I suppose that you missed the second link in the summary that pointed to an update on the event, which mentioned the name of the journalist (Don Sambandaraska). It also stated that he and some other journalists refused to sign the NDA but were still allowed to attend. On day 2, they were asked to sign another NDA, which had a clause that seemed like a reworded version of the first. He then walked out. At that page, there's a link to Don Sambandaraksa's report on the matter, which has this tidbit: "Update: AMD issued an apology a week later saying the incident was a misunderstanding among certain local staff and that it is not, and has never been, AMD policy to vet the stories of tier-1 publications prior to publication."
At that point, the cop and the store had every reason to believe he was shoplifting and every right to detain him.
That's like refusing to let a cop search your trunk after being pulled over for a busted tail light and then citing probable cause because you refused the search.
I've been thought to be suspicious too and have been questioned. Why? My friend was standing on my car to make sure that his brother and his friend were picked up before we left the lot. After being threatened with a chase down, questioned (and being told that they didn't believe that it was my car), and finally let go (by mall security and management), they shouted obscenities at us. We were both minors. I respect authority but I have no respect for those that abuse it and applaud those who fight abuse. I knew that we weren't doing anything wrong, but by your view, if we just hopped into my car and left, you apparently believe that we should've been arrested.
They could take periodic memory dumps and let the MPAA hire people to figure out where the IP addresses are. If they have to explicitly start logging connections, then they're being forced to create new data.
Nope, they just toss you into Bulk Mail if they haven't seen your mail servers before, even if your organization applies for feedback loop
That's interesting. As I said, I haven't had to deal with Hotmail before (either our clients haven't noticed that e-mail to Hotmail isn't working or the list wasn't large enough to automatically get flagged). Is that policy only for bulk message deliveries or does every new domain get trapped at first? I assume that the only counter measure would be to ask the recipients of your mailing lists to unflag the message when the first one arrives.
SPF doesn't tell you that e-mail is not spam. What it does do is tell you if something is spam. It can nearly rid us of the spam botnet problem, if it's used by everyone. (The soft failure provision is crap though.)
Hotmail, AOL, and other large e-mail providers will start filtering out your e-mail if a certain number of their members mark your e-mail as spam (which many seem to use instead of the delete button). Your SPF records won't save you from that. If you send to a sufficiently large e-mail base, you'll get tagged quickly. I haven't had to deal with any Hotmail delivery issues for any of our 100 or so clients, but we deal with AOL frequently. We just get them on the white list and setup a feedback loop and the problem goes away. If you're going to start a mailing list, it would be prudent to contact the big carriers beforehand. Oh yeah, don't forget to get PTR records that match the A records of the mail hubs. Also make sure that the mail hubs announce themselves using their associated FQDN's.
If you don't notice it, does it really matter? It doesn't threaten personal safety like a person walking into your home because the door was left open. If someone just randomly walked into my house, the first thought in my head isn't, "Oh no, don't take my TV!" I'm not sure if anyone would get "creeped out" if she found that the someone was connecting to her AP. Someone who uses your Wi-Fi is much less of a threat than someone who's sniffing your unencrypted traffic (which can be used to obtain things like e-mail passwords, which are usually unencrypted). I think that they're prosecuting the wrong people.
My boss just e-mails me and then calls me about what he wrote in the e-mail. Alternatively, he'll call my cell phone twice, my home phone, and then my cell phone again before leaving voicemail asking me to call him, but the voicemail doesn't provide any information on what he's calling me about (which is annoying because Verizon's voicemail system is painful to use). Sometimes I'll get e-mail that's just as informative as his voicemail. It could be a server that's on fire or he has another Excel question, but I have no way of knowing which it is until I call him back. If he does reach me (it's not like I'm unreachable, but people do go to the bathroom, take showers, go to the movies, and need sleep:-/ ), it's usually something that would've been covered better in e-mail. E-mail would also prevent him from mangling my explanation when he repeats it to the client. Proper use of any medium would be nice.
