Slashdot Mirror

click me
Me too.

Just keep making web caches of the banned documents and they will have a "whack-a-mole" problem.

Network Solutions competes for this business with its NetDiscovery service. "The VeriSign NetDiscovery Service is the premier choice in the marketplace for a full turn-key solution for provisioning, access, and delivery of call information from carriers to law enforcement agencies (LEAs)." This is built on Verisign's control of the inter-carrier SS7 network that controls the phone system. Verisign acquired Illuminet and took over that business several years ago.

None of this is a secret, and you can even read the technical specs about how it's done. What's striking, though, is how much easier wiretapping is today. It used to be inefficient and expensive for law enforcement to wiretap. (New York Telephone was at one point back in the 1980s billing the FBI about a million a year for wiretaps, each one charged as a leased line.) Now, it's easy, and the carriers have to eat the costs. This encourages far broader wiretapping.

Guess it depends on how quickly they 'revise' but maybe the Way Back Machine could help here. Not sure if this would be "proof" from a legal standpoint.

The licensing scheme is not the same as it always was, and there is documentation of this fact at The Internet Archive.

The recorded page from August of 2000 stated that:

"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."

The page from the same date for third-party encoders is pretty much the same as they said, though- so LAME, blade, etc., seem to have been afoul of this for a while. Which is pretty awful, since they're great software.

The record at the Archive was brought up in a previous article, so I'll give credit to that individual whose name I don't have on hand. And Flarelock, for the "1984" post above, that's a nice touch.

The licensing scheme is not the same as it always was, and there is documentation of this fact at The Internet Archive.

The recorded page from August of 2000 stated that:

"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."

The page from the same date for third-party encoders is pretty much the same as they said, though- so LAME, blade, etc., seem to have been afoul of this for a while. Which is pretty awful, since they're great software.

The record at the Archive was brought up in a previous article, so I'll give credit to that individual whose name I don't have on hand. And Flarelock, for the "1984" post above, that's a nice touch.

The licensing scheme is not the same as it always was, and there is documentation of this fact at The Internet Archive.

The recorded page from August of 2000 stated that:

"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."

The page from the same date for third-party encoders is pretty much the same as they said, though- so LAME, blade, etc., seem to have been afoul of this for a while. Which is pretty awful, since they're great software.

The record at the Archive was brought up in a previous article, so I'll give credit to that individual whose name I don't have on hand. And Flarelock, for the "1984" post above, that's a nice touch.

You can find a cache of the site at the wayback machine .
I know the guy will be gutted about that :)

Using the way back machine on their site shows they previously indicated that there was an intent that free players are excempt:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010416234647/http://m p3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html

"No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users."

According to the Way Back Machine:

Feburary 8, 2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20001212023000/mp3licen sing.com/royalty/swdec.html

mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users

No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users.

Then in August 2001 no mention is made of the no mention of exemption for freely distributed players (and the rate is only 50 cents per player):
http://web.archive.org/web/20010820181631/http://m p3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

Looks like the rate was increased to $.75 in November 2001.

According to the Way Back Machine:

Feburary 8, 2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20001212023000/mp3licen sing.com/royalty/swdec.html

mp3 Software Decoders/Players distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users

No license fee is expected for desktop software mp3 decoders/players that are distributed free-of-charge via the Internet for personal use of end-users.

Then in August 2001 no mention is made of the no mention of exemption for freely distributed players (and the rate is only 50 cents per player):
http://web.archive.org/web/20010820181631/http://m p3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

Looks like the rate was increased to $.75 in November 2001.

Looks like Paintbrush in action *g*

Looks like Paintbrush in action *g*

But even that change happened sometime last year (before October 2001). Given that the current fee structure has been in place for a year, it seems silly to post Slashdot stories about "new licensing terms" and comments about how everything's going to change. Notice how it didn't change last fall when the licensing terms were actually new?

You can see the old Freeamp site in archive. But the current site is down.

