And if you can't convince your elderly uncle to buy your personal music player or girl scout cookies or what have you, then you have no business being in business.
Who says he has to buy it? What do you think Ballmer's giving his uncle when birthday time rolls around?
Mate, if a company I worked for made me a millionaire or a billionaire I'd love it too. I find it amusing these people have all that money but still have to suffer Windows at home.
If a company I worked for made me a millionaire / billionaire, I'd probably get more than one machine/OS at home. Why limit yourself to one when you can afford more than you could possibly fit in your home?
And if someone asked, "Why do you have (competitor's product) at home?", I would say it's "research".
(in case any of the boys from 5 are reading this, it's just a joke, fellas)
THIS is the kind of ambiguity that belongs on slashdot! You tell us you're in the UK, and then we can feel smart when we figure out you mean MI5. Without the hint, we just feel like idiots.
Yes, but you're forgetting the number of iPods that are sold because (a) there is a new "thief-proof" iPod (OMG! I just gotta have one!!!) and (b) I want to share my music with my (friend, spouse, child, etc.), but now only I can used this iPod.
Along with (b), you also get users "re-buying" the iTunes tracks they can't transfer.
I realize Slashdot caters to an international audience, and, therefore, submitters should make clear what country they refer to when discussing governments. However, Slashdot's parent company is based in the U.S., so I have to assume that the Home Secretary is part of the U.S. government. (I guess they've split a big bureaucratic department into two big bureaucratic departments at the taxpayer's expense again.)
Or perhaps we're expected to know the names of all obscure goverment officials worldwide.
So how did we ever get more than 0 transistors per square cm? Moore's law did not hold at that point.
Interesting article... but it supports my earlier claims.
After sixty years of devoted service, Moore's Law will die a dignified death no later than the year 2019. By that time, transistor features will be just a few atoms in width, and the strategy of ever finer photolithography will have run its course.
Moore's Law will cease to be true in a little over a decade.
100% of observed technological species seem to follow Moore's law. Further, expanding it to a more general form, ie "Technological development follows an exponential curve." is also valid for 100% of observed technological species.
You are completely wrong. The statement "Technological development follows an exponential curve." may be valid for some subset of "technology" for some period of time (i.e. for "# of transistors per square cm" during the period of 1965 to 2025 (just picking a random year in the future)), but it is demonstrably false if you say "for all technology" or "for all points in time".
For example, at what rate did transistor counts increase from 1492 to 1776? They did not exist, so the rate of change was 0. At what rate has the fuel efficiency of an average car changed over the last couple decades? See this article.
Why do computers in general need to get any faster these days?
For the same reason automakers don't build cars that last longer. If I could buy a (car / computer / OS) that would last me for decades, the vendor wouldn't see me (and my money) again for a looooong time. If nothing is ever obsolete, they can only sell you a new computer if yours breaks or gets stolen, or if your need expands (i.e. purchasing an additional computer so your child can have his / her own).
But I agree with your point. At this point, a computer that's a few years old running XP and semi-recent applications will be more than enough for the majority of the population. The problem comes when it breaks (physically or OS / software) or you need additional software. Where can you find parts and software for an "obsolete" machine?
Looks like it's happening already. Now we need someone to mod you up for your explaination.
A "scientific law" should be something that is universally true (everywhere in the universe, at any time past, present, or future) or very nearly so. Moore's "law" seems to be true on earth for the past few decades, but we have no basis for thinking it would be true anywhere else in the universe or that it will continue to hold true in the future.
Their corporation should have been disbanded, de-chartered, unincorporated, whatever it is called, all their stocks declared worthless and frozen out of the trading markets,
That would be quite unfortunate for all the people who own Microsoft stock... Or do you think the guy who bought a few shares as an investment is evil as well?
If you're a EU citizen, then bringing your concerns to your duly elected local or federal representative through a petition, a letter, or a manifestation; as well as by voting against people you don't agree with is the proper way to act. Not by posting flamebait on Slashdot.
That's funny... I always thought that open discussion of political views was an important part of the democratic process. Do you disagree with that, or do you disagree with having a discussion that includes non-EU citizens?
I've long said one way to make sure Microsoft behaves is to make it illegal for the company to break existing standards and protocols.
Interesting... Since Microsoft has a monopoly in certain areas (or very nearly so), perhaps it should be treated like the other "state-endorsed monopolies", utility companies. That is to say, they can continue to do business (because shutting them down would be nearly as disruptive as shutting down the power company), but the government heavily regulates what they can and cannot do.