I agree that teacher's salaries are too low--at least to start and certainly in certain neighborhoods. I have done some computer work within the walls of under performing schools and I got to listen to some lessons at those schools. For example, I was in an elementary school class where the teacher yelled at her students and spoke in broken English! Sure, most gifted students deserve better than what they're getting, but those poor kids in those schools definitely deserve a hell of a lot better than the teachers they were given. I'd rather see the money go to getting rid of incompetent teachers and hiring competent ones first.
On the other hand I personally think that using IQ test scores for that purpose is wrong, and agree that it should be based on actual performance in the classroom.
The problem seems to just repeat itself if a gifted student isn't put into the right environment. The best solution right now is entirely dependent upon the teachers to recognize the abilities of their students and to find out what's keeping them from performing to their potentials. The teachers also need the resources to do be able to help their students, whether it means getting help for a student that's being abused at home (some academic performance issues are emotional as opposed to intellectual), bullied in school (boxing classes!), bored in class (accelerated programs), or can't keep up in class (extra help centers). I really don't think that any scientific method of placement will ever surpass an acutely aware and caring teacher with the resources to help his students in whatever manner they need it.
This reminds me a bit of NetWare. SERVER.EXE was launched from DOS, but DOS was really only used as a boot loader. SERVER.EXE probably used some DOS function calls to setup its hooks, but DOS could be removed from memory using the "remove DOS" command (or "secure console" in later versions). Some specialty software could interact with DOS even after NetWare was loaded (which is why removing DOS was recommended for more security). Using Linux and insmod probably makes it easier to load vmkernel, which might then position itself below the already running Linux kernel. (It's just a theory. I am not a kernel developer.)
Reasons not to use IIS: * You don't already have a Windows license * You don't have any code that requires IIS * You need functionality in Apache that doesn't exist in IIS * You already know Apache
Reasons not to use Apache: * You already have a Windows license * You have code that requires IIS * You need functionality in IIS that doesn't exist in Apache + other application stack * You already know IIS * The one time that you tried to edit a config file, you got trapped in VIM, deleted a bunch of lines, duplicated others, and kept entering and exiting recording mode
Reasons to host your own web site: * You need to install options that aren't available through shared hosting and the security/cost balance of dedicated hosting tips in favor of cost * You need to have more control over your up time and have the resources to keep it secure
Reasons not to host your own web site: * You don't want to waste space by having a low load web server * You don't want to waste power by having a low load web server * You don't want to share a production system with a web server * You don't know how to maintain availability of a high load web server * You don't keep up to date with security trends and vulnerabilities * You don't check your logs and perform regular audits for security breaches * You don't know how to react to an attack * You don't know how to detect an intrusion * You don't know how to recover from an intrusion
Having an investment in a Windows infrastructure has little to do with your choice of web server. There are other factors that may rely upon that Windows infrastructure but I think that I already covered those. Your argument is for general web site hosting anyway. Most companies don't have the resources or expertise to properly maintain a web server. If you're going to neglect your web server, just pay the $20/mo (or less including domain name registration) for hosting and be done with it. That's only a $1200 investment over the course of 5 years. It's probably cheaper than recovering from a single security hit. Let someone else worry about that stuff.
Oh yeah... reasons to use the preview button: * To avoid posting a giant paragraph when you meant to use plain old text (sorry about the double submission)
Reasons not to use IIS:
* You don't already have a Windows license
* You don't have any code that requires IIS
* You need functionality in Apache that doesn't exist in IIS
* You already know Apache
Reasons not to use Apache:
* You already have a Windows license
* You have code that requires IIS
* You need functionality in IIS that doesn't exist in Apache + other application stack
* You already know IIS
* The one time that you tried to edit a config file, you got trapped in VIM, deleted a bunch of lines, duplicated others, and kept entering and exiting recording mode
Reasons to host your own web site:
* You need to install options that aren't available through shared hosting and the security/cost balance of dedicated hosting tips in favor of cost
* You need to have more control over your up time and have the resources to keep it secure
Reasons not to host your own web site:
* You don't want to waste space by having a low load web server
* You don't want to waste power by having a low load web server
* You don't want to share a production system with a web server
* You don't know how to maintain availability of a high load web server
* You don't keep up to date with security trends and vulnerabilities
* You don't check your logs and perform regular audits for security breaches
* You don't know how to react to an attack
* You don't know how to detect an intrusion
* You don't know how to recover from an intrusion
Having an investment in a Windows infrastructure has little to do with your choice of web server. There are other factors that may rely upon that Windows infrastructure but I think that I already covered those. Your argument is for general web site hosting anyway. Most companies don't have the resources or expertise to properly maintain a web server. If you're going to neglect your web server, just pay the $20/mo (or less including domain name registration) for hosting and be done with it. That's only a $1200 investment over the course of 5 years. It's probably cheaper than recovering from a single security hit. Let someone else worry about that stuff.
