Slashback: OSS, Lawsuits, History

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Record Label civil war, more big-business software getting tossed into open source, US Government says 2008 IPv6 still on track, EU Warned Microsoft source code not enough, RIM celebrates a victory in Germany, 10th planet a reality, and looking forward to the year 2001 -- Read on for details.

Record Label Supports Accused File-Sharer. arabagast writes "The Nettwerk Music Group has said it will pay for the defense of David Greubel. Greubel is the defendant in a complaint filed by the RIAA in a U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas accusing him of having 600 illegally downloaded music files on his home computer."

Qluster's OpenQRM goes OSS. Decibel writes "While Microsoft, Oracle and now IBM have made news by releasing free versions of their databases, other companies have gone one better and released versions of their products as OSS. Qlusters is one example, in that they just released OpenQRM. The CTO's previous company (Symbiot) also made a similar play, releasing OpenSIMS. Could this be the start of a change to where commercial software starts melding more and more into OSS?"

US Government says 2008 IPv6 still on track. DrkShadow writes to tell us that the Government is holding fast to their 2008 IPv6 switch commitment. From the article: "The White House Office of Management and Budget said it would issue a policy memorandum dictating full federal 'IPv6' compliance in an effort to spur its deployment throughout government agencies."

EU Warned Microsoft source code not enough. Joe Barr writes "According to WindowsITPro, the Wall Street Journal has obtained a copy of a confidential memo sent from the EU to Microsoft last month which warned Microsoft that an offer of the source code would not be enough to satisfy the EU's requirements for interoperability. Open source advocates have blasted the offer because it lacks the knowledge required to interoperate with Windows behind its IP licensing, thus making it unusable."

RIM celebrates a victory in Germany. PDG writes "Looks like not everything is going bad for RIM as they have recently won another patent based lawsuit, but this time in Germany. At least they don't have all their legal eggs in one basket."

10th planet a reality. smooth wombat writes "After measuring twice and cutting once, a team of German astrophysicists at the University of Bonn led by Frank Bertoldi have concluded that the object located beyond the orbit of Pluto and named 2003 UB313, is 435 miles larger in diameter than Pluto. As a result, there will be increasing pressure on the IAU (International Astronomical Union) to classify this object as the 10th planet. From the article: '"It is now increasingly hard to justify calling Pluto a planet if UB313 is not also given this status," Bertoldi said.'"

Looking forward to the year 2001. ChristianNerds writes "Atari Magazine is serving up an article written in 1989 concerning what the next century would be like. From the article: 'A typical morning in the year 2001: You wake up, scan the custom newspaper that's spilling from your fax, walk into the living room. There you speak to a giant screen on the wall, part of which instantly becomes a high-quality TV monitor. When you leave for work, you carry a smart wallet, a computer the size of a credit card. When you come home, you slip on special eyeglasses and stroll through a completely artificial world.' They got a great deal right, like the spread of optical disk usage, the internet (ISDN), and parallel processing."

Comments

Artificial World

[biocute]

stroll through a completely artificial world

Must be wOw, SecondLife or The Sims.

Re:Artificial World

[TubeSteak]

Or working in a cubicle for 8 hrs a day.

that's a fairly artifical world if you ask me.

10th planet

[brian0918]

It seems like the IAU could pin down a definition of what a "planet" is by setting some cutoff based on the object's gravitational effect on the Sun, which fall off as 1/r^2, so that even though the object is slightly larger than Pluto, it is so much farther away from the Sun than Pluto that its gravitational influence is below some arbitrary cutoff.

Re:10th planet

[brian0918]

"Don't worry, this would probably only affect your balls if they were farthe away than Pluto. If that's the case, then you have greater things to worry about than if they're listed as planets."

I can see the book now... "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, Women have sent Men's Balls into a Trans-Neptunian Orbit"

Re:10th planet

[Petrushka]

I figure if you take UB313 as having a density of 6 kg/m^3 (very dense) and diameter 340,000 (largest estimate), and take its minimum distance from the sun (37 AU), it exerts roundabout the same gravitational force on the sun as an object of about 7 x 10^14 kg at a distance of 1 AU from the sun.

So by your definition Phobos and Deimos - at a distance of 1.3 to 1.7 AU from the sun - would both be planets.

In case anyone isn't aware, Phobos and Deimos are really small ...

Re:10th planet

[CharlesDonHall]

I think we should just decide based on the name.

If the Romans named one of their Gods after it (e.g. Pluto), then it's a planet. If it's named after a person (Hale-Bopp) then it's a comet. If the name is just some random string of letters (UB313) then it's an asteroid.

(Note: Under this system, the asteroids Juno, Pallas, Vesta, etc. would be reclassified as planets.)

Re:10th planet

[jonadab]

> Yes, this would work, if you, for some reason, wanted to arbitrarily limit the
> number of Heliocentric planets to nine

The problem here is that the number of known small iceballs out there past Neptune is growing fairly rapidly, and if we classify them all as planets, we'll no longer be able to teach elementary school children the list of planets.

