What reference is the Constitution permitted people to be sold as property? What specifically did they say was the constitutional clause that granted States the right to sell another human being as property (albeit those with black skin)? And how could a black person be free in any State that allowed people to be sold as property? Either they are people or they are property. That in and of itself is the real moral issue. We let the SCOTUS decide on a law that wasn't really legal--and that was their responsibility. They were wrong on all counts.
Aside from Time just being another news magazine with demonstrable shortcomings in good common sense over the years, I just can't come to agree with their choice.
Though the Wikileaks guy has been harassed and harangued by the authorities these past months at least he's kept to his plan and released information that the public must learn about in order to make informed decisions about who our leaders need to be. For me, that's a lot more important than whether a social networking site has an impact on our daily lives.
Have these two deniers stated whether they are under NDA still? Why would they admit to it when doing so would brand them?
Even though I think it is tough to miss something like that in the code it is still possible. Everyone should look to ensure that removal is performed.
If they could do that then they'd do it in Windows. Windows is closed source and easily altered. If it is verified in BSD you can be guaranteed it's in Windows.
Though this is likely true (that the code is there), it is difficult for me to see them having the programming skills back then to write something so sophisticated that it would go undetected for over a decade.
Yeah. In the US, T-Mobile and AT&T are just a couple that use simcards. Verison is one that doesn't.
The reason I mentioned my point about taking a cheap cell and using its' simcard is because I already have the cheap cell phone ($24.99 at Walmart & it uses prepaid cards) with a simcard that I can use in my iPhone.
I will likely have to keep the phone in order to redeem more cards, but you never know.
And, I paid big money for that iPhone over nearly 3 years of paying over $100 a month. And, it's only in as good a shape as it is because I took care of it.
Copyright is a legal concept designed to protect one's intellectual property. Apple wasn't defending their intellectual property, they were defending their business practice which isn't covered by copyright.
He never said he was worried about them preventing, rather he said it was none of their business and that they shouldn't even be looking. To me it means that it's a breach of privacy and of good faith.
The implication was that Apple removed it for whatever reason (most likely to protect themselves), yet program authors could look anyway using their own methodology. That implies they can and will. Making the determination of whether a phone is jailbroken is not their business.
I recently ceased my AT&T relationship after having an iPhone for nearly 3 years. Later I realized that I could take a simcard out of a cheap pay as you go cell phone, and that if I unlocked it I could use it on that carrier, albeit with limits. So, yes, some would. My 1st gen iPhone works perfectly (except battery life issues) and if I can make use of it at significantly (and I do mean significant) reduced cost I will.
The original iPhone warranty was 9 months. When I had to get my iPhone replaced Apple claimed a 9 month warranty. Because of the nature of the problem with the phone (dead areas on the screen) and due to the fact that Apple had know of the issue before manufacture they replaced it free of charge.
So, I get the "9 months" because that's what Apple told me the warranty was back then.
I think it could be argued that by undoing a jailbreak would put Apple (or any entity doing so) in legal peril. What technically is being said is that since it is legal to jailbreak it would be illegal to violate the integrity of the device, which the DMCA exemption clearly identifies as the consumer's property.
Actually there's plenty of case-law that says that modification must be significant enough to have cause the damage resulting in the need to have the warranty honored.
So, technically, Apple has no grounds to claim loss of warranty when the modification wasn't significant enough to cause the type of damage that would cause the consumer to invoke the warranty.
And, in case you didn't know it, the warranty on those Apple devices is 9 months (at least for the iPhone). That's shorter than most in the electronics field.
That's a bullshit response, and I have to call it.
Common sense says that it is your device and you do to it what you will once you own it. The vast majority of people feel that way too. Just imagine the automotive industry locking down their vehicles and claiming no one can perform maintenance or modification outside of their purview.
We are not just the customer, we are the owner of the device. We "were" a customer but we became the owner once the transaction was complete. I am not renting the phone/ipod/ipad, I am buying it by trading my money in exchange.
That's my thought too. Developers should not be looking at my phone for any purpose other than running programs. What I do outside their tiny little sandbox is none of their business.
I believe you could already legally unlock your phone.
You probably don't understand the intent of the DMCA. The purpose of it was to stop copyright infringement. It was never intended as a lock to protect a company's business practices. In fact, the write up from the Library of Congress specifically targetted that fact--that Apple had submitted their oral and written opposition asserting their attempts to protect their business model. The Library of Congress concluded that to mean that Apple wasn't really trying to protect the right's holder's copyright, instead they were trying to protect their business model.