On November 13th, I mollsted [sic] little Jimmy Robinson at his home in Flint That's brilliant! I'm changing the password on my double-entry bookkeeping files to "All your monies are belong to us!" The problem is, how are you supposed to prove that your password would incriminate you without first revealing it? The same goes with pleading the Fifth regarding your identity. Since it's not really possible to do either without incriminating yourself (what you're trying to avoid), how can the Fifth be selectively applied? I'm no expert in law or history, but selective enforcement of the Bill of Rights doesn't sound like something that the founding fathers had in mind.
Also, can't the punishments for refusing to reveal incriminating evidence (either directly or by providing access to such evidence) be construed as coercion--an act that itself violates the Fifth amendment? I'd love to know if there's any precedent that was set back closer to the founding days (since there have been forms of cryptography for centuries). Heh, there are a lot of scenarios that I could think of. For example, how much work are you supposed to perform on your own investigation? If I wrote my own encryption algorithm, used it to encrypt sensitive information, and then deleted the binary and source, do I have to provide the algorithm or reconstruct the entire program? They can have the password.:-)
Removing a sentence from its context to alter its meaning does not validate your point.
When it cannot make a specific idea clear, in contexts where the meaning may be ambiguous one now has to use even more words to get their idea across. The correct meaning of "do" can typically be inferred entirely from its particular use or context. Having to add words to disambiguate between a correct and incorrect use of a phrase is not evolution of language--it's a step backwards. If you are aware of an unambiguous phrase that could replace the correct use of "begs the question," I'm all ears. I'm sure that computer science professors are tired of explaining the difference and would like to have the textbooks reprinted.
I think that part of the reason why this issue particularly irks some people on Slashdot is because many of us have studied logic (or we're just geeks) and the negative impact of the incorrect usage rears its ugly head when either we have difficulty correctly identifying the logical fallacy or witness others having that problem. It's difficult to "unlearn" things sometimes. We'd* prefer not having the incorrect usage disseminated, especially by those that should know better.
*We refers to those of us who care, not all of Slashdot.
A judge likely will not. Based on what experience? Using ffmpeg in a commercial product wouldn't look good, but the rules are much more relaxed for personal use. For example, I can't tape a TV show and legally sell it without paying dues, but I can record it to watch it later and even hang on to it after watching it. Also, I have other devices that play the same formats. What if I wrote my own MP3/AAC/MPEG4/CSS decoder and didn't distribute it? You don't think that falls under fair use?
I also haven't seen any licensing terms that require or even allow the end-user to pay in lieu of the creator. You'd think that something like that might be offered for situations where a codec is created in a country where that activity is legal but a user elsewhere (say in the U.S.) wants to use it without fear of legal ramifications. Have there been any cases against end users?
How is the Fluendo decoder (not codec, since it doesn't encode) free from patent trouble? The licensing is per application, not per decoder. Otherwise, there probably would've been a drive to get a fully licensed (but still open source) decoder under Linux. Debian Etch lets you play MP3s out of the box, BTW. I guess we'll wait to see if the lawyers start targeting the U.S. Debian mirrors.
No encoders are included, however. That appears to be the real issue. Even if the implementation is completely different, they basically claim that the act of making an MP3 is covered by patents. The licensing terms are far reaching though and the whole thing seems like a money grab. They want money for streaming MP3 content (for profit) as well. It would be nice if a lawyer could explain how patents could possibly cover the streaming of user created content.
