Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Submission + - Microsoft can remotely delete Windows 8 apps ( 3

tripleevenfall writes: Microsoft will be able to throw a "kill switch" to disable or even remove an app from users' Windows 8 devices, the company revealed in documentation released earlier this week for its upcoming Windows Store.

"In cases where your security is at risk, or where we're required to do so for legal reasons, you may not be able to run apps or access content that you previously acquired or purchased a license for," said Microsoft in the Windows Store terms."If the Windows Store, an app, or any content is changed or discontinued, your data could be deleted or you may not be able to retrieve data you have stored," Microsoft said.

Both Apple and Google can flip such a switch for apps distributed by the iOS App Store and Android Market, respectively.

Comment People Must Be Allowed To Break The Law (Score 3, Insightful) 517

Yeah, wrap your head around that one.

If you want to do what's RIGHT, take the example of red light cameras. Everyone hates them. They get massive opposition (at least in my area) whenever they're introduced. Now, why, exactly do you think this is? It's not because it's a waste of money, it's actually quite profitable. It's because they WORK. People run red lights all the time and they don't want to get caught.

To continue the driving metaphor, you speed on the highway. I know you do, everyone does. It's an open secret that at some point in your life you've probably gone above 80 and NOT gotten caught. This would be so trivial to stop it's laughable. A couple lines of code in the onboard computer to limit your speed to 70 mph. Depending on your region you could just take it to a mechanic and have them adjust the limit in accordance with local laws. Now how would you feel if they did that? Pretty pissed I'm sure. I know why I would be, because they're taking away my freedom to break the law.

Now I'm sure by now you think I'm going to say piracy serves some important moral purpose. It doesn't, it's wrong. But the RIGHT thing to do is to let it happen, because like the occasional speeder or the kid with a dime bag of pot, it is not something life threatening that MUST be stopped in its entirety. You have a choice to make between harming the tech sector or harming the entertainment sector. The right thing to do is to take the choice of lesser harm. SOPA and PIPA will hurt EVERYONE in a fantastic myriad of ways I'm sure you're all familiar with. Piracy only hurts those who are pirated against, and only in one way - by eroding their profit margin.

This isn't to say we should give up the fight against piracy. That would be like abolishing all traffic laws, there would be chaos on the streets. Nobody wants that. But we have to take MEASURED steps against it. We can never eradicate piracy, so in taking steps to fight piracy, the government should first make sure nobody is going to get hit in the crossfire.

Or you could just subsidize the entertainment industry and institute a piracy tax on high speed internet connections, that could work too. Didn't Switzerland already do that?

Comment Re:Berne Convention (Score 1) 463

I think what a lot of people forget is most of the great works of civilization weren't created with money in mind, but simply for the love of their art. If any of the indie bands I knew (personally) were in it for the money, they'd be in a different line of work. Most of them ARE in a different line of work, at least one makes six figures writing banking software. Besides which, even if you broke into a store and stole a bunch of albums the only people you'd hurt would be the label executives, which nobody should actually care about because they're parasites on the industry. And then you take a look at websites like bandcamp which have many free albums you can optionally pay for, or any of the indie bundles on steam where the product is supplied for free or nearly so but people just throw money at them because they're good. Copyright by no means ensures profit and allowing people to download for free by no means excludes it because if 1,000 people download your song and one person sends you $5 for it, you've just made $5. Copyright is a century old concept, its methodology is outdated. Its usefulness was to prevent more powerful people from stealing an idea and profiting off it while the original author lacks the power of distribution, but now EVERYONE has the power of distribution. Music piracy at the moment is far more profitable due to the sheer publicity it generates for the artists than it is lossy from the lost revenue. That's not to say copyright is useless as a legal construct, as it protects proper attribution, but to enforce it as rigidly as the RIAA would like is simply lunacy. The fact is with digital distribution, CDs are fairly useless. The RIAA is running scared, trying to milk every cent they can out of their existing artists, because there's little to no reason for a new artist to sign up with them. Also,if this trend of the US attempting to implement a police state on the internet and Switzerland saying lolno continues, the entirety of the internet might end up located in Switzerland.

Comment Betraying their design principles (Score 1) 257

Wasn't firefox originally intended to have a LIGHT footprint by being modular and relying mostly on extensions to provide functionality beyond basic web browsing? PDF is not basic web browsing. You might as well include routines for MSOffice documents too. And mp3s, and movies, and pretty soon we've got one gargantuan program that does everything and does it badly when all we wanted to do was look at cat pictures.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.