Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This seems absurd, did I get that correctly? (Score 1) 288

by Peter Steil (#32134748) Attached to: FCC Allows Blocking of Set-Top Box Outputs
That is absolutely not the case. The proposed system here merely limits outputs of your STB for movies purchased from the cable co. (e.g. video on demand titles). So it's like renting a movie, only this way you can't make a backup copy. The disabled output is implemented on a per-title basis, and not just some wide blanket case. You can still pirate your movies as normal, this only stops people that actually record from the STB outputs.

Comment: Donations were OPTIONAL (Score 1) 156

by Peter Steil (#30785860) Attached to: In UK, Oink Admin Cleared of Fraud
OiNK was an awesome place, great community of great people. Donations were 100% voluntary, in fact I never donated much other than my time. I seriously doubt the money found in his bank account was personal profits, etc. I truly believe that the majority of it would have been reinvested into the site had the initial raid not taken place.
Microsoft

Dell Says Re-Imaging HDs a Burden If Word Banned 376

Posted by timothy
from the what-you're-used-to dept.
N!NJA writes "In an amicus curiae brief filed on Aug. 24, Dell asked the judge overseeing the Eastern District Court of Texas to reconsider its order blocking sales of Word, part of the original ruling in favor of Canadian software developer i4i. In the worst case, the brief argued, the injunction should be delayed by 120 days. 'The District Court's injunction of Microsoft Word will have an impact far beyond Microsoft,' Dell and HP wrote. 'Microsoft Word is ubiquitous among word processing software and is included on [redacted] computers sold by Dell.' 'If Microsoft is required to ship a revised version of Word in Dell's computers, a change would need to be made to Dell's images,' Dell wrote. 'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.' An addendum to the brief notes that it was authored in Microsoft Word, part of Office 2003."

Comment: Could have told you writing analysis was bogus.... (Score 3, Insightful) 96

by Peter Steil (#29130591) Attached to: Writing Style Fingerprint Tool Easily Fooled
....from the beginning. Sure it may work on a limited set of individuals. It's the same thing as a polygraph test, it's not based on any sort of quantifiable data but mere suspicion at best. It is completely subjective and there is no real hard science to support such tests. This is the reason why polygraphs are not admissible in court, and why writing analysis shouldn't be either. Be sure to watch for writing analysis to show up on the next Maury show!

Comment: Re:Take this with a grain of salt... (Score 1) 256

by Peter Steil (#29102317) Attached to: Scientists Learn To Fabricate DNA Evidence
Not necessarily true. Haven't you noticed that a (hopefully small) number of police investigators aren't worried so much with catching a criminal but convicting someone? Now try this, DNA data banks are generally comprised of people who have broken the law previously.

Now let's say I happen to stumble upon a large scale meth lab that the public knows about it, whats better...coming up with nothing...or somehow finding DNA of a convicted meth cook?

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...