Remember Rotary Rocket, with their commercial SSTO vehicle They're dead. Just a little bit of weight growth in the engine, and the design became unable to make it to orbit.

no one can escape the wayback machine

Couldn't they claim they licensed the patent under the previous scheme? is there something that makes such a license revokable? IANAL... or a doctor for that matter.

These prices have always been around. It's just that they have never been enforced. If everyone had to pay for a player to listen to mp3's, mp3's would be nowhere near as popular as they are today.
This is just another case of /. editors making news out something that's been around for more than a year.

Actually, you are incorrect; the editors did not do anything wrong in this case. While the rates have been around, they were lower previously. Take a look at the previous royalty page courtesy of the Wayback Machine.

I also have a feeling that if they are going to increase the rates, they are going to make a point of charging for the royalty fees as well.

web.archive.org is an archive of sites on the web going back to about 1996.

and this version.

no images due to a disk crash, but this has interesting information about high-precision NTP from GPS on FreeBSD, including an excellent trick to reduce jitter introduced by the usual low-quality PC xtal.

Mirror to the slashdot effect link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011006050218/http://s sadler.phy.bnl.gov/adler/SDE/SlashDotEffect.html

In a world of one-sided analysis and opinions, I find Declan's two-sided coverage of this issue refreshing.

Were it not for his past behavior, and his willingness to damage and even destroy people for his own personal gain, I would probably agree.

But having been witness to his willingness to sacrifice others for his own personal benefit, and seeing the damage he is now causing to those trying to resist the revocation of our digital freedoms by the media and copyright cartels, I am forced to conclude that his shift is nothing more than a cynical adjustment in his career strategy.

As the the legitimacy of his "analysis" of the DMCA, others on this site have more thoroughly debunked that, and anything I say would be very redundant.

But I guess you'll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt, since my karma has been reduced to zero.

Karma is meaningless, and I for one do not dismiss your opinion. You sound like a reasonable, thoughtful person who, I believe, has been misled by Declan's legendary charm. Most people who are tend to remain so, until they themselves feel the knife stabbing in their back.

As for the LiViD issue, I refer you to the archives, where you can make your own judgement as to the events (you will also note that I defended Declan on that list, something I have long regretted in retrospect)

LiVid Archives (November 1999)

See also the previous couple of months for more background information, if you are really interested.

Some comments include:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815215028/livid.on .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001074.html


http://web.archive.org/web/20000817190115/livid.on .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001408.html

In a world of one-sided analysis and opinions, I find Declan's two-sided coverage of this issue refreshing.

Were it not for his past behavior, and his willingness to damage and even destroy people for his own personal gain, I would probably agree.

But having been witness to his willingness to sacrifice others for his own personal benefit, and seeing the damage he is now causing to those trying to resist the revocation of our digital freedoms by the media and copyright cartels, I am forced to conclude that his shift is nothing more than a cynical adjustment in his career strategy.

As the the legitimacy of his "analysis" of the DMCA, others on this site have more thoroughly debunked that, and anything I say would be very redundant.

But I guess you'll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt, since my karma has been reduced to zero.

Karma is meaningless, and I for one do not dismiss your opinion. You sound like a reasonable, thoughtful person who, I believe, has been misled by Declan's legendary charm. Most people who are tend to remain so, until they themselves feel the knife stabbing in their back.

As for the LiViD issue, I refer you to the archives, where you can make your own judgement as to the events (you will also note that I defended Declan on that list, something I have long regretted in retrospect)

LiVid Archives (November 1999)

See also the previous couple of months for more background information, if you are really interested.

Some comments include:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815215028/livid.on .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001074.html


http://web.archive.org/web/20000817190115/livid.on .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001408.html

In a world of one-sided analysis and opinions, I find Declan's two-sided coverage of this issue refreshing.

Were it not for his past behavior, and his willingness to damage and even destroy people for his own personal gain, I would probably agree.

But having been witness to his willingness to sacrifice others for his own personal benefit, and seeing the damage he is now causing to those trying to resist the revocation of our digital freedoms by the media and copyright cartels, I am forced to conclude that his shift is nothing more than a cynical adjustment in his career strategy.

