I watched the video and did not hear or see anyone tell him his time was up. I saw his mic cut when he asked a question that someone didn't like/approve.
What are you basing your statements on? Did you see a different video that showed more of what happened prior to the incident? The video that I watched on Youtube just doesn't back up your statements. If there is a video that backs up what you are saying, please post the link.
Am I the only one that has a problem with this mentality? Cops are now trained to think of everyone as a possible threat. What BS. That basically translates to all citizens are threats and need to be handled in a much more forceful manner than needed.
In the video, the guy did not appear to be a physical threat at all up until the police started to grab him and push him towards the exit. In this situation, it was the cops that caused the potential for a dangerous situation. Most humans do not like to be grabbed at and pushed around for no reason, and especially for doing something as non-threating as just asking a question like this guy was doing.
You are trying to justify the actions of the "officers" after the fact. The fact being, is that the guy was being removed for asking a question that someone didn't like. What happened to free speech? This was a public setting, it wasn't invite only.
Basically this guy asked a question, then one of the cops grabs his arm and tries to remove him. That is what caused the guy to get upset. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a sheep that does whatever a cops says. Another problem is that there are 10's of thousands of laws on the books. BS laws that the cops can use to justify their actions in almost any situation.
Disturbing the peace? What kind of BS law is that. That law is too wide-open and can be applied to almost any situation. This guy was being peaceful until cop(s) started to remove him. I watched the video too, and did not see the guy do anything wrong prior to the cops trying to remove him for exercising free speech. Again, it wasn't until the cops tried to forcefully remove the guy by grabbing his arm and pushing him toward the exit that he reacted.
I will say that I think once there were a bunch of cops pushing and grabbing him, he should have just allowed them to handcuff him and then he could have sorted it out later with an attorney.
What law (in the US at least) says it is illegal to download? Copyright infringement does not happen when you download, it happens via distribution. So, if you download without uploading, I would suspect you would be a gray area of the law. While P2P may cause a user to upload as they download, switch to Usenet to get away from that issue.
Note, I am not condoning obtaining copyrighted works that you do not have permission to obtain. Just trying to point out a misconception that I see the RIAA/MPAA has convinced a lot of users that it is illegal to download. I have never heard of a case where a user was sued for only downloading a copyrighted work. All cases have been because a user was distributing a copyrighted work.
Seriously, Hungarian notation sucks. I hated doing MS C programming with all the Hungarian crap.
Using crap like iplnvldakljdorSFName is just stupid (yes, I exaggerated that, but you get the point).
I use and like simple constructs. If it is a reference type object, I use a c for the class, cEmployee. Then during instantiation I just use whatever. If I want to be extra anal, I will use on o for the instantiated object name:
cEmployee oEmp = new cEmployee(foo); oEmp.Name = "Bush";
Honestly, Hungarian notation is just crap and is way outdated. I use simple notations. If it is an integer, I use i, iNumEmps. If it is a long I use l, lNumEmps. If it is a string object, I use s, sMyName. If it is any other object, well that is why and good IDE will list the type of the variable if you just hover for a second or so. I would rather see code that has a variable oFooBar and use "intellisense" to really see info about that object than to have a bunch of stupid prefixes to try to tell me about an object.
We don't want iPlayer; we want your content available on the internet, worldwide. If it's good, people might even pay for it.
Well, people already paid for the content through forced taxation. Why should they have to pay again or have the content that they paid for be locked up?
Seriously, it is not like the BBC is a private company that is making content on their own dime. If that was the case, then people could complain but wouldn't have much of a case since they didn't pay for the content. As it is now, the BBC content is a public good, payed for by the public and should not have artificial restrictions placed on it.
The Linux Moonlight is not there yet. It is and will always be behind Spotlight because MS controls the specs and Mono/Novell have no input in the development process for Spotlight. Also, DRM encrusted WMV will not work in Moonlight.
It is a shame really. Spotlight could be cool, however as usual, all other OSs are being treated as second-class citizens. I don't know why people keep buying into the MS PR stuff about anything from MS being cross-platform. I think people would have learned/learnt already that MS doesn't really do cross-platform.
MS claims.Net is cross-platform. It is not. Mono is nice, but is always playing catch-up and is always at least ONE major version behind. Anyone doing.Net 3.0 is stuck with MS-only.