This is what the Register (Library of Congress) stated (taken from the Ars Technica write-up):
"Apple is not concerned that the practice of jailbreaking will displace sales of its firmware or of iPhones," wrote the Register, explaining her thinking by running through the "four factors" of the fair use test. "Indeed, since one cannot engage in that practice unless one has acquired an iPhone, it would be difficult to make that argument. Rather, the harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation. Apple is concerned that jailbreaking will breach the integrity of the iPhone's ecosystem. The Register concludes that such alleged adverse effects are not in the nature of the harm that the fourth fair use factor is intended to address."
Copyright protection is granted to protect the rights holder from illegal distribution of their content and not to prohibit owners of the hardware from doing other things with it once they own it.
I think you'll see navigation change from the mouse to a device similar in concept to the Kinect. I bought one not to use with my XBOX360 but to use when the configuration is thoroughly vetted in Linux.
Most of the computers I have run Linux, even those that are entitled to a license of WinXP and Vista. My phone system runs Linux. It runs Trixbox and integrates with Google Voice and Sipgate. My entertainment system runs Linux attached to a 47" LCD TV. On it I have Ubuntu and XBMC installed. My Pogoplug V2 runs Linux. I use it as my primary UPNP server (even my XBMC sees it as a UPNP device while XBMC itself also operates as a UPNP device), as well as sharing files on the internet . Both my XBOX360 and my PS3 connect to the Pogoplug. My phone runs Android which is Linux. My GPS runs Linux. My servers in the back all run Linux. My diagnostic workstations run Linux and are used to clean viruses, test hardware, back up and restore data.
Linux at no time has ever tried to conquer the desktop. Linux has undertaken the goal of becoming a premier alternative to Windows. And there are reasons no one has been able to capture more than a few percent of the desktop market. The primary reason is that Microsoft is a monopolist. They earned this in a not so honest way. In fact, they were ruled a monopolist that used criminal monopolistic predatory practices to get there.
What Linux has done is become the heart of an endless array of devices. As well, Linux has roughly 5% of the market for desktop use, more than 90% of the super computer market, and over 50% of the server market.
I think you have no idea what Linux has accomplished in the past 5 years. Nearly 100 million people world-wide use desktop Linux. That equates to 1/3 the population of the US.
This is the same argument regarding software updates. They can update their software all they want, but it doesn't mean that updating is necessary nor should it always be done.
Aside from the levity I don't think anything you said about Microsoft or Linux has any meaning. Linux has never declared it would have a year of the desktop (random commenter posts have granted you that bit of fodder, not industry proclamations). And, Microsoft will continue for some decades after it looses it's monopoly position.
As far as the predicted 18 months go, well, that's about as corny a statement as could be made and I doubt anyone with an ounce of common sense would believe that.
We have desktops for a reason and we have phones for a reason. Tablets and phones are limited use devices and are severely limited at performing the tasks of the desktop. If you believe otherwise you don't really use your desktop as anything more than a mechanism to play games or simple communication. To the vast majority of the world the desktop is a sophisticated tool capable of things that put the smart-phones to shame.
The installed base argument has some merits while the argument about selling more units really has none. That's like saying the bicycle market will overtake the automotive market because more bicycles are sold. The entrenched base of installs has very limited applicability. PCs are designed to last significantly longer than a phone. Phones get beat up more. Phones have a life expectancy of around 2 years while the PC is expected to be 5+ years. Phones are useful only while on a contract, whereas the PC can be used without one. PC applications are significantly more robust and productive. The costs to operate a phone under contract is significantly higher than a PC (it doesn't have a contract). 3 years of contract for a cell phone at $100 a month equates to nearly $4,000 (including phone cost), whereas a PC can run out of the box and be productive with open source software.
How can anyone believe the utter nonsense being bantered about? There are more important things for us to put our minds around instead of debating while waiting to see if PCs have a limited life as a driving force in the home and business.
It's utter nonsense to conceive what the author postulated as being even remotely correct.
Slashdot Mirror
What reference is the Constitution permitted people to be sold as property? What specifically did they say was the constitutional clause that granted States the right to sell another human being as property (albeit those with black skin)? And how could a black person be free in any State that allowed people to be sold as property? Either they are people or they are property. That in and of itself is the real moral issue. We let the SCOTUS decide on a law that wasn't really legal--and that was their responsibility. They were wrong on all counts.