As the the legitimacy of his "analysis" of the DMCA, others on this site have more thoroughly debunked that, and anything I say would be very redundant.

But I guess you'll have to take my opinion with a grain of salt, since my karma has been reduced to zero.

Karma is meaningless, and I for one do not dismiss your opinion. You sound like a reasonable, thoughtful person who, I believe, has been misled by Declan's legendary charm. Most people who are tend to remain so, until they themselves feel the knife stabbing in their back.

As for the LiViD issue, I refer you to the archives, where you can make your own judgement as to the events (you will also note that I defended Declan on that list, something I have long regretted in retrospect)

LiVid Archives (November 1999)

See also the previous couple of months for more background information, if you are really interested.

Some comments include:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815215028/livid.on .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001074.html


http://web.archive.org/web/20000817190115/livid.on .openprojects.net/pipermail/livid-dev/1999-Novembe r/001408.html

Also remember that these beams can bounce off metallic surfaces. If these walls don't let radio signals through, they might also be reflective. So a beam through a window might reflect off another building and reach another window at an angle other than line-of-sight. If the street has cobblestones under it, those might also be reflective.

Well, back to the inside of the building...

No cupolae on Woolsthorpe Manor. The Newtonia site is gone except for the Wayback Machine. The picture there and on other sites shows a high pitched roof.

The Newtonia pictures inside the house show a flat ceiling. I don't know if those rooms are on the first or second floor. If they're on the second floor, then there is an attic. But even if the rafters are exposed, perhaps a wooden cabinet in the rafters could be used for wireless equipment.

It looks like a shingled or slate roof. If there is not too much metal in the roof, you could fire a beam through it (I don't know the metallic and moisture content of slate, and there might be a layer of tin). And the building is L-shaped, so all four directions are visible through the faces of the roofs.

Of course, what would be needed are beams (802.11 or infrared lasers) between the buildings, connected by Ethernet cable to wireles access points for use within the buildings.

You can see the old version here

I tried to show you a solution to this sort of problem here a while back.

Well, I'm going to try again. Click here for your pretty fonts :) I already got them all.

MS will probably find a way to remedy this, so act quickly.

You just have to look in the right place. They may have removed the page that allows you to download the files, but they didn't remove the files themselves.

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/defau lt.htm

Using the Wayback machine trick outlined above, I was able to get a copy of the original ariuni .exe file. Below is the EULA, which is written as a supplement to that of applicable software. The definition of the latter includes "Microsoft Office" (no version specified), whereas the MS website now stipulates that the font is for Publisher 2000 users only.

Thus, to expand on my comments above, there is an even more dire need for a OS'd and free prorportional TrueType (or better) font with as broad a unicode coverage as possible. The only alternative I know of is Cyberbit; Bitstream's website says it is now a commerical font, but you can download it from netscape's ftp site.

Arial Unicode MS EULA excerpt follows:

SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE ("SUPPLEMENTAL EULA") (c) 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft software product components, including any "online" or electronic documentation ("Components") are subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement under which you have licensed the applicable Microsoft product ("Product") described below (each an "End User License Agreement" or "EULA") and the terms and conditions of this Supplemental EULA. .... NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "PRODUCT" (I.E., MICROSOFT OFFICE, MICROSOFT PUBLISHER, AND ANY MICROSOFT PRODUCTS THAT INCLUDE MICROSOFT PUBLISHER AS A COMPONENT PRODUCT), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

These fonts are still available on the Wayback Machine. Just paste in the font URL from this story and go to the old page. Select "from the current server" to download.

Since the EULA allows for unlimited redistribution I have to think this is a legally acceptable method for acquiring these fonts, no?

They are also planning an International Children's Digital Library which looks like it could be a very interesting resource.

They are also planning an International Children's Digital Library which looks like it could be a very interesting resource.

They are also planning an International Children's Digital Library which looks like it could be a very interesting resource.

They are also planning an International Children's Digital Library which looks like it could be a very interesting resource.

