Just because you have an idea doesn't mean you should patnet it because no one else has.
Think prior art. If someone else has documented proof that you don't have an original idea, you might as well kiss your patent goodbye.
Besides, why the fsck are you asking here, in anti-patent land?
Idiot.
A little ambitious dontchya think..?
on
UT2003 Demo Ready
·
· Score: 1
They've registered unrealtournament2004.com up to unrealtournament2010.com.
Ha ha.. perhaps this is a case where they don't want the same thing that happened to Sega, happen to them? (Commodore managed to stick that CDTV ad right next to Sega headquarters... "It'll take years for Sega to be this good!")
When you buy it, it comes with full source. I ended up having to modify it because the ISP I was working for was on a buying craze and picking up tonnes of other smaller ISPs that had conflicting usernames that needed to be dealt with--and nobody was willing to implement Radius realms.
What, you mean like when Windows NT took out the U.S.S. Yorktown?
Or perhaps the endless backdoors that no one can actually audit because the EULA doesn't allow for it? So even the most paranoid of the paranoid get owned as a result?
Or perhaps you should instead rephrase your question into "Why Linux?" and then go read what Peruvian Congressman Dr. Edgar David Villaneuca Nunez has to say about the matter?
Sometimes--even if a commercial tool is "better" for the task (and I really don't think it is), blind application of pure personal utilitarianism means you have to set aside any morals about supporting a corporation that's as blatantly ruthless as Microsoft is.
But hey--if you don't mind contributing to Microsoft's current inhumanity, then by all means, go ahead and pay their outrageous licensing fees and the more power to ya.
No, really: you just go ahead and knock down your straw man--in this case perhaps named the "One True Operating System" zealot--and the rest of us sane individuals will keep on doing real work with tools we know we can trust.
I'm curious as to why he backed out of the DMCA challenge--usually employees can see their own demise from miles away. Was he just holding onto the small string of hope that by backing off from breaking the DMCA he'd impress his superiors enough to keep him on the job?
I find it hard to swallow that Bruce is touting the "ethics" of his position and how uncompromising he is when he chickened out of something he was garnering a great deal of press for to begin with.
As for the article--I don't consider Bruce our leader. There are no leaders. That's partly what's so great about all this. Heck, I don't even know of anyone who follows him. He's just mouthy as all heck..!:-) (Which is cool on its own, but anyway..)
Does that mean all I have to do to potentially kill the guy is set up an endlessly repeating loop of ear-damaging sound and hit "play at maximum volume" on some master computer somewhere?
He's not talking about fiber, you idiot. He's talking about cellulose. Animals like cows can digest (and get nutrients from) cellulose. Humans lost the ability to digest cellulose many thousands of years ago. That is what our appendix used to be for--digesting cellulose. That's also why we can't eat grass to stay alive but other plant-eaters can.
No, ISPs that don't do ingres filtering (filtering out packets that are not from their internal pool of IP addresses) need to be shot. They're mostly to blame for any IP spoofing that still goes on.
And the ISPs that I've been asking will never allow two links into the same house. None of them, so using the same IP address on two different ADSL or two different cable modems is not possible.
What? You know he gave in and lost in the end, and turned into just another mindless zombie drone right? That he gave in, told the people who broke him (so much for human spirit) to do it instead to his girlfriend? That his one last barrier to being broken was love and even that wasn't strong enough to overcome his sense of self-preservation?
Ie: We're selfish individuals whose powers of love aren't strong enough to carry us through a determined attacker (Big Brother.)
The novel wasn't ambiguous. He gave in and had no more to do with the possibly fictional underground resistance. Period.
This is not ambiguous. This is quite clear, and had a very clear message.
The moment a self-proclaimed hero steps into the limelight to do something we could all cheer him on for, lend support, and actually consider him a socially-motivated hero for, he backs out with a "Just kidding."
Why the hell did he make the claim to begin with without first speaking with his employer, if his employer has that much of a hold over him?!
Nah it's not. Talk to the guy. He knows what he's doing. They don't implement exponential back-off and keep their streams consistent. TCP has an oscillating effect as it tries to saturate the line, then back-off, then saturate, then back-off. DataExpedition's method is to sneak in during those off-periods and make use of that bandwidth.