MS Office is another good example. Office 2004 for Mac is REALLY slow on my Intel iMac since it is PPC only and runs in Rosetta. I was trying to edit a SIMPLE one page MS Word doc in Office 2004 and my CPU kept jumping and the document would flash and redraw every 2-3 seconds. MS isn't updated Office 2004 to be Universal, so as usual any non-MS user has to wait.
Remote Desktop. Another PPC-only junk. Slow and I often would get errors just trying to connect. MS finally just came out with a Universal beta for RDC for Mac. Gee thanks, I only had to wait more than a year since I got an Intel Mac. Oh, were is the Linux RDC client from MS?
MS Media Player for Mac sucks. Well, there isn't one really. MS pushed it off to some other company and there is a plugin for Quicktime. With the free plugin I have a 50/50 chance of being able to watch a WMV, if it is DRM encrusted, forget about it on Mac or Linux.
The beta MS Office 2007 converter for Mac sucks. Someone sent me an Office 2007 Word docx. I tried to convert it with the converter and just got "format not supported". Great job!
I wish MS would truly do cross-platform of a few of their products for at least Mac an Linux. MS Office for Linux would be nice. However, I would settle for an official.Net implementation for Mac and Linux. Sun has been doing it with Java for years now. Why can't MS? Real offers very good playback support for Mac and Linux. I think the Mac version of RealPlayer is their best one, very nice app and plays all of the RealMedia stuff.
I seem to feel like Microsoft WANTS me to not like them unless I submit to them and become MS only. Sorry, I like to actually have choice. I don't want to use their OS for personal use, I like other OSs better. However, I think.Net is a nice development environment and would think it would only help MS if it were truly cross-platform like Java.
open XML-based document file format for office applications to be used for documents containing text, spreadsheets, charts, and graphical elements.
the open specification is only enough to parse the documents (useful for searching) but not to render them as they were originally intended.
Have you even looked at the ODF spec? Here is a blurb
open XML-based document file format for office applications to be used for documents containing text, spreadsheets, charts, and graphical elements.
ODF uses existing standards like HTML, SVG, XSL, SMIL, XLink, XForms, MathML, etc. Are you trying to say that none of these will help with rendering? I think you need to at least glance over the ODF spec before making such silly claims. Even just looking at the table of contents would give you an understanding that would show your above comment is just not true.
ODF is open so anyone 50 years from now can read the specs and write a converter. OOXML is not an open spec. Minor parts are open, but there are still a lot of proprietary, binary blobs (.bin) in a OOXML file. The OOXML spec makes no mention on how to interpret these proprietary binary blobs. So 50 years from now with "open" Office XML, you will be screwed if you try to convert anything more than a simple text-only MS Word document.
I would rather have my documents in a a format that I can get the spec to so I can at least convert the files vs. Microsoft's OOXML with all of its still-proprietary, closed, undocumented parts.
RealPlayer 10 for Mac is very nice. No issues at all. And for the uninstall? Just drag the app from/Applications to your trash and empty. Done. RealPlayer 10 for Linux is nice as well. Uninstall is a matter of deleting the directory you installed in.
As for RealPlayer 10 under MS Windows, I wouldn't know since I have not used RealPlayer under MS Windows since version 8. Though I can't see Real making the player play nice and easy to uninstall under Mac/Linux and then making it crapWare under MS Windows.
This looks interesting, however the site doesn't give much information on DropBox. I am glad there is a Mac client, will there be a Linux client? I personally need both.
Are the actual files stored on your servers? Or just change information?
What about privacy issues? In the screencast you showed sending a link to the file and there was no protection on the file, it showed up in a browser
How much space does a user get? I have 180 GB of stuff backed up, it would seem costly to have to pay someone else for that storage when I can buy one or two cheap hard drives and keep two copies of the data
Will this tool work to allow one to sync without needing to send stuff to your servers? i.e. I just want to sink stuff from my 2 desktops to an external hard drive
I agree with you. How is there even an issue with the network and audio? I have 2 Intel Macs and a Linux box at home. I am able to download at 8 Mbps and watch a DVD or listen to audio with no issues.
Exactly why is this even an issue under Vista? I remember being able to download and listen to audio or watch a DVD under WinXP with no issues as long as I didn't use the crappy MS Media player.
Your missing some very important points. If your car is stolen, police will investigate so you have the law working on your side. If software you purchased is used to do something illegal, again the police/FBI investigate and the law will work for you.