Is your comment based on your personal experience or is it pure conjecture? I've done the the same thing as AC and haven't had any issues. My router/firewall/server went from Potato to Etch. My desktop went from Woody, to Sid, down to Testing, then to Sarge, back up to Testing, and then Etch (with backports and other repositories). I've also had third party software and drivers installed (VMWare, ATI, nVidia) and have grabbed some user packaged stuff to play with. In the past, I've done upgrades from RH 5.2, to 6.1, to 7.3, to 8.0, to 9.0. I also recently cross upgraded from RHEL3 to CentOS 3. After performing about 4 prerequisite steps, I ran yum update && reboot. When it finished (within the hour), it rebooted and was ready to go! Maybe I'm just lucky. But, yes, I'm sure that there are plenty of upgrade nightmare stories that you'll probably find with any OS. Anyway, I think that the point was that we can do stuff like that and that it usually works very well.
The tip here usually works. http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1385288 &page=1 The programs that you're having issues with seem to have been installed using the Windows Installer. In that case, you'll just have a GID for the program under the Uninstall key instead of the program name. The tip still applies. The Cleanup Utility doesn't remove the actual installation--just the file associated with the installer and the registry keys that go with it, which would get you to the point where you could reinstall the program.
One other thing you could try is to check under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uni nstall\{GUID HERE} for the application that you're looking to uninstall. There should be a value named "UninstallString". For example, the information for Microsoft Office Communicator 2005 is at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uni nstall\{BE5AD430-9E0C-4243-AB3F-593835869855} UninstallString is "MsiExec.exe/X{BE5AD430-9E0C-4243-AB3F-593835869855}". Sometimes, you'll see an install string with/I instead of/X. If you use that, you should get the install wizard and have the option to uninstall. If you don't get that, change the I to an X and it should just proceed with the uninstall.
(Ignore the space in Uninstall./. appears to be putting that in.)
I haven't seen this issue (yet) but very few users among my (150 or so) clients are using Vista. If the problem is legitimate, it probably only affects a small subset of systems. I've seen patches that caused some major problems in the past but the problems typically only occurred with some combination of software or drivers that were on the affected systems. If this particular problem happened every time with the latest set of patches, Microsoft would've caught it before the patches were released. I've actually seen similar issues with Windows XP, although I can't recall what the issue was (it wasn't a patch issue, I think it was an MSI issue). This isn't really news. If it was, it would be old news.
I wish that the full blown Office installation would automatically convert legacy Outlook PSTs to the Unicode format for the extra storage space (20GB by default, as opposed to a 2GB limit). It would prevent me from having to do that manually after an upgrade and there's no automated conversion process. I have a problem believing his claims that the trial edition automatically converted the file, but I'll take him on his word. Anyway, you can always export back out to the legacy PST format. He just didn't notice that the PST was in the Unicode format before he uninstalled the trial, since he did the conversion using his own trial installation.
There's also the Windows Installer Cleanup tool for cleaning up failed MSI uninstallations, which is what appears to have been a large part of the problem getting Office 2000 back on to the system. For obvious reasons, Office 2000 doesn't go out of the way to detect Office 2003 installations, so the problem was probably registry cruft (as it is for so many installer issues).
Perhaps they need to learn how to get their issues escalated (or learn how to be taken seriously). If I had a genuine issue, it wouldn't take more than a few calls to get satisfaction or a release from my contract.
* Get information about who you spoke to (even if it's a fake name, they usually use the same fake name) plus direct lines, extensions, and e-mail addresses. * Get a supervisor as soon as it sounds like the rep is dragging his/her feet. Get the supervisor's supervisor (there's always someone who will give you that info) if necessary. * Complain about any run-around you receive and have the person that you're talking to verify that they're sending you to the right department before transferring you (conference calls work). * Make it known that you're upset, but don't direct your anger at the people trying to help. * Be angry at the people who aren't trying to help while at the same time guiding them through what it is that you want them to do (and that doesn't including telling them where to put their heads or disclosing your belief on where their heads are currently situated). * Use a single point of contact to call back in case you have to call more than once. That person should be someone that seemed helpful before. That way, you have someone else who sees that your problem isn't being resolved in a timely manner and will also get annoyed their his or her co-workers are being incompetent.