(I'm not advocating it, but I think it's an interesting idea.)
Using a car as an analogy is has the exact same problem as using a gun. Leaving keys in your car is not an implied invitation for strangers to use it.
And who says is an open WAP an invitation to use it? It's generally assumed that "it's open because they want people to use it", but that doesn't mean you are invited.
Going back to your "front yard" analogy, the lack of a fence or a "no trespassing" sign does not constitute an invitation to use my property. Without any signs or fences to indicate differently, you should enter my property only on clear pathways (driveway and sidewalks) and attempt to contact me (ring the doorbell) as soon as possible. "Hanging around" in my yard would be considered trespassing. ("Keep off the grass, you crazy kids!")
Either leaving something "open / unsecured" is an invitation for anyone to use it or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
I would say there's reasonable doubt (which has nothing to do with the wireless network) unless they have his fingerprints on the CD's, and the CD's are also labeled (or if they found the pictures on his computer without him making a reasonable claim that the roommate frequently used his computer).
I believe the CD's were found in his room (which I would assume is his private space), so it's unlikely the roommate would put them there (unless he knew about the search and wanted to frame him). If the room is not locked, he could argue the roommate put them there, but it's up to the jury to decide if that's reasonable doubt.
In any event I would say that there is now probable cause to suspect the roommate, and the roommate deserves further investigation before the defendant is sentenced.
I would say that upon initial discovery that the roommate had access to the Internet through the same IP (via open WAP, secure WAP, wired network, whatever), the police would have probable cause for a search warrant of his room as well. The fact that they have not obtained a warrant yet is a huge oversight on their part. By now, the roommate has had plenty of time to get rid of any evidence of his illegal activities.
The gun is a poor analogy, as it is extremely rare that a gun is handed around to strangers.
OK, if you don't like that one, let's say a car. If the police could prove the criminal drove away in your car, they would certainly be looking at you and get appropriate search warrants. If they later discovered that (a) you always left your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and (b) you let your roommate and next door neighbors use the car to run errands whenever they needed to, then the use of the car would not be very strong evidence against you, but (according to this ruling), it would still be probable cause for the warrants.
Should finding a picture containing kiddie porn found on someones front lawn, be allowed as probable cause for searching the home?
I think this is going way too far the other way. It would be a stretch to assume that you put the picture there. It's just as likely that it fell out of a passing car and blew into your yard.
he's trying to get the case thrown out of court because he'd set up an unsecured Wifi, which his lawyer argued made it unlikely enough that it was him that the police should have walked away...
From what I read in TFA, it doesn't look like the police knew he had an open WAP until after they got the search warrant. I don't think they should be required to check this first.
Borrowing "the gun analogy" from a comment I just read... It's pretty clear that knowing the registered owner of a gun used in a crime is enough for a search warrant (even though it could have been used by someone else), so I would think that knowing the "registered owner" of an IP used to commit a crime would be similarly persuasive.
The summary makes it sound like just having a WAP is probable cause. That's like saying that owning a gun would be probable cause every time anyone gets shot. TFA makes it clear that a defendant's claim that "anyone could have used it" is no more acceptable an argument for an IP than it is for a gun once the police have traced the IP / gun to it's "registered owner". It might, however, be a good argument for getting an acquittal if the search does not produce any additional evidence since the burden of proof is much higher for a conviction than for a search warrant.
Not sure about Florida, but in many states, if a daycare, school, bus-stop, playground, mall, etc. is built near the home of a sex offender, then the sex offender has to move.
I see several major flaws with laws like this:
For a sex offender to find a home, he has to find the location of every daycare / school / playground. So he has to compile a "target list" for himself?
Either someone must notify a sex offender that a "new target" is moving to his neighborhood, or you cannot reasonably expect him to move when a daycare / school / playground opens near him.
(Although I am refering to a sex offender as "he" (for convenience / readability), I realize not all are male.)
For instance, poorly thought out legislation in Miami forces "sex offenders" (which can be a very broad term these days), to sleep under bridges because they literally cannot buy a home that is not in some form of restricted zone (too close to a daycare, school, playground, mall, etc...).
Interesting... but does the law work the other way? Is it illegal to build a daycare, school, playground, mall, etc. near the home of a sex offender?
I guess Microsoft doesn't want these schools to teach any programming classes.
Of course not! All programming should be either: (a) done by Microsoft employees, or (b) done by a company that pays Microsoft large amounts of money in licensing fees. If people are allowed to create their own software, the world will come to an end!
Or was that just Microsoft's world that would come to an end?