Aside from Time just being another news magazine with demonstrable shortcomings in good common sense over the years, I just can't come to agree with their choice.
Though the Wikileaks guy has been harassed and harangued by the authorities these past months at least he's kept to his plan and released information that the public must learn about in order to make informed decisions about who our leaders need to be. For me, that's a lot more important than whether a social networking site has an impact on our daily lives.
Way to go Time!
Have these two deniers stated whether they are under NDA still? Why would they admit to it when doing so would brand them?
Even though I think it is tough to miss something like that in the code it is still possible. Everyone should look to ensure that removal is performed.
If they could do that then they'd do it in Windows. Windows is closed source and easily altered. If it is verified in BSD you can be guaranteed it's in Windows.
Though this is likely true (that the code is there), it is difficult for me to see them having the programming skills back then to write something so sophisticated that it would go undetected for over a decade.
Why was the "leaker" under NDA to begin with?
I thought it was very creative. Just what aggressive young women are looking for these days.
Yeah. In the US, T-Mobile and AT&T are just a couple that use simcards. Verison is one that doesn't.
The reason I mentioned my point about taking a cheap cell and using its' simcard is because I already have the cheap cell phone ($24.99 at Walmart & it uses prepaid cards) with a simcard that I can use in my iPhone.
I will likely have to keep the phone in order to redeem more cards, but you never know.
And, I paid big money for that iPhone over nearly 3 years of paying over $100 a month. And, it's only in as good a shape as it is because I took care of it.
That still doesn't void the warranty. It just means that OEM wouldn't be obligated to provide technical support.
Business model patents are as onerous as software patents.
You need to reread, and to do so carefully.
Copyright is a legal concept designed to protect one's intellectual property. Apple wasn't defending their intellectual property, they were defending their business practice which isn't covered by copyright.
He never said he was worried about them preventing, rather he said it was none of their business and that they shouldn't even be looking. To me it means that it's a breach of privacy and of good faith.
The implication was that Apple removed it for whatever reason (most likely to protect themselves), yet program authors could look anyway using their own methodology. That implies they can and will. Making the determination of whether a phone is jailbroken is not their business.
I recently ceased my AT&T relationship after having an iPhone for nearly 3 years. Later I realized that I could take a simcard out of a cheap pay as you go cell phone, and that if I unlocked it I could use it on that carrier, albeit with limits. So, yes, some would. My 1st gen iPhone works perfectly (except battery life issues) and if I can make use of it at significantly (and I do mean significant) reduced cost I will.
The original iPhone warranty was 9 months. When I had to get my iPhone replaced Apple claimed a 9 month warranty. Because of the nature of the problem with the phone (dead areas on the screen) and due to the fact that Apple had know of the issue before manufacture they replaced it free of charge.
So, I get the "9 months" because that's what Apple told me the warranty was back then.
I think it could be argued that by undoing a jailbreak would put Apple (or any entity doing so) in legal peril. What technically is being said is that since it is legal to jailbreak it would be illegal to violate the integrity of the device, which the DMCA exemption clearly identifies as the consumer's property.
Actually there's plenty of case-law that says that modification must be significant enough to have cause the damage resulting in the need to have the warranty honored.
So, technically, Apple has no grounds to claim loss of warranty when the modification wasn't significant enough to cause the type of damage that would cause the consumer to invoke the warranty.
And, in case you didn't know it, the warranty on those Apple devices is 9 months (at least for the iPhone). That's shorter than most in the electronics field.
That's a bullshit response, and I have to call it.
Common sense says that it is your device and you do to it what you will once you own it. The vast majority of people feel that way too. Just imagine the automotive industry locking down their vehicles and claiming no one can perform maintenance or modification outside of their purview.
We are not just the customer, we are the owner of the device. We "were" a customer but we became the owner once the transaction was complete. I am not renting the phone/ipod/ipad, I am buying it by trading my money in exchange.
That's my thought too. Developers should not be looking at my phone for any purpose other than running programs. What I do outside their tiny little sandbox is none of their business.
I believe you could already legally unlock your phone.
You probably don't understand the intent of the DMCA. The purpose of it was to stop copyright infringement. It was never intended as a lock to protect a company's business practices. In fact, the write up from the Library of Congress specifically targetted that fact--that Apple had submitted their oral and written opposition asserting their attempts to protect their business model. The Library of Congress concluded that to mean that Apple wasn't really trying to protect the right's holder's copyright, instead they were trying to protect their business model.