Personally, I think Pluto should be grandfathered in just because it was classified as a planet before its size was known, but apart from Pluto anything with less than about 5% of Earth's mass should be considered a "minor planet" or "planetoid" if it's roughly spherical, a comet if it has a "tail" pointing away from the primary more than about twice its diameter in the other direction (at periapsis), or an asteroid (or meteoroid, or speck of dust if it's really small). This is all assuming that the bulk of its acceleration relative to the rest of the system is due to the gravitational pull of a primary; if a planet has a larger impact on its motion than the primary does, then it's a moon. (That leaves the definition of "primary" to be sorted out later, but for the purposes of the solar system the Sun is obviously the only primary.)

Re:10th planet

[kfg]

The problem here is that the number of known small iceballs out there past Neptune is growing fairly rapidly

No, not really. That assumed figure for individual members of the Ort Cloud is about a trillion and has been for quite some time.

. . .and if we classify them all as planets. . .

But we already classify these as comets, because they're small iceballs.

. . . we'll no longer be able to teach elementary school children the list of planets.

Why, ummmmmmmm, on Earth, do you feel this is an important issue?

Personally, I think Pluto should be grandfathered in just because it was classified as a planet before its size was known . . .

This is not science and would set a bad example for elemetary school children.

. . .a comet if it has a "tail" pointing away from the primary

So Halley's isn't a comet, but will suddenly become one in about 70 years, but then it won't be again, but then. . .

Most comets never have tails.

. . .if a planet has a larger impact on its motion than the primary does, then it's a moon.

But now the Gas Giants each have a godzillion moons. We'll never be able to name them all, let alone teach a list of their names to elementary school children.

Classification isn't always so easy, because, you see, the object itself keeps insisting that it, as it is, is the only reality, not its classification.

As Mark Twain pondered, it's all very well for a naturalist to classify a bug, but how does he then go about explaining it to the bug?

KFG

Re:10th planet

[cpt kangarooski]

Classification isn't always so easy, because, you see, the object itself keeps insisting that it, as it is, is the only reality, not its classification.

Well that's why we need the space program: so that someday we can get out there and move, alter, and demolish various bodies until the Solar System conforms to what we think it ought to be.

Re:10th planet

[sbaker]

Astronomers and their ilk simply need to abandon terms like 'planet', 'moon' and possibly even 'star' and invent new words with precise meanings. It's not uncommon to have to do this in science when the meaning of old words becomes impossibly difficult to deal with.

Non-scientists have words like 'butterfly' and 'moth' - which have no clear scientific distinction - we also make distinctions where there are none. In common parlance, we orbit a "Sun" - not a "Star". Stars are little dots in the sky - but a sun is a huge nearby thing. ...until we imagine ourselves ourselves are close by a distant star - when we'll want to call it a 'Sun' again. When we sit on a sunny day on some extrasolar planet, we'll still say "What a nice day it is, the sun is shining"...no matter how much the astronomers complain about it.

So scientific rigor can only be satisfied by making new words with rigerous definitions - rather than trying to pin down arbitary non-scientific historical usage of existing words.

If they allow new solar-orbiting bodies to be called planets then whatever cutoff they choose will be utterly arbitary. If they define Pluto to not be a planet then a few billion people will have learned the wrong thing in school and a similar number of books will now be *WRONG* for no other reason than we decided to make them wrong. You can't easily change what people believe to be a fact - and you certainly can't re-publish a billion text books.

So: Pluto is a "Planet" because it always was one. Astronomers should not care a damn about whether the 10th 'thing' is a planet or not because the word 'planet' and 'asteroid' carry about as much distinction as 'butterfly' and 'moth' or 'sun' and 'star'.

They just need new words.

We can do this - and it's easier than arguing about definitions of commonplace words that do not have (and never have had) a formal definition.

Yes, where IS my flying car?

[ursabear]

I was promised a flying car, dangit!

It is a good thing, however that not all predictions come true.

If by 2008 we'll be finally using IPv6

[WillAffleckUW]

I guess I can quit holding my breath.

I remember last century wondering if IPv6 would ever get implemented.

Guess a few billion Chinese with email addresses and IP-enabled devices probably forced the issue, huh? That plus the fact that my fridge, toaster, TV, computers, and microwave oven all have IP addresses ...

Wow. It did happen.

[Teresh]

"Looking forward to the year 2001. ChristianNerds writes "Atari Magazine is serving up an article written in 1989 concerning what the next century would be like. From the article: 'A typical morning in the year 2001: You wake up, scan the custom newspaper that's spilling from your fax, walk into the living room. There you speak to a giant screen on the wall, part of which instantly becomes a high-quality TV monitor. When you leave for work, you carry a smart wallet, a computer the size of a credit card. When you come home, you slip on special eyeglasses and stroll through a completely artificial world.' They got a great deal right, like the spread of optical disk usage, the internet (ISDN), and parallel processing."