It sure as hell wouldn't be 25 calls since by that point since it would've been a Better Business Bureau or small claims court case by then (if the problem was worth more than my time).
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that you missed the second link in the summary that pointed to an update on the event, which mentioned the name of the journalist (Don Sambandaraska). It also stated that he and some other journalists refused to sign the NDA but were still allowed to attend. On day 2, they were asked to sign another NDA, which had a clause that seemed like a reworded version of the first. He then walked out. At that page, there's a link to Don Sambandaraksa's report on the matter, which has this tidbit: "Update: AMD issued an apology a week later saying the incident was a misunderstanding among certain local staff and that it is not, and has never been, AMD policy to vet the stories of tier-1 publications prior to publication."
That's actually a dorayaki. Apparently, it's a Japanese bunny. mmm... dorayaki
At that point, the cop and the store had every reason to believe he was shoplifting and every right to detain him.
That's like refusing to let a cop search your trunk after being pulled over for a busted tail light and then citing probable cause because you refused the search.
I've been thought to be suspicious too and have been questioned. Why? My friend was standing on my car to make sure that his brother and his friend were picked up before we left the lot. After being threatened with a chase down, questioned (and being told that they didn't believe that it was my car), and finally let go (by mall security and management), they shouted obscenities at us. We were both minors. I respect authority but I have no respect for those that abuse it and applaud those who fight abuse. I knew that we weren't doing anything wrong, but by your view, if we just hopped into my car and left, you apparently believe that we should've been arrested.
It brings a new meaning to "can you see what's on my screen?" at the helpdesk.
They could take periodic memory dumps and let the MPAA hire people to figure out where the IP addresses are. If they have to explicitly start logging connections, then they're being forced to create new data.
Nope, they just toss you into Bulk Mail if they haven't seen your mail servers before, even if your organization applies for feedback loop
That's interesting. As I said, I haven't had to deal with Hotmail before (either our clients haven't noticed that e-mail to Hotmail isn't working or the list wasn't large enough to automatically get flagged). Is that policy only for bulk message deliveries or does every new domain get trapped at first? I assume that the only counter measure would be to ask the recipients of your mailing lists to unflag the message when the first one arrives.
My Linux box works fine. I'm not sure what you're problem is. ;-)
SPF doesn't tell you that e-mail is not spam. What it does do is tell you if something is spam. It can nearly rid us of the spam botnet problem, if it's used by everyone. (The soft failure provision is crap though.)
Hotmail, AOL, and other large e-mail providers will start filtering out your e-mail if a certain number of their members mark your e-mail as spam (which many seem to use instead of the delete button). Your SPF records won't save you from that. If you send to a sufficiently large e-mail base, you'll get tagged quickly. I haven't had to deal with any Hotmail delivery issues for any of our 100 or so clients, but we deal with AOL frequently. We just get them on the white list and setup a feedback loop and the problem goes away. If you're going to start a mailing list, it would be prudent to contact the big carriers beforehand. Oh yeah, don't forget to get PTR records that match the A records of the mail hubs. Also make sure that the mail hubs announce themselves using their associated FQDN's.
If you don't notice it, does it really matter? It doesn't threaten personal safety like a person walking into your home because the door was left open. If someone just randomly walked into my house, the first thought in my head isn't, "Oh no, don't take my TV!" I'm not sure if anyone would get "creeped out" if she found that the someone was connecting to her AP. Someone who uses your Wi-Fi is much less of a threat than someone who's sniffing your unencrypted traffic (which can be used to obtain things like e-mail passwords, which are usually unencrypted). I think that they're prosecuting the wrong people.
