dedward

35 ms·

331.
by dedward 15y ago
Thats how things work..... why would you spend time and money on something that is not likely to cause you damages? It is a calculated risk..... andnthey arent eliminating the risk, just reducing it.
332.
by dedward 15y ago
not exactly.... they are enforcing their own copyright, and by virtue of the license wording, using it as easy leverage to insist the infringing product is cleanly complying with similar licenses before granting a new license.
333.
by dedward 15y ago
fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with
334.
by dedward 15y ago
until any other rightsholder whos copyright is being violated does the same thing....... its pretty simple.
335.
by dedward 15y ago
Indeed - Pragmatically, why should sony care? They will care when they end up in court because the rightsholders go after them. if the rightsholders are not willing or able to do so, then sony doesnt have much to worry about. thats busine
336.
by dedward 15y ago
is it realistic for someone who releases their code to expect an unrelated party dealing with a license violation to just give them a free ride to enforcement? I mean, fine if they do, but it is by no means expected. I dont disagree with
337.
by dedward 15y ago
Indeed... a quick search turns up someone from the zfs team indicating that a collision in zfs dedup (sha256) is 50 orders of magnitude less likely than an uncorrected hardware error. i shoukd have looked before posting.
338.
by dedward 15y ago
its not just widely accepted.... hashing algorithms, due to the pigeonhole principle you just explained, by definition are full of collisions. the only security relevant part is how hard it is to find them for use in various scenarios......
339.
by dedward 15y ago
All other facts aside, I sort of assume google analyzes their statistics to find out what works and what doesn't... whether an extra quarter second of search results matter or not, and so on. I don't like the confusing mess it's become ei
340.
by dedward 15y ago
no flamewars.... this must have spmethingj to do with windows giant mess of libraries and backwards comatabilities. my mac is running the same os install, cloned, upgraded, moved to newer gear ( but older than anyone i know hardware wise..
341.
by dedward 15y ago
yup, while you are held. indefinitely for contempt of court ( dont yzou havea law against that too?)
342.
by dedward 15y ago
not directly, but their faq pretty clear about a bunch of secondary ( out of band, internet updates duplicated, etc) correlations that could lead to good evidence that the second system exists. pulling that off is noeasy task.
343.
by dedward 15y ago
which means prosecutors will have supporting evidence that you have the info they need andyou wonthaveevidence that you are acat freak.
344.
by dedward 15y ago
or use a better method to keep your data unknown to the world that doesnt requre as much precision handling... or like, dont break the law, or dont get caught.
345.
by dedward 15y ago
well, it lets you have a fully functional alternate system (both systems are encrypted) that will show up if the correct password is used, with no direct forensic way to prove it exists at all, by design. There indirect ways, outlined inthe
346.
by dedward 15y ago
Not if they find a way to get to it and it incriminates you. otherwise, lack of coooperation because you are exercising your rights is not supposed to be used as evidence of a crime. not letting the police into your home is not in any way c
347.
by dedward 15y ago
twitter and facebook are big enough to complain. they dont need google right now, thay can stand on their own.
348.
by dedward 15y ago
so despiteall that, when you are using the prefs screen and turn the input volume theway cown, it should not register any input right? Thenwhy does it? thas not nothing.
349.
by dedward 15y ago
still drinking my coffee, but the one odd part was that, on theprefs screen, with mic input all theway down, it was still regisrering audio. something is wrong there....all other arguments about security aside, i tried this on my mid 2009
350.
by dedward 15y ago
isnt the simple point of the 5th supposed to be more or,ess "you do cannot be compelled bylaw to help convict yourself)... ay law to the contrary would be unconstitutional.
351.
by dedward 15y ago
I believe that is unavoidable givenhow things work. Getting something in front of thesupreme court is more difficult than law enforcement moving forward.... so there will akways be a lag between the two.
352.
by dedward 15y ago
Thanks.... some very interesting reading (sorry if this post is breaking hn ettiquette)
353.
by dedward 15y ago
attorneys on both sides, plus juries hearing this will do wonders..... judges dont rule alone necessarily (you have the right to trial by your peers, corect?) Appeals courts will follow the supreme court if a similar cae hits the judges de
354.
by dedward 15y ago
more importNtly, if the supreme court asks them, what will they say. in this case peosecutors mad it clear they interpreted the law to meanthey could legally gps tag anyone, including then supremejustice's car without a warrant - one imagin
355.
by dedward 15y ago
after this ruling we will see, right ? Imagine a supreme court judge aski ng if All of his internetndata was available to besearchedwithout a warrant And being told yes.... one could imagine a similar outcome when such a case reaches them.
356.
by dedward 15y ago
a 9-0 vote by the supreme on this matter is a huge thing.... much more than simply a majority vote. it sends a loud and clear message about their stance on the matter. judges and prosecutors will take this, and all the details into consi
357.
by dedward 15y ago
consider people who dont live in the us?
358.
by dedward 15y ago
lets be clear though... we are talking about google's users, its product, not its payingclients, right? people who are using spmething for free dont have much to complain about from a legal standpoint...... thoug fair enough to ket google
359.
by dedward 15y ago
no need for the drama. realtime simply implies there is known, hard maximum time it will take for certain in-scope operations to take place, so you can design around that. a realtime os will often be slower overall than the non-realtime os
360.
by dedward 15y ago
So let's see - your legal stuff stored on an online service... or even broader, you contract some service you need out to a company. That company gets it's doors slammed because they landed in legal trouble - who cares who's fault that wa

More ›