Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:That's the DMCA for you... (Score 1) 176

by krenshala (#31280534) Attached to: Microsoft Says It Never Meant To Knock Cryptome Offline

Actually, NetSol would have to contact their customer and say "We've received a DMCA notice for X ... remove X or we take down your site." I don't know the timeline on what happened, so they may have given Cryptome a couple of days to remove the file, then downed the domain when he didn't, which isn't quite as unreasonable as it at first appears. Of course, they could also have received the DMCA request and just downed the site, which is just as unreasonable as it appears.

Government

Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency 164

Posted by timothy
from the putting-on-an-acta dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, the secret copyright treaty, many countries have taken public positions that they support release of the actual text, but that other countries do not. Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners, the text simply can't be released until everyone is in agreement. A new leak from the Netherlands fingers who the chief opponents of transparency are: the United States, South Korea, Singapore, and Denmark lead the way, with Belgium, Germany, and Portugal not far behind as problem countries."

Comment: Re:Capitalism means crisis (Score 1) 336

by krenshala (#29545483) Attached to: Google Serves a Cease and Desist On Android Modder

Just because something evolved doesn't mean it got better. Evolution is change, so when your language changes, for whatever reason, then it has evolved. Phreak summed it up pretty well for the Romance languages (as did you, from a slightly different perspective, btw).

As for his use of failure, while I don't think many people think of it the way he does, it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable description of what happened. Rome (the empire) failed, and thus the Roman language (latin) changed -- failure leading to change, as local dialects replaced "official" latin.

Comment: Re:First! (Score 1) 329

by krenshala (#29459213) Attached to: Student Designs Cardboard Computer Case

You clearly haven't ever worked on a truly good chassis then. There are definitely chassis' that aren't worth the cost of the paper in the packing slip, however, there are also chassis that are well worth every penny you spend on them, and then some. The $200 Antec chassis I've recently set up is extremely easy to get into and work on (and no, I do not feel that screws are a bad thing; I prefer having parts secured to the chassis by metal, not plastic). My only complaint has been the placement of the memory on the motherboard (up "top" where heat would gather when the system is upright) which is a motherboard design problem, not a chassis problem, and that wouldn't have been a problem if my air conditioning had worked correctly and I didn't live in Texas. : /

Comment: Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership (Score 2, Informative) 376

by krenshala (#29248819) Attached to: Dell Says Re-Imaging HDs a Burden If Word Banned

Dell doesn't keep "an image". It keeps the pieces required to build the required image necessary for the individual computer based on its ordered configuration, which includes what software it was supposed to ship with. That "image" (which is the parts used to build the image) is used to build pre-imaged hard drives for warranty replacements, or software recovery CD sets (boot from disk, load the factory image). I think Dell's complaint is that the injunction means they wouldn't be able to send out recovery CDs or imaged hard drives to customers that purchased the software prior to the injuction but needed the image after it took place. The 120 day time frame they mention sounds suspiciously like the TTL of pieces used to build the image.

Now, do I think the court should listen to Dell and HP about this? I'm not sure.

I do know that I think this kind of patent is crap that shouldn't be enforced. Especially considering, as someone posted above, XML was designed to support the features this patent claims to cover. I know for sure XML has been around longer than the patent has, so prior art means MS should "win" this case (despite my misgivings over letting MS "win" something like this).

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.

Working...