Uh, no. The programs you mention use the microsoft codecs themselves in a Linux setting, using some binary compatibility tricks.
And they don't play streaming yet. mms:// can actually be run over a TCP channel, and that's what MPlayer, at least supports. I doubt the udp-based protocol is supported by either mplayer or xine. (Even if they are, big deal.)
There are no GPL'd encoders for Windows-only media. In fact there aren't very many working (if any) codecs using GPL'd source on Linux either. They all feed the information to the codecs that you strip from your Windows side and plug into your Linux side--that's not a GPL'd solution and it's doubtful this method is even GPL compatible. LGPL maybe, GPL probably not.
The guy was selling about 413 illegally pirated copies of video games. I think that very obviously shows intent to infringe. Selling the mod chips in conjunction with those video games is very obviously going to nail him on intent.
So suddenly his mod chips are no longer semi-grey market (as the de-Macrovision devices you can get at Radio Shack are, for example) and are now part of the reason he gets the fine and probation.
Perfectly reasonable and nothing to be ashamed or outraged at.
Now, if he had just been selling the mod-chips under cover of interoperability with Japanese imports, for example, or for playing back-up games, I doubt very much he'd have been convicted, and I challenge anyone to dig up some Canadian precedent that specifically ruled otherwise.
Good luck with that. Try and see whether your custom application works so well with extremely large files where the packets are delivered out-of-order. Use two dummynet's connected end to end--after you're done testing with the dummynet's, come back and let us know whether it really does outperform TCP for extremely large files. (Like, tens of gigabytes.)
You started out okay and then sank into total bullshit land as soon as you mentioned your uber-friend's tftp implementation. Newsflash: tftp is UDP from the get-go. That's the whole point. And since tftp is a request-response type protocol, of *course* it's going to see less performance out of your networks than ftp. On the other hand, try these guys. They built a faster-than-tcp implementation of a streaming protocol using UDP and it outperforms TCP on high-path networks and does *at least as well as* TCP on the LAN.
There is no way to "aggressively defend" your bandwidth if (for example) you're playing a game. If someone else comes along with their own UDP application that doesn't back off when detected packet loss gets extremely high, you lose out just as much as they do. There is no defence in this case, there is only *higher packet loss.*
And claiming your friend is "off the chart" like that--what is that supposed to do--lend credence to your exaggerated and false claims about UDP? Bzzzt. Nobody cares about test scores--especially for someone who re-implemented a trivial file transfer program using the very protocol it was designed for to begin with. Tell you what--you show us something impressive he did and we'll be impressed. Don't beak off about "trust me" and "he's in the top 2 percent". That's just crap--you didn't even tell us what the tests were or who administered them!
Finally, UDP wasn't designed to handle congestion. But that doesn't mean it can't. Counter-example: build congestion avoidance into your application.
Readers, don't listen to the parent of this note, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Anything TCP can do, UDP can do--the problem lies in how much work you have to do to implement it. TCP is convenience because all the work for a streaming, in-order, semi-reliable, congestion avoiding protocol has been done for you. Unfortunately you can't turn the major features you don't want, off.
Yeesh. Someone mod parent down, it's really not worth a 4.
That's it. Give your customers something the big discount chains can't. Think Walmart provides tech support? Nuh-uh.
So sell them the computer, and justify the price with a support contract. x house visits a year or something, and make sure you develop a relationship with them.
Otherwise, get the hell out of the hardware business unless you can do significant volume.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you have an idea doesn't mean you should patnet it because no one else has.
Think prior art. If someone else has documented proof that you don't have an original idea, you might as well kiss your patent goodbye.
Besides, why the fsck are you asking here, in anti-patent land?
Idiot.
They've registered unrealtournament2004.com up to unrealtournament2010.com.
Ha ha.. perhaps this is a case where they don't want the same thing that happened to Sega, happen to them? (Commodore managed to stick that CDTV ad right next to Sega headquarters... "It'll take years for Sega to be this good!")