My boss just e-mails me and then calls me about what he wrote in the e-mail. Alternatively, he'll call my cell phone twice, my home phone, and then my cell phone again before leaving voicemail asking me to call him, but the voicemail doesn't provide any information on what he's calling me about (which is annoying because Verizon's voicemail system is painful to use). Sometimes I'll get e-mail that's just as informative as his voicemail. It could be a server that's on fire or he has another Excel question, but I have no way of knowing which it is until I call him back. If he does reach me (it's not like I'm unreachable, but people do go to the bathroom, take showers, go to the movies, and need sleep :-/ ), it's usually something that would've been covered better in e-mail. E-mail would also prevent him from mangling my explanation when he repeats it to the client. Proper use of any medium would be nice.
I agree that teacher's salaries are too low--at least to start and certainly in certain neighborhoods. I have done some computer work within the walls of under performing schools and I got to listen to some lessons at those schools. For example, I was in an elementary school class where the teacher yelled at her students and spoke in broken English! Sure, most gifted students deserve better than what they're getting, but those poor kids in those schools definitely deserve a hell of a lot better than the teachers they were given. I'd rather see the money go to getting rid of incompetent teachers and hiring competent ones first.
On the other hand I personally think that using IQ test scores for that purpose is wrong, and agree that it should be based on actual performance in the classroom.
The problem seems to just repeat itself if a gifted student isn't put into the right environment. The best solution right now is entirely dependent upon the teachers to recognize the abilities of their students and to find out what's keeping them from performing to their potentials. The teachers also need the resources to do be able to help their students, whether it means getting help for a student that's being abused at home (some academic performance issues are emotional as opposed to intellectual), bullied in school (boxing classes!), bored in class (accelerated programs), or can't keep up in class (extra help centers). I really don't think that any scientific method of placement will ever surpass an acutely aware and caring teacher with the resources to help his students in whatever manner they need it.
This reminds me a bit of NetWare. SERVER.EXE was launched from DOS, but DOS was really only used as a boot loader. SERVER.EXE probably used some DOS function calls to setup its hooks, but DOS could be removed from memory using the "remove DOS" command (or "secure console" in later versions). Some specialty software could interact with DOS even after NetWare was loaded (which is why removing DOS was recommended for more security). Using Linux and insmod probably makes it easier to load vmkernel, which might then position itself below the already running Linux kernel. (It's just a theory. I am not a kernel developer.)
Reasons not to use IIS:
* You don't already have a Windows license
* You don't have any code that requires IIS
* You need functionality in Apache that doesn't exist in IIS
* You already know Apache
Reasons not to use Apache:
* You already have a Windows license
* You have code that requires IIS
* You need functionality in IIS that doesn't exist in Apache + other application stack
* You already know IIS
* The one time that you tried to edit a config file, you got trapped in VIM, deleted a bunch of lines, duplicated others, and kept entering and exiting recording mode
Reasons to host your own web site:
* You need to install options that aren't available through shared hosting and the security/cost balance of dedicated hosting tips in favor of cost
* You need to have more control over your up time and have the resources to keep it secure
Reasons not to host your own web site:
* You don't want to waste space by having a low load web server
* You don't want to waste power by having a low load web server
* You don't want to share a production system with a web server
* You don't know how to maintain availability of a high load web server
* You don't keep up to date with security trends and vulnerabilities
* You don't check your logs and perform regular audits for security breaches
* You don't know how to react to an attack
* You don't know how to detect an intrusion
* You don't know how to recover from an intrusion
Having an investment in a Windows infrastructure has little to do with your choice of web server. There are other factors that may rely upon that Windows infrastructure but I think that I already covered those. Your argument is for general web site hosting anyway. Most companies don't have the resources or expertise to properly maintain a web server. If you're going to neglect your web server, just pay the $20/mo (or less including domain name registration) for hosting and be done with it. That's only a $1200 investment over the course of 5 years. It's probably cheaper than recovering from a single security hit. Let someone else worry about that stuff.