Compare that to the RIAA civil suit tactics. Mos people cannot afford to defend themselves so they just settle. The RIAA have been being denied in some cases the ability to find who the IP of the infringer belongs to. Now all the RIAA has to do is show that it was a song registered to you, do some scare tactics and offer you a less expensive settlement. Realizing you don't have the money to get proper representation, a person is more likely to settle than face losing a civil suit where they could end up paying a lot more. Oh, and the examples you gave are criminal where the burden of proof is a lot more than in civil court where the RIAA just has to show a preponderance of the evidence, which wouldn't be too hard for their corporate lawyers.
Personally I will never buy music or videos that have any watermarking with my identity. Not because I want to share the content on P2P, but because I don't want to be tagged and tracked like cattle.
I don't see how this helps much from a legal perspective. Say you have 1 GB of watermarked MP3 files on your portable audio player. It gets lost/stolen. Someone uploads most of those audio songs that you legally paid for. What happens now? You get sued, pay big fines, have a criminal case brought against you and possibly do jail time?
I don't see a jury convicting a peer because their player was lost/stolen. Heck, anyone could just say their player was lost/stolen, the perfect defense next to the Chewbacca defense.
Watermarking can be detected otherwise there would be no point in it. The "IP" from MS that the TFA says was licensed can write watermarks and a way to read them. How else could some hardware or software detect if a watermark is present?
Also, this technology from MS is certainly patented, therefore the technology has to be documented in the patent application. Any one can then read the patent application and start the process of breaking this watermarking scheme.
Give it time, if this watermarking takes off, people will work around it just like every other Digital Restriction Management attempt has been broken.
From TFA, the record company wants to watermark audio files that are sold and then watch P2P to see how often that file is traded. So basically what will happen is the record company will say, "Hey we legally sold 1,000,000 copies of Brittany Spear's song 'I can't sing', and then we watched as the song was stolen on P2P 10,000,000 times!". Then they take this "evidence" to their political sheep, pay them money and get new laws passed where if you download Brittany Spears song titled 'I can't sing' and trade it on P2P you now get sent to Gitmo for 10 years.
2. I don't think any slight quality loss would be that big to most people since they put up with the very outdated and inferior MP3 format. What would bother me is how the article headed said about placing advertisement in the audio. The would be real bad IMO. You are listing to your favorite song and then in pops some annoying voice about buying the amazing mop as seen on TV, just $9.99 (+ $15.99 S/H+).
Then you don't need to worry about me finding you, but cops driving by and seeing you. It is illegal to use someones network with out permissions, regardless of the network being open with no encryption.
Is it worth the risk to illegally use someones network just to post on/.?
On/. there is no such thing as a true "anonymous" post. This "anonymous" guy/girl that posted has actually left an IP address. If the address was not from some public source, than that IP could be traced back to the poster.:-)
Thank you for playing the, "I wish I could have free speech in America" game. You will be sued shortly!
Nah. It won't happen. Look how "cross-platform".Net is. It is not. Even if MS makes a little of their tech cross-platform, you will still be locked in to development on MS-only.
Give me a wake-up when MS ports.Net to Mac and/or Linux (no, not Mono, I used it, too lacking). Oh, and also when MS ports their dev IDE cross platform.
Funny thing. I can get the official Sun JRE/JDK that runs on MS Windows, Mac and Linux. Oh, and I can get a sun made IDE that runs on Mac, Linux and MS Windows. Oooh, did I mention that all of the Java IDE's I use work on Mac, Linux and MS Windows?
I think the whole MS-lock-in stuff sucks. I do a lot of C#/.Net development and think.Net is a very good programming framework and I think that C# is a very clean language. However, I always get annoyed at the fact that when I use C#/.Net/VS I am stuck in MS-only-land. When I do Java work, I get to pick my environment.
I have given up all hope of Microsoft ever changing. I now only use MS Windows at work and I only use their dev stuff when I am paid to do so. There was a time when I enjoyed using MS Windows, though sadly that joy has left me many years ago due to the actions of Microsoft.
I get paid to do C#/Java work. When I get home I work on Mac and Linux only now. A few years ago, I would come home and actually enjoy bringing my programming work home with me. Now I only do that if the work I bring home is Java stuff. Thanks Microsoft for killing the joy of your platform and software for me by trying to dictate where, how, when and why I use technology.
The open source reference version will not be of the current protocol, it will always be behind. So that doesn't help much. For example, the current bittorent client/sdk is at version 6 while the open source reference is at version 5. Basically you will not be able to take advantage of any of the new features.