When you buy it, it comes with full source. I ended up having to modify it because the ISP I was working for was on a buying craze and picking up tonnes of other smaller ISPs that had conflicting usernames that needed to be dealt with--and nobody was willing to implement Radius realms.
It was messy but worked perfectly when I left.
What, you mean like when Windows NT took out the U.S.S. Yorktown?
Or perhaps the endless backdoors that no one can actually audit because the EULA doesn't allow for it? So even the most paranoid of the paranoid get owned as a result?
Or perhaps you should instead rephrase your question into "Why Linux?" and then go read what Peruvian Congressman Dr. Edgar David Villaneuca Nunez has to say about the matter?
Dare I mention Microsoft's well-known anti-competitive ways?
Sometimes--even if a commercial tool is "better" for the task (and I really don't think it is), blind application of pure personal utilitarianism means you have to set aside any morals about supporting a corporation that's as blatantly ruthless as Microsoft is.
But hey--if you don't mind contributing to Microsoft's current inhumanity, then by all means, go ahead and pay their outrageous licensing fees and the more power to ya.
No, really: you just go ahead and knock down your straw man--in this case perhaps named the "One True Operating System" zealot--and the rest of us sane individuals will keep on doing real work with tools we know we can trust.
I'm curious as to why he backed out of the DMCA challenge--usually employees can see their own demise from miles away. Was he just holding onto the small string of hope that by backing off from breaking the DMCA he'd impress his superiors enough to keep him on the job?
:-) (Which is cool on its own, but anyway..)
I find it hard to swallow that Bruce is touting the "ethics" of his position and how uncompromising he is when he chickened out of something he was garnering a great deal of press for to begin with.
As for the article--I don't consider Bruce our leader. There are no leaders. That's partly what's so great about all this. Heck, I don't even know of anyone who follows him. He's just mouthy as all heck..!
Go Slashdot. Let's go ahead and highlight a Rational product that most normal people wouldn't wipe their butts with.
Rational products are endlessly complex, slow tools. They are not engineering tools, they are marketing and management tools.
Does that mean all I have to do to potentially kill the guy is set up an endlessly repeating loop of ear-damaging sound and hit "play at maximum volume" on some master computer somewhere?
He's not talking about fiber, you idiot. He's talking about cellulose. Animals like cows can digest (and get nutrients from) cellulose. Humans lost the ability to digest cellulose many thousands of years ago. That is what our appendix used to be for--digesting cellulose. That's also why we can't eat grass to stay alive but other plant-eaters can.
No, ISPs that don't do ingres filtering (filtering out packets that are not from their internal pool of IP addresses) need to be shot. They're mostly to blame for any IP spoofing that still goes on.
And the ISPs that I've been asking will never allow two links into the same house. None of them, so using the same IP address on two different ADSL or two different cable modems is not possible.
What? You know he gave in and lost in the end, and turned into just another mindless zombie drone right? That he gave in, told the people who broke him (so much for human spirit) to do it instead to his girlfriend? That his one last barrier to being broken was love and even that wasn't strong enough to overcome his sense of self-preservation?
Ie: We're selfish individuals whose powers of love aren't strong enough to carry us through a determined attacker (Big Brother.)
The novel wasn't ambiguous. He gave in and had no more to do with the possibly fictional underground resistance. Period.
This is not ambiguous. This is quite clear, and had a very clear message.
1984 was NOT about the triumph of the human spirit. Did you neglect to actually read the novel you're commenting on?
What annoys users more than bad spelling errors littered throughout something they're trying to read with an open mind?
So much for patents and working for Creative and Microsoft.
The moment a self-proclaimed hero steps into the limelight to do something we could all cheer him on for, lend support, and actually consider him a socially-motivated hero for, he backs out with a "Just kidding."
Why the hell did he make the claim to begin with without first speaking with his employer, if his employer has that much of a hold over him?!
LAME!
Mod chipping is still legal in Canada.
Get a GRIP, Slashdot!
Geez, people. The Canadian was fined and sentences to probation--he WAS NOT jailed.
Didn't ANYbody read the original article?
Come get some.
That's a bit of technique and mostly marketing.
