofar as playing HD stuff) until the firmware is updated. To date, they'll only revoked software keys. hackers haven't tried to hit hardware keys because it's easier to get the software ones. If/when they revoke hardware keys, there may be a big mess. Or sheeple may just roll over...
It's not the GP's fault that Windows took 5 years to release a new version, or that Windows can't install those drivers and re-boot easily.
What I meant to say was that the bottleneck is in the video card (I wrote that kind of fast). Even a sub-$150 processor in a new system will not be the bottleneck, whereas increasing video-card power is very helpful.
Skulltrail isn't a gaming system, it's a dual-socket graphics workstation. Intel would love to up-sell some idiot on it as a gaming station, but barring exotic set-ups (a personal Counter-Strike server in your basement), a dual-socket system is a workstation system. 2x quad-core processors with 2-4 graphics cards and 4GB+ of RAM is hitting $2500-3000.
Most of the work on a modern video game is in the video card. If you have a quad-core processor at >2GHz, you have the processor requirements for games handled for the next 2-3 years. And as you point out elsewhere, quad-SLI or quad-Crossfire is basically useless, as I'm paying 4x the price to get 2.6x the performance. So really, the only thing that's a "good" gaming platform is a single-socket SLI or Crossfire platform with DDR2, because that's the only way to build a performance system for under $2500, and in that field, Intel's Wolfdale and new high-end Motherboard are pretty solid.
No one disputes that downloading a song without the rights to it is copyright infringement. Noncommercial infringement (listening to a pirated song, etc.) is (or should be) different from commercial infringement. One person downloading songs to check them out is one thing, and using code illegally in a product you charge top dollar for is another. Arguing that one song is worth $3000 or so is crazy, but saying that illegitimately using Busybox in their product is worth money is another.
There's also a correlation argument. The correlation between downloaded MP3s and lost sales is likely pretty low. However, their product needs a Linux toolkit, so they would inevitably have used Busybox or the GNU toolchain.