They aren't charging for the protocol, they are still making it available but only in an SDK kit
Are you sure about that? I just looked around the bittorent site and didn't see any download link for an SDK. The only thing I found was something about device certification that includes an SDK and I am willing to bet that this "certification" is not free.
Doing a Google search only shows up an SDK for device manufacturers. Until I see a link where anyone can download the SDK for no charge, I won't believe it.
Secondly before you get angry and JnJ for being monsters, remember that (in the US) if you don't defend your trademark you lose it.
That is business BS. As someone pointed out above, J&J could license the trademark to Red Cross for an "undisclosed" amount. That amount could be $0.50 a year or something. All J&J needs to do is show due diligence in protecting their trademark. Licensing the mark to the Red Cross for an undisclosed amount would do just that. Heck, J&J could license the trademark for non-commercial usage for $1 for the next 100 years if they want. It is their mark to license how they want.
As I see it J&J are being corporate whores and will try to get money from a charity that has helped millions around the world for longer than any of us here have been born.
Me personally, I won't be buying any J&J products from no on. As a vegetarian I usually look for all natural products any way.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched the video and did not hear or see anyone tell him his time was up. I saw his mic cut when he asked a question that someone didn't like/approve.
What are you basing your statements on? Did you see a different video that showed more of what happened prior to the incident? The video that I watched on Youtube just doesn't back up your statements. If there is a video that backs up what you are saying, please post the link.
In the video, the guy did not appear to be a physical threat at all up until the police started to grab him and push him towards the exit. In this situation, it was the cops that caused the potential for a dangerous situation. Most humans do not like to be grabbed at and pushed around for no reason, and especially for doing something as non-threating as just asking a question like this guy was doing.
You are trying to justify the actions of the "officers" after the fact. The fact being, is that the guy was being removed for asking a question that someone didn't like. What happened to free speech? This was a public setting, it wasn't invite only.
Basically this guy asked a question, then one of the cops grabs his arm and tries to remove him. That is what caused the guy to get upset. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a sheep that does whatever a cops says. Another problem is that there are 10's of thousands of laws on the books. BS laws that the cops can use to justify their actions in almost any situation.
Disturbing the peace? What kind of BS law is that. That law is too wide-open and can be applied to almost any situation. This guy was being peaceful until cop(s) started to remove him. I watched the video too, and did not see the guy do anything wrong prior to the cops trying to remove him for exercising free speech. Again, it wasn't until the cops tried to forcefully remove the guy by grabbing his arm and pushing him toward the exit that he reacted.
I will say that I think once there were a bunch of cops pushing and grabbing him, he should have just allowed them to handcuff him and then he could have sorted it out later with an attorney.
Note, I am not condoning obtaining copyrighted works that you do not have permission to obtain. Just trying to point out a misconception that I see the RIAA/MPAA has convinced a lot of users that it is illegal to download. I have never heard of a case where a user was sued for only downloading a copyrighted work. All cases have been because a user was distributing a copyrighted work.
Using crap like iplnvldakljdorSFName is just stupid (yes, I exaggerated that, but you get the point).
I use and like simple constructs. If it is a reference type object, I use a c for the class, cEmployee. Then during instantiation I just use whatever. If I want to be extra anal, I will use on o for the instantiated object name:
Honestly, Hungarian notation is just crap and is way outdated. I use simple notations. If it is an integer, I use i, iNumEmps. If it is a long I use l, lNumEmps. If it is a string object, I use s, sMyName. If it is any other object, well that is why and good IDE will list the type of the variable if you just hover for a second or so. I would rather see code that has a variable oFooBar and use "intellisense" to really see info about that object than to have a bunch of stupid prefixes to try to tell me about an object.
Seriously, it is not like the BBC is a private company that is making content on their own dime. If that was the case, then people could complain but wouldn't have much of a case since they didn't pay for the content. As it is now, the BBC content is a public good, payed for by the public and should not have artificial restrictions placed on it.
The Linux Moonlight is not there yet. It is and will always be behind Spotlight because MS controls the specs and Mono/Novell have no input in the development process for Spotlight. Also, DRM encrusted WMV will not work in Moonlight.
.Net is cross-platform. It is not. Mono is nice, but is always playing catch-up and is always at least ONE major version behind. Anyone doing .Net 3.0 is stuck with MS-only.
.Net implementation for Mac and Linux. Sun has been doing it with Java for years now. Why can't MS? Real offers very good playback support for Mac and Linux. I think the Mac version of RealPlayer is their best one, very nice app and plays all of the RealMedia stuff.