We demoed an early version of the product at the "Demo 98" conference, in February 1998. PCWeek ran an article about us mentioning the DingBot SDK later that month.

The Activerse press release announcing the product's general availability, in November 1998, is still available at the Internet Archive.

ActiveBuddy was founded in March 2000. So, not only were their "IM bots" a old idea by the time they filed their patent (August 2000), a ripoff of both Activerse's offerings and more than a decade of practice on IRC networks and in MUDs/MOOs, but their very name was derivative of an existing player in the same market ("Activerse"->"ActiveBuddy") and their main product (an SDK/server) and business model (licensing) mimicked Activerse as well.

Their founder claims with a straight face "we invented interactive agents" and "I am fairly confident, there were no interactive agents on IM at that point when the application was filed. I'm certainly not aware of any." That only goes to show you have to be *studiously* ignorant and/or dishonest in order to effectively twist the flaws of the software patent system to personal advantage.

(Postscript on Activerse: It was acquired by high-flying internet conglomerate CMGI in April 1999. Though the initial aim was to expand and promote the Ding IM/bot products throughout the CMGI network of compnaies, as CMGI itself unravelled, Activerse was dismantled through a series of mostly arbitrary and faddish organizational moves which completely ignored the promise of the growing IM space.)

Did somebody say giver and receiver?

Did somebody say giver and receiver?

Several other companies have done this. It seems to make some things faster and some things slower. Overall, the cost doesn't seem worth the moderate speedup in some apps. See this report.

As reported earlier today on Slashdot, the much-loved Goatse.cx has allowed their domain name registration to lapse. Their site may be gone, but their legacy will live on.

For example, compare
http://www.shadowkeeper.net/megan/html/lin.html

to

http://web.archive.org/web/20010331050523/http://w ww.shadowkeeper.net/megan/html/lin.html

ahh, memories :)

I don't know what the unix.com owners want to do with the domain (probably selling it for lots of $$ to AT&T?), but in trying to be 'not related to unix' they behave pretty lame, like stealing the webdesign from zope.org. Have a look

This is the weblog of a girl who clerks at an adult video store. The subject is rather interesting and its well written. It's probably, unfortunately, the pinacle of weblogs at least for me. The adult video store weblog was an intersting read, the one on salon made me wish I was reading an adult video store weblog :)

Some of us might remember The Spot A now defunct weblog that tried to make a go of commercializing this form of entertainment (they failed, they even manage to fail at the pinacle of the dot com craze). And they managed to fail with PICTURES!

I guess the moral of the story is, if you're going to do a weblog, make it something interesting like a clerk at an adult video store or maybe a massage parlor or something where you have a lot of quirky personalities to talk about. :-)

Ever wondered what slashdot trolls look like? Well here is a pic of the Wipo troll.

Not having seen the site in its original form

How similar are your efforts to what archive.org is doing?

Don't worry, the Wayback Machine has his website http://www.drsuse.org/ available for viewing (just click the link.)

He's written a fair amount of documentation but no tools, as far as I can see. A true hacker wannabe.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980119143350/stardivi sion.com/staroffice/java.html

And one about corel's java port from network computing magazine...

http://www.networkcomputing.com/816/816sp3.html

-gleam

StarOffice itself was never written completely in java, but there WAS a wholly java version of staroffice. Check archive.org's archive of stardivision.com -gleam

Taking the obligatory look at the forever cached version of lavarand.sgi.com reveals a little information. Granted, the cool images are definitely not there. A pity.

However, checking the above link reveals that the digital photography technique did not involve such interesting processing as determining transparent vs. opaque. Quoting:

The digital output of the image is then munged by an algorithm, which compresses and scrambles it. Thus the 921,600-byte image is transmogrified into an 140-byte "seed."

The technical description mentions the use of SHS-1 and then the Blum Blum Shub pseudo-random number generator. Not being familiar with such subjects, it does seem that this is even more Rube-Goldberg like than a 'simple' image processing which determines opacity.