This is what the Register (Library of Congress) stated (taken from the Ars Technica write-up):
"Apple is not concerned that the practice of jailbreaking will displace sales of its firmware or of iPhones," wrote the Register, explaining her thinking by running through the "four factors" of the fair use test. "Indeed, since one cannot engage in that practice unless one has acquired an iPhone, it would be difficult to make that argument. Rather, the harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation. Apple is concerned that jailbreaking will breach the integrity of the iPhone's ecosystem. The Register concludes that such alleged adverse effects are not in the nature of the harm that the fourth fair use factor is intended to address."
Copyright protection is granted to protect the rights holder from illegal distribution of their content and not to prohibit owners of the hardware from doing other things with it once they own it.
So the offshoot office app from KDE changes it's name and someone thinks that it's the end of KDE? How ridiculously stupid an idea is that. Sheesh.
I think you'll see navigation change from the mouse to a device similar in concept to the Kinect. I bought one not to use with my XBOX360 but to use when the configuration is thoroughly vetted in Linux.
Most of the computers I have run Linux, even those that are entitled to a license of WinXP and Vista. My phone system runs Linux. It runs Trixbox and integrates with Google Voice and Sipgate. My entertainment system runs Linux attached to a 47" LCD TV. On it I have Ubuntu and XBMC installed. My Pogoplug V2 runs Linux. I use it as my primary UPNP server (even my XBMC sees it as a UPNP device while XBMC itself also operates as a UPNP device), as well as sharing files on the internet . Both my XBOX360 and my PS3 connect to the Pogoplug. My phone runs Android which is Linux. My GPS runs Linux. My servers in the back all run Linux. My diagnostic workstations run Linux and are used to clean viruses, test hardware, back up and restore data.
Hear hear. Bout time someone said it like it is.
Linux at no time has ever tried to conquer the desktop. Linux has undertaken the goal of becoming a premier alternative to Windows. And there are reasons no one has been able to capture more than a few percent of the desktop market. The primary reason is that Microsoft is a monopolist. They earned this in a not so honest way. In fact, they were ruled a monopolist that used criminal monopolistic predatory practices to get there.
What Linux has done is become the heart of an endless array of devices. As well, Linux has roughly 5% of the market for desktop use, more than 90% of the super computer market, and over 50% of the server market.
I think you have no idea what Linux has accomplished in the past 5 years. Nearly 100 million people world-wide use desktop Linux. That equates to 1/3 the population of the US.
This is the same argument regarding software updates. They can update their software all they want, but it doesn't mean that updating is necessary nor should it always be done.
I think in Apple's case the newer iPods were opened to discover that much of the iPhone internals were there.
Aside from the levity I don't think anything you said about Microsoft or Linux has any meaning. Linux has never declared it would have a year of the desktop (random commenter posts have granted you that bit of fodder, not industry proclamations). And, Microsoft will continue for some decades after it looses it's monopoly position.
As far as the predicted 18 months go, well, that's about as corny a statement as could be made and I doubt anyone with an ounce of common sense would believe that.
We have desktops for a reason and we have phones for a reason. Tablets and phones are limited use devices and are severely limited at performing the tasks of the desktop. If you believe otherwise you don't really use your desktop as anything more than a mechanism to play games or simple communication. To the vast majority of the world the desktop is a sophisticated tool capable of things that put the smart-phones to shame.
The installed base argument has some merits while the argument about selling more units really has none. That's like saying the bicycle market will overtake the automotive market because more bicycles are sold. The entrenched base of installs has very limited applicability. PCs are designed to last significantly longer than a phone. Phones get beat up more. Phones have a life expectancy of around 2 years while the PC is expected to be 5+ years. Phones are useful only while on a contract, whereas the PC can be used without one. PC applications are significantly more robust and productive. The costs to operate a phone under contract is significantly higher than a PC (it doesn't have a contract). 3 years of contract for a cell phone at $100 a month equates to nearly $4,000 (including phone cost), whereas a PC can run out of the box and be productive with open source software.
How can anyone believe the utter nonsense being bantered about? There are more important things for us to put our minds around instead of debating while waiting to see if PCs have a limited life as a driving force in the home and business.
It's utter nonsense to conceive what the author postulated as being even remotely correct.
Once someone puts up a political view on one of these websites it puts the government in a position of censoring that.