This is a flawed analogy. A more accurate one would be "You shouldn't allow the user to empty the oil, it should only be allowed by authorized Ford service agents." That's basically what the folks who are blaming MS want.
What are you talking about? I think what the parent post is saying is, "For a potentially dangerous activity, an engineer should ensure that the end-user cannot: (a) do it by accident, (b) confuse it with another non-dangerous activity, or (c) be easily fooled into doing it." His analogy makes perfect sense to me. Certainly there can be parts that are not "user-serviceable", but there always should be a clear distinction between "operating" (driving the car / running applications) and "servicing" (changing oil / installing and configuring applications). If this distinction is not maintained, how can an user be expected to know which things are routine and which are potentially dangerous?
Do these zombies help their bottom line, or is it less costly to keep them on the network to avoid fielding customer service calls?
I don't think the zombies help the bottom line except to the extent that each zombie is also a paying customer. Now, if the ISPs were required to give all customers the bandwidth they advertise, the zombies would start costing them money because they use as much as possible. Currently, bandwidth they use is just taken away from "the shared pipe".
(Yes, I realize DSL is not a "shared pipe" like cable, but at some point upstream it is.)
Now PJ can file a civil claim and try to get what little is left of SCO.
Out of curiosity, what do you imagine that she would do with a smoking hole in the ground?
Withdraw the lawsuits, fire the lawyers, sell off whatever assets SCO might have to pay off its debts, and get elected as Supreme Ruler of the World (due to overwhelming voter turnout from slashdotters).
Slashdot Mirror
Who says he has to buy it? What do you think Ballmer's giving his uncle when birthday time rolls around?
If a company I worked for made me a millionaire / billionaire, I'd probably get more than one machine/OS at home. Why limit yourself to one when you can afford more than you could possibly fit in your home?
And if someone asked, "Why do you have (competitor's product) at home?", I would say it's "research".
THIS is the kind of ambiguity that belongs on slashdot! You tell us you're in the UK, and then we can feel smart when we figure out you mean MI5. Without the hint, we just feel like idiots.
Yes, but you're forgetting the number of iPods that are sold because (a) there is a new "thief-proof" iPod (OMG! I just gotta have one!!!) and (b) I want to share my music with my (friend, spouse, child, etc.), but now only I can used this iPod.
Along with (b), you also get users "re-buying" the iTunes tracks they can't transfer.
I realize Slashdot caters to an international audience, and, therefore, submitters should make clear what country they refer to when discussing governments. However, Slashdot's parent company is based in the U.S., so I have to assume that the Home Secretary is part of the U.S. government. (I guess they've split a big bureaucratic department into two big bureaucratic departments at the taxpayer's expense again.)
Or perhaps we're expected to know the names of all obscure goverment officials worldwide.
So how did we ever get more than 0 transistors per square cm? Moore's law did not hold at that point.
Interesting article... but it supports my earlier claims.
Moore's Law will cease to be true in a little over a decade.
You are completely wrong. The statement "Technological development follows an exponential curve." may be valid for some subset of "technology" for some period of time (i.e. for "# of transistors per square cm" during the period of 1965 to 2025 (just picking a random year in the future)), but it is demonstrably false if you say "for all technology" or "for all points in time".
For example, at what rate did transistor counts increase from 1492 to 1776? They did not exist, so the rate of change was 0. At what rate has the fuel efficiency of an average car changed over the last couple decades? See this article.
Is that more or less than billion with a small b?
For the same reason automakers don't build cars that last longer. If I could buy a (car / computer / OS) that would last me for decades, the vendor wouldn't see me (and my money) again for a looooong time. If nothing is ever obsolete, they can only sell you a new computer if yours breaks or gets stolen, or if your need expands (i.e. purchasing an additional computer so your child can have his / her own).
But I agree with your point. At this point, a computer that's a few years old running XP and semi-recent applications will be more than enough for the majority of the population. The problem comes when it breaks (physically or OS / software) or you need additional software. Where can you find parts and software for an "obsolete" machine?
Looks like it's happening already. Now we need someone to mod you up for your explaination.
A "scientific law" should be something that is universally true (everywhere in the universe, at any time past, present, or future) or very nearly so. Moore's "law" seems to be true on earth for the past few decades, but we have no basis for thinking it would be true anywhere else in the universe or that it will continue to hold true in the future.
That would be quite unfortunate for all the people who own Microsoft stock... Or do you think the guy who bought a few shares as an investment is evil as well?
That's funny... I always thought that open discussion of political views was an important part of the democratic process. Do you disagree with that, or do you disagree with having a discussion that includes non-EU citizens?