Oh yeah... reasons to use the preview button:
* To avoid posting a giant paragraph when you meant to use plain old text (sorry about the double submission)
Reasons not to use IIS: * You don't already have a Windows license * You don't have any code that requires IIS * You need functionality in Apache that doesn't exist in IIS * You already know Apache Reasons not to use Apache: * You already have a Windows license * You have code that requires IIS * You need functionality in IIS that doesn't exist in Apache + other application stack * You already know IIS * The one time that you tried to edit a config file, you got trapped in VIM, deleted a bunch of lines, duplicated others, and kept entering and exiting recording mode Reasons to host your own web site: * You need to install options that aren't available through shared hosting and the security/cost balance of dedicated hosting tips in favor of cost * You need to have more control over your up time and have the resources to keep it secure Reasons not to host your own web site: * You don't want to waste space by having a low load web server * You don't want to waste power by having a low load web server * You don't want to share a production system with a web server * You don't know how to maintain availability of a high load web server * You don't keep up to date with security trends and vulnerabilities * You don't check your logs and perform regular audits for security breaches * You don't know how to react to an attack * You don't know how to detect an intrusion * You don't know how to recover from an intrusion Having an investment in a Windows infrastructure has little to do with your choice of web server. There are other factors that may rely upon that Windows infrastructure but I think that I already covered those. Your argument is for general web site hosting anyway. Most companies don't have the resources or expertise to properly maintain a web server. If you're going to neglect your web server, just pay the $20/mo (or less including domain name registration) for hosting and be done with it. That's only a $1200 investment over the course of 5 years. It's probably cheaper than recovering from a single security hit. Let someone else worry about that stuff.
Also, can't the punishments for refusing to reveal incriminating evidence (either directly or by providing access to such evidence) be construed as coercion--an act that itself violates the Fifth amendment? I'd love to know if there's any precedent that was set back closer to the founding days (since there have been forms of cryptography for centuries). Heh, there are a lot of scenarios that I could think of. For example, how much work are you supposed to perform on your own investigation? If I wrote my own encryption algorithm, used it to encrypt sensitive information, and then deleted the binary and source, do I have to provide the algorithm or reconstruct the entire program? They can have the password.
I think that part of the reason why this issue particularly irks some people on Slashdot is because many of us have studied logic (or we're just geeks) and the negative impact of the incorrect usage rears its ugly head when either we have difficulty correctly identifying the logical fallacy or witness others having that problem. It's difficult to "unlearn" things sometimes. We'd* prefer not having the incorrect usage disseminated, especially by those that should know better.
*We refers to those of us who care, not all of Slashdot.
A judge likely will not. Based on what experience? Using ffmpeg in a commercial product wouldn't look good, but the rules are much more relaxed for personal use. For example, I can't tape a TV show and legally sell it without paying dues, but I can record it to watch it later and even hang on to it after watching it. Also, I have other devices that play the same formats. What if I wrote my own MP3/AAC/MPEG4/CSS decoder and didn't distribute it? You don't think that falls under fair use?
I also haven't seen any licensing terms that require or even allow the end-user to pay in lieu of the creator. You'd think that something like that might be offered for situations where a codec is created in a country where that activity is legal but a user elsewhere (say in the U.S.) wants to use it without fear of legal ramifications. Have there been any cases against end users?
How is the Fluendo decoder (not codec, since it doesn't encode) free from patent trouble? The licensing is per application, not per decoder. Otherwise, there probably would've been a drive to get a fully licensed (but still open source) decoder under Linux. Debian Etch lets you play MP3s out of the box, BTW. I guess we'll wait to see if the lawyers start targeting the U.S. Debian mirrors.
No encoders are included, however. That appears to be the real issue. Even if the implementation is completely different, they basically claim that the act of making an MP3 is covered by patents. The licensing terms are far reaching though and the whole thing seems like a money grab. They want money for streaming MP3 content (for profit) as well. It would be nice if a lawyer could explain how patents could possibly cover the streaming of user created content.