I get custom RSS feeds, that pretty much counts as a custom newspaper for me. I've seen voice-controlled switches and HDTVs, wouldn't surprise me that some people have connected the two. American Express makes Blue, a credit card that is quite really a computer. I haven't seen the virtual world like described, but most MMORPGs would count if your monitor is big enough.

Wow. I never thought predictions of the new millennium would be accurate. Turns out they were mostly right. :O

2001: A web oddysey

[Spy der Mann]

The prediction guys aren't quite wrong. they just got some ideas 10 or 20 years ahead.

Voice recognition: Check.
E-paper on the wall: Kinda, but the technology's there.
3-D glasses: Well um...

Vast amounts of information: "With instant referencing of thousands of volumes of information, computing will be like working with an army of electronic elves, all ready to fetch in a flash any tidbit you like."

They got it half right... had they thought about the internet, they might have figured about Google and Wikipedia. No, Encarta doesn't count. It sucks :P

"It'll also allow you to store audio and video". DivX - check :)
""You'll be able to capture segments of a show you like, cut them out, and put them in a video report for school."
TiVo is here :) but companies' interests kinda screwed that up. However, Google video search is here, too :)

Hmmm. Pretty interesting.

Wait just a minute

[SeanTobin]

From TFA:

McBride, however, disagreed, saying litigation doesn't benefit artists.

"Litigation is not 'artist development,'" McBride said. "Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love. The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists' best interests."

So now I'm supposed to cheer for someone named McBride?

OK, had to be said

[real gumby]

1989 is calling. They want their 2001 back.

2001, information, and IP

[lilmouse]

It's funny how so many of the things fortold in 1989 aren't around today - but not because of technological limitations! Consider these:

• Desktop libraries - sure, we've got wikipedia, but not in 2001, and there is still *vast* amounts of stuff out there we can't have today. Why not? IP.
• Remote controls that let you automatically record a set of TV shows. Sure, there's Tivo...but even Tivo doesn't want you to be able to watch this stuff whenever you want! You're expected to pay money for it.

So many people dreamed of unfettered access to vast amounts of knowledge thanks to the internet... And we do have vast amount of access - but no authoritative, complete libraries at our fingertips. Companies have managed to lay claim to information, and it's no longer shared with everyone, but kept in chains.

Welcome to the 21st century!

--LWM

Re:2001, information, and IP

[sbaker]

Many of their predictions are wrong because we realised we didn't WANT these things.

I could certainly rather easily build a system to print me a custom newspaper from the web - but who actually wants that. Most people's reaction would be "What a waste of Fax paper". If we want news - on any conceivable topic - at any time of day or night - it's right there on the web.

We could have voice-operated devices - but most people either feel embarassed by them - or they realise that the damned things won't work when there is a lot of other noise around - or that you'd say: "I don't think much of the format of this web site"...only to find their laptop saying "Format started....Format complete". Voice commands only work in the human world because we maintain eye contact - or have a lot of personal context surrounding a command. In a busy 'cube farm' type of office, having everyone issuing voice commands would *suck*. We have pretty good voice recognition - but we USE it mostly only for automated telephone response services and such.

We do have large screen TV's - but we prefer to reserve that screen for entertainment because it's got a big comfey sofa in front of it - and use a smaller screen with an ergonomic office chair, a keyboard and mouse for doing computing stuff. If one part of the family is watching TV, they don't want an inset view of me buying stuff on eBay distracting them in one corner of the screen.

The problem wasn't that they misjudged the technological capabilities of the year 2001 - they basically applied Moores Law kinds of prediction and nailed that pretty accurately. It was that they failed to think through the consequences of those technologies in terms of what people actually WANT out of their lives.

Re:NTP just lost a BIG one.

[SpaceLifeForm]

USDOJ gets involved, Stout promises reversal.

My problems aren't technical

[numbski]

My problem with IPv6 is fiscal. I go to ARIN and want to deploy a community wireless network using all IPv6. They want to charge me just as much for IPv6 addresses as they're charging for IPv4. What's worse, is that if I do use IPv6, I still have to pay for IPv4 addresses so that I can translate for the rest of the world, as IPv6 addresses can easily go to a IPv4 subnet, but the reverse is not true, I have to do some form of translation. :\

So basically ICANN is causing the slowed adoption themselves. It's either $1200/yr for IPv4, or $2400/yr for IPv6. Take a wild guess what I'll wind up doing despite wanting to use IPv6. :(

Re:My problems aren't technical

[schon]

I go to ARIN and want to deploy a community wireless network using all IPv6. They want to charge me just as much for IPv6 addresses as they're charging for IPv4.

I call bullshit.

From the link:

Organizations that are General Members in good standing prior to requesting an initial IPv6 allocation are not charged IPv6 registration fees. Annual renewal fees for IPv6 allocations are also waived for General Members in good standing. ARIN will continue to waive these fees as long as the organization remains a General Member in good standing at the time of renewal, up until Dec. 31, 2006.

Also, if you do have to pay, that page shows that IPV6 addresses are less expensive than IPV4, because the blocks are larger. An IPV4 /21 (2048 addresses) costs the same amount as an IPV6 /48 (1.2e24 addresses)