Interesting... Since Microsoft has a monopoly in certain areas (or very nearly so), perhaps it should be treated like the other "state-endorsed monopolies", utility companies. That is to say, they can continue to do business (because shutting them down would be nearly as disruptive as shutting down the power company), but the government heavily regulates what they can and cannot do.
(I'm not advocating it, but I think it's an interesting idea.)
And who says is an open WAP an invitation to use it? It's generally assumed that "it's open because they want people to use it", but that doesn't mean you are invited.
Going back to your "front yard" analogy, the lack of a fence or a "no trespassing" sign does not constitute an invitation to use my property. Without any signs or fences to indicate differently, you should enter my property only on clear pathways (driveway and sidewalks) and attempt to contact me (ring the doorbell) as soon as possible. "Hanging around" in my yard would be considered trespassing. ("Keep off the grass, you crazy kids!")
Either leaving something "open / unsecured" is an invitation for anyone to use it or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
I believe the CD's were found in his room (which I would assume is his private space), so it's unlikely the roommate would put them there (unless he knew about the search and wanted to frame him). If the room is not locked, he could argue the roommate put them there, but it's up to the jury to decide if that's reasonable doubt.
I would say that upon initial discovery that the roommate had access to the Internet through the same IP (via open WAP, secure WAP, wired network, whatever), the police would have probable cause for a search warrant of his room as well. The fact that they have not obtained a warrant yet is a huge oversight on their part. By now, the roommate has had plenty of time to get rid of any evidence of his illegal activities.
OK, if you don't like that one, let's say a car. If the police could prove the criminal drove away in your car, they would certainly be looking at you and get appropriate search warrants. If they later discovered that (a) you always left your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and (b) you let your roommate and next door neighbors use the car to run errands whenever they needed to, then the use of the car would not be very strong evidence against you, but (according to this ruling), it would still be probable cause for the warrants.
I think this is going way too far the other way. It would be a stretch to assume that you put the picture there. It's just as likely that it fell out of a passing car and blew into your yard.
From what I read in TFA, it doesn't look like the police knew he had an open WAP until after they got the search warrant. I don't think they should be required to check this first.
Borrowing "the gun analogy" from a comment I just read... It's pretty clear that knowing the registered owner of a gun used in a crime is enough for a search warrant (even though it could have been used by someone else), so I would think that knowing the "registered owner" of an IP used to commit a crime would be similarly persuasive.
The summary makes it sound like just having a WAP is probable cause. That's like saying that owning a gun would be probable cause every time anyone gets shot. TFA makes it clear that a defendant's claim that "anyone could have used it" is no more acceptable an argument for an IP than it is for a gun once the police have traced the IP / gun to it's "registered owner". It might, however, be a good argument for getting an acquittal if the search does not produce any additional evidence since the burden of proof is much higher for a conviction than for a search warrant.
(Although I am refering to a sex offender as "he" (for convenience / readability), I realize not all are male.)
Interesting... but does the law work the other way? Is it illegal to build a daycare, school, playground, mall, etc. near the home of a sex offender?
Of course not! All programming should be either: (a) done by Microsoft employees, or (b) done by a company that pays Microsoft large amounts of money in licensing fees. If people are allowed to create their own software, the world will come to an end!
Or was that just Microsoft's world that would come to an end?
Are you sure about that? From what I've seen, any two of the three will do.
What are you talking about? I think what the parent post is saying is, "For a potentially dangerous activity, an engineer should ensure that the end-user cannot: (a) do it by accident, (b) confuse it with another non-dangerous activity, or (c) be easily fooled into doing it." His analogy makes perfect sense to me. Certainly there can be parts that are not "user-serviceable", but there always should be a clear distinction between "operating" (driving the car / running applications) and "servicing" (changing oil / installing and configuring applications). If this distinction is not maintained, how can an user be expected to know which things are routine and which are potentially dangerous?
I don't think the zombies help the bottom line except to the extent that each zombie is also a paying customer. Now, if the ISPs were required to give all customers the bandwidth they advertise, the zombies would start costing them money because they use as much as possible. Currently, bandwidth they use is just taken away from "the shared pipe".
(Yes, I realize DSL is not a "shared pipe" like cable, but at some point upstream it is.)
I was worried no one would get that.
And now I must say, "So long... and thanks for all the fish!"
Withdraw the lawsuits, fire the lawyers, sell off whatever assets SCO might have to pay off its debts, and get elected as Supreme Ruler of the World (due to overwhelming voter turnout from slashdotters).