.Net is a nice development environment and would think it would only help MS if it were truly cross-platform like Java.
It is a shame really. Spotlight could be cool, however as usual, all other OSs are being treated as second-class citizens. I don't know why people keep buying into the MS PR stuff about anything from MS being cross-platform. I think people would have learned/learnt already that MS doesn't really do cross-platform.
MS claims
MS Office is another good example. Office 2004 for Mac is REALLY slow on my Intel iMac since it is PPC only and runs in Rosetta. I was trying to edit a SIMPLE one page MS Word doc in Office 2004 and my CPU kept jumping and the document would flash and redraw every 2-3 seconds. MS isn't updated Office 2004 to be Universal, so as usual any non-MS user has to wait.
Remote Desktop. Another PPC-only junk. Slow and I often would get errors just trying to connect. MS finally just came out with a Universal beta for RDC for Mac. Gee thanks, I only had to wait more than a year since I got an Intel Mac. Oh, were is the Linux RDC client from MS?
MS Media Player for Mac sucks. Well, there isn't one really. MS pushed it off to some other company and there is a plugin for Quicktime. With the free plugin I have a 50/50 chance of being able to watch a WMV, if it is DRM encrusted, forget about it on Mac or Linux.
The beta MS Office 2007 converter for Mac sucks. Someone sent me an Office 2007 Word docx. I tried to convert it with the converter and just got "format not supported". Great job!
I wish MS would truly do cross-platform of a few of their products for at least Mac an Linux. MS Office for Linux would be nice. However, I would settle for an official
I seem to feel like Microsoft WANTS me to not like them unless I submit to them and become MS only. Sorry, I like to actually have choice. I don't want to use their OS for personal use, I like other OSs better. However, I think
ODF is open so anyone 50 years from now can read the specs and write a converter. OOXML is not an open spec. Minor parts are open, but there are still a lot of proprietary, binary blobs (.bin) in a OOXML file. The OOXML spec makes no mention on how to interpret these proprietary binary blobs. So 50 years from now with "open" Office XML, you will be screwed if you try to convert anything more than a simple text-only MS Word document.
I would rather have my documents in a a format that I can get the spec to so I can at least convert the files vs. Microsoft's OOXML with all of its still-proprietary, closed, undocumented parts.
How about Sexual Harassment Panda?
RealPlayer 10 for Mac is very nice. No issues at all. And for the uninstall? Just drag the app from /Applications to your trash and empty. Done. RealPlayer 10 for Linux is nice as well. Uninstall is a matter of deleting the directory you installed in.
As for RealPlayer 10 under MS Windows, I wouldn't know since I have not used RealPlayer under MS Windows since version 8. Though I can't see Real making the player play nice and easy to uninstall under Mac/Linux and then making it crapWare under MS Windows.
- Are the actual files stored on your servers? Or just change information?
- What about privacy issues? In the screencast you showed sending a link to the file and there was no protection on the file, it showed up in a browser
- How much space does a user get? I have 180 GB of stuff backed up, it would seem costly to have to pay someone else for that storage when I can buy one or two cheap hard drives and keep two copies of the data
- Will this tool work to allow one to sync without needing to send stuff to your servers? i.e. I just want to sink stuff from my 2 desktops to an external hard drive
Thanks.I agree with you. How is there even an issue with the network and audio? I have 2 Intel Macs and a Linux box at home. I am able to download at 8 Mbps and watch a DVD or listen to audio with no issues.
Exactly why is this even an issue under Vista? I remember being able to download and listen to audio or watch a DVD under WinXP with no issues as long as I didn't use the crappy MS Media player.
Slashdot's lame filter kicked in, so here you go.
Your missing some very important points. If your car is stolen, police will investigate so you have the law working on your side. If software you purchased is used to do something illegal, again the police/FBI investigate and the law will work for you.
Compare that to the RIAA civil suit tactics. Mos people cannot afford to defend themselves so they just settle. The RIAA have been being denied in some cases the ability to find who the IP of the infringer belongs to. Now all the RIAA has to do is show that it was a song registered to you, do some scare tactics and offer you a less expensive settlement. Realizing you don't have the money to get proper representation, a person is more likely to settle than face losing a civil suit where they could end up paying a lot more. Oh, and the examples you gave are criminal where the burden of proof is a lot more than in civil court where the RIAA just has to show a preponderance of the evidence, which wouldn't be too hard for their corporate lawyers.