Nah it's not. Talk to the guy. He knows what he's doing. They don't implement exponential back-off and keep their streams consistent. TCP has an oscillating effect as it tries to saturate the line, then back-off, then saturate, then back-off. DataExpedition's method is to sneak in during those off-periods and make use of that bandwidth.
You don't need a PhD to do this "properly".
Quiet, you!
Uh, no. The programs you mention use the microsoft codecs themselves in a Linux setting, using some binary compatibility tricks.
And they don't play streaming yet. mms:// can actually be run over a TCP channel, and that's what MPlayer, at least supports. I doubt the udp-based protocol is supported by either mplayer or xine. (Even if they are, big deal.)
There are no GPL'd encoders for Windows-only media. In fact there aren't very many working (if any) codecs using GPL'd source on Linux either. They all feed the information to the codecs that you strip from your Windows side and plug into your Linux side--that's not a GPL'd solution and it's doubtful this method is even GPL compatible. LGPL maybe, GPL probably not.
So, quiet you!
"Informative"? Mods, are you just insane or are you trying to be funny?
Parent is a troll, and you're not going to mod it as such?
Yikes.
The guy was selling about 413 illegally pirated copies of video games. I think that very obviously shows intent to infringe. Selling the mod chips in conjunction with those video games is very obviously going to nail him on intent.
So suddenly his mod chips are no longer semi-grey market (as the de-Macrovision devices you can get at Radio Shack are, for example) and are now part of the reason he gets the fine and probation.
Perfectly reasonable and nothing to be ashamed or outraged at.
Now, if he had just been selling the mod-chips under cover of interoperability with Japanese imports, for example, or for playing back-up games, I doubt very much he'd have been convicted, and I challenge anyone to dig up some Canadian precedent that specifically ruled otherwise.
If they did reverse Windows Media, does this mean that we can reverse Real's streaming technology and make an open-source alternative to their crap?
Sweeet!
Notice "Google" isn't pig-latin translated. :)
Good luck with that. Try and see whether your custom application works so well with extremely large files where the packets are delivered out-of-order. Use two dummynet's connected end to end--after you're done testing with the dummynet's, come back and let us know whether it really does outperform TCP for extremely large files. (Like, tens of gigabytes.)
You don't know what you're talking about.
You started out okay and then sank into total bullshit land as soon as you mentioned your uber-friend's tftp implementation. Newsflash: tftp is UDP from the get-go. That's the whole point. And since tftp is a request-response type protocol, of *course* it's going to see less performance out of your networks than ftp. On the other hand, try these guys. They built a faster-than-tcp implementation of a streaming protocol using UDP and it outperforms TCP on high-path networks and does *at least as well as* TCP on the LAN.
There is no way to "aggressively defend" your bandwidth if (for example) you're playing a game. If someone else comes along with their own UDP application that doesn't back off when detected packet loss gets extremely high, you lose out just as much as they do. There is no defence in this case, there is only *higher packet loss.*
And claiming your friend is "off the chart" like that--what is that supposed to do--lend credence to your exaggerated and false claims about UDP? Bzzzt. Nobody cares about test scores--especially for someone who re-implemented a trivial file transfer program using the very protocol it was designed for to begin with. Tell you what--you show us something impressive he did and we'll be impressed. Don't beak off about "trust me" and "he's in the top 2 percent". That's just crap--you didn't even tell us what the tests were or who administered them!
Finally, UDP wasn't designed to handle congestion. But that doesn't mean it can't. Counter-example: build congestion avoidance into your application.
Readers, don't listen to the parent of this note, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Anything TCP can do, UDP can do--the problem lies in how much work you have to do to implement it. TCP is convenience because all the work for a streaming, in-order, semi-reliable, congestion avoiding protocol has been done for you. Unfortunately you can't turn the major features you don't want, off.
Yeesh. Someone mod parent down, it's really not worth a 4.
That's it. Give your customers something the big discount chains can't. Think Walmart provides tech support? Nuh-uh.
So sell them the computer, and justify the price with a support contract. x house visits a year or something, and make sure you develop a relationship with them.
Otherwise, get the hell out of the hardware business unless you can do significant volume.