Is your comment based on your personal experience or is it pure conjecture? I've done the the same thing as AC and haven't had any issues. My router/firewall/server went from Potato to Etch. My desktop went from Woody, to Sid, down to Testing, then to Sarge, back up to Testing, and then Etch (with backports and other repositories). I've also had third party software and drivers installed (VMWare, ATI, nVidia) and have grabbed some user packaged stuff to play with. In the past, I've done upgrades from RH 5.2, to 6.1, to 7.3, to 8.0, to 9.0. I also recently cross upgraded from RHEL3 to CentOS 3. After performing about 4 prerequisite steps, I ran yum update && reboot. When it finished (within the hour), it rebooted and was ready to go! Maybe I'm just lucky. But, yes, I'm sure that there are plenty of upgrade nightmare stories that you'll probably find with any OS. Anyway, I think that the point was that we can do stuff like that and that it usually works very well.
My cat types "Hamlet" all the time. Of course, my cat Hamlet signs all of his e-mail that way.
The tip here usually works. http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1385288 &page=1
i nstall\{GUID HERE} for the application that you're looking to uninstall. There should be a value named "UninstallString". For example, the information for Microsoft Office Communicator 2005 is at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uni nstall\{BE5AD430-9E0C-4243-AB3F-593835869855} /X{BE5AD430-9E0C-4243-AB3F-593835869855}". Sometimes, you'll see an install string with /I instead of /X. If you use that, you should get the install wizard and have the option to uninstall. If you don't get that, change the I to an X and it should just proceed with the uninstall.
/. appears to be putting that in.)
The programs that you're having issues with seem to have been installed using the Windows Installer. In that case, you'll just have a GID for the program under the Uninstall key instead of the program name. The tip still applies. The Cleanup Utility doesn't remove the actual installation--just the file associated with the installer and the registry keys that go with it, which would get you to the point where you could reinstall the program.
One other thing you could try is to check under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Un
UninstallString is "MsiExec.exe
(Ignore the space in Uninstall.
I haven't seen this issue (yet) but very few users among my (150 or so) clients are using Vista. If the problem is legitimate, it probably only affects a small subset of systems. I've seen patches that caused some major problems in the past but the problems typically only occurred with some combination of software or drivers that were on the affected systems. If this particular problem happened every time with the latest set of patches, Microsoft would've caught it before the patches were released. I've actually seen similar issues with Windows XP, although I can't recall what the issue was (it wasn't a patch issue, I think it was an MSI issue). This isn't really news. If it was, it would be old news.
I wish that the full blown Office installation would automatically convert legacy Outlook PSTs to the Unicode format for the extra storage space (20GB by default, as opposed to a 2GB limit). It would prevent me from having to do that manually after an upgrade and there's no automated conversion process. I have a problem believing his claims that the trial edition automatically converted the file, but I'll take him on his word. Anyway, you can always export back out to the legacy PST format. He just didn't notice that the PST was in the Unicode format before he uninstalled the trial, since he did the conversion using his own trial installation.
There's also the Windows Installer Cleanup tool for cleaning up failed MSI uninstallations, which is what appears to have been a large part of the problem getting Office 2000 back on to the system. For obvious reasons, Office 2000 doesn't go out of the way to detect Office 2003 installations, so the problem was probably registry cruft (as it is for so many installer issues).
Perhaps they need to learn how to get their issues escalated (or learn how to be taken seriously). If I had a genuine issue, it wouldn't take more than a few calls to get satisfaction or a release from my contract.
* Get information about who you spoke to (even if it's a fake name, they usually use the same fake name) plus direct lines, extensions, and e-mail addresses.
* Get a supervisor as soon as it sounds like the rep is dragging his/her feet. Get the supervisor's supervisor (there's always someone who will give you that info) if necessary.
* Complain about any run-around you receive and have the person that you're talking to verify that they're sending you to the right department before transferring you (conference calls work).
* Make it known that you're upset, but don't direct your anger at the people trying to help.
* Be angry at the people who aren't trying to help while at the same time guiding them through what it is that you want them to do (and that doesn't including telling them where to put their heads or disclosing your belief on where their heads are currently situated).
* Use a single point of contact to call back in case you have to call more than once. That person should be someone that seemed helpful before. That way, you have someone else who sees that your problem isn't being resolved in a timely manner and will also get annoyed their his or her co-workers are being incompetent.
It sure as hell wouldn't be 25 calls since by that point since it would've been a Better Business Bureau or small claims court case by then (if the problem was worth more than my time).