Personally I will never buy music or videos that have any watermarking with my identity. Not because I want to share the content on P2P, but because I don't want to be tagged and tracked like cattle.
I don't see how this helps much from a legal perspective. Say you have 1 GB of watermarked MP3 files on your portable audio player. It gets lost/stolen. Someone uploads most of those audio songs that you legally paid for. What happens now? You get sued, pay big fines, have a criminal case brought against you and possibly do jail time?
I don't see a jury convicting a peer because their player was lost/stolen. Heck, anyone could just say their player was lost/stolen, the perfect defense next to the Chewbacca defense.
Watermarking can be detected otherwise there would be no point in it. The "IP" from MS that the TFA says was licensed can write watermarks and a way to read them. How else could some hardware or software detect if a watermark is present?
Also, this technology from MS is certainly patented, therefore the technology has to be documented in the patent application. Any one can then read the patent application and start the process of breaking this watermarking scheme.
Give it time, if this watermarking takes off, people will work around it just like every other Digital Restriction Management attempt has been broken.
From TFA, the record company wants to watermark audio files that are sold and then watch P2P to see how often that file is traded. So basically what will happen is the record company will say, "Hey we legally sold 1,000,000 copies of Brittany Spear's song 'I can't sing', and then we watched as the song was stolen on P2P 10,000,000 times!". Then they take this "evidence" to their political sheep, pay them money and get new laws passed where if you download Brittany Spears song titled 'I can't sing' and trade it on P2P you now get sent to Gitmo for 10 years.
2. I don't think any slight quality loss would be that big to most people since they put up with the very outdated and inferior MP3 format. What would bother me is how the article headed said about placing advertisement in the audio. The would be real bad IMO. You are listing to your favorite song and then in pops some annoying voice about buying the amazing mop as seen on TV, just $9.99 (+ $15.99 S/H+).
Then you don't need to worry about me finding you, but cops driving by and seeing you. It is illegal to use someones network with out permissions, regardless of the network being open with no encryption.
/.?
Is it worth the risk to illegally use someones network just to post on
On /. there is no such thing as a true "anonymous" post. This "anonymous" guy/girl that posted has actually left an IP address. If the address was not from some public source, than that IP could be traced back to the poster. :-)
Thank you for playing the, "I wish I could have free speech in America" game. You will be sued shortly!
Nah. It won't happen. Look how "cross-platform" .Net is. It is not. Even if MS makes a little of their tech cross-platform, you will still be locked in to development on MS-only.
.Net to Mac and/or Linux (no, not Mono, I used it, too lacking). Oh, and also when MS ports their dev IDE cross platform.
.Net is a very good programming framework and I think that C# is a very clean language. However, I always get annoyed at the fact that when I use C#/.Net/VS I am stuck in MS-only-land. When I do Java work, I get to pick my environment.
Give me a wake-up when MS ports
Funny thing. I can get the official Sun JRE/JDK that runs on MS Windows, Mac and Linux. Oh, and I can get a sun made IDE that runs on Mac, Linux and MS Windows. Oooh, did I mention that all of the Java IDE's I use work on Mac, Linux and MS Windows?
I think the whole MS-lock-in stuff sucks. I do a lot of C#/.Net development and think
I have given up all hope of Microsoft ever changing. I now only use MS Windows at work and I only use their dev stuff when I am paid to do so. There was a time when I enjoyed using MS Windows, though sadly that joy has left me many years ago due to the actions of Microsoft.
I get paid to do C#/Java work. When I get home I work on Mac and Linux only now. A few years ago, I would come home and actually enjoy bringing my programming work home with me. Now I only do that if the work I bring home is Java stuff. Thanks Microsoft for killing the joy of your platform and software for me by trying to dictate where, how, when and why I use technology.
The open source reference version will not be of the current protocol, it will always be behind. So that doesn't help much. For example, the current bittorent client/sdk is at version 6 while the open source reference is at version 5. Basically you will not be able to take advantage of any of the new features.
Doing a Google search only shows up an SDK for device manufacturers. Until I see a link where anyone can download the SDK for no charge, I won't believe it.
Amen to that. I am surprised you haven't been modded up yet. I would never trust a closed bittorent client, you just never know what is going on.
As I see it J&J are being corporate whores and will try to get money from a charity that has helped millions around the world for longer than any of us here have been born.
Me personally, I won't be buying any J&J products from no on. As a vegetarian I usually look for all natural products any way.