Under NAT, you have one box, which has a table that says "port 80 goes to 192.168.1.3", "port 25 goes to 192.168.1.7", etc.
Under IPv6 with a firewall, you can have one box, which has a table that says "Connections from anywhere to ab:cd:ef::01 on port 80 are accepted", "Connections from anywhere to ab:cd:ef::02 on port 80 are accepted", etc.
I don't get where people get this strange idea that while NAT may control multiple computers behind it, a firewall somehow couldn't. The "protection" NAT provides is that it's a firewall with a "deny by default" policy, which is trivial to do without NAT if you want it.
You can do exactly the same stuff with a firewall as you do with NAT. If you want to forbid all incoming connections by default, and only allow specific ones, you can do so very easily with a firewall.
The only difference is that with NAT you have one IP address, and port 80 (for example) either is directed to a specific computer on the network, or isn't.
In comparison, with IPv6, no NAT, and a firewall you'd be able to control whether each computer on the internal network accepts connections on port 80 or not, separately. You can have this control done centrally from a single firewall, just like with NAT.
Probably because back when it was being approved, it already existed as a standard, and was already implemented by multiple applications.
Unlike OOXML, ODF (or OASIS as IIRC it was referred to more often) was the main format for Open Office, and at least KDE was supporting it as well.
The fact is, if MS suddenly drops OOXML, everybody else will instantly lose interest in it. Meanwhile ODF has wide adoption: You can open it with OpenOffice, AbiWord, KWord or a MS Office plugin, for instance.
Pasting a lame bit of PHP over a perfectly nice picture by Escher (whose pictures are about as geeky as they get) isn't very clever, IMO.
Art that appeals to me: Escher, Da Vinci (Mona Lisa excluded), Boris Vallejo (not all of it), works by Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland, but Sylvie and Bruno is another good but much less well known one), Dali, xkcd, pbf, Jin Wicked (check out her painting of Stallman)
Art that doesn't appeal to me: Piet Mondrian (except the Piet programming language, that is funny), Warhol, Mona Lisa (I agree with another poster that Da Vinci made much more interesting things), cubism, most very abstract things that don't look like anything in particular.
So I can no longer use QT to make whatever application I choose... Say a Media Player that could support DRM music, legally.
I haven't seen anything in the GPL3 that would forbid you from making a program that implements DRM, and say, refuses to play media files that don't satisfy licensing requirements.
What it doesn't allow you is to code a player that through DRM enforcement is itself not modifiable, but such a thing isn't really GPLd in the first place. What good does source do to anybody if it can't be used in practice?
Write through caching won't save you from a background process deciding to create thumbnails, or MS Word trying to autosave right when you're about to disconnect the drive.
Things like that don't happen under DOS because there's no multitasking, but they're perfectly possible on systems like Windows that are full of automated services working without the user's intervention.
Journalling is nice and all, but not perfect. There are several versions of it.
For example, ReiserFS only does filesystem data journalling by default. This means the filesystem's integrity is preserved, the data inside files isn't. It was quite famous for leaving random junk in files that were open at the time of an unclean shutdown.
There's a "data journalling" mode that solves the above problem, but it still isn't a perfect solution.
Example scenario: Program when saving a file opens it, truncates, then rewrites from the beginning. At that moment you yank the drive. The journalling FS recovers, you have no filesystem damage, and the data that got written is correct. But it only managed to write 1/3 of the file, so it's all hosed anyway. Journalling can't save you from that.
The only solution here is to have a transactional filesystem (reiserfs4 does this I think), where the application can tell the OS that a sequence of writes is supposed to be done all at once, or not at all. But this needs filesystem (only reiserfs4 does this AFAIK) and application support.
Later versions worked in a write through cache mode where the cache was guaranteed to have been written back by the time the Dos prompt came back. So it could be done, even in a tiny OS written mostly assembly language with no background processes.
And that last part is precisely why it could be done on DOS. With no multitasking this is trivial. On a modern multitasking OS, there are things that access the disk for reasons of their own, at unknown intervals.
Back when DOS was used, experts knew how their computer worked so well that they could know the purpose of every executable file, and knew when the computer was supposed to be writing to disk. You could figure out whether the computer was infected with a virus when the floppy drive or hard disk made a noise at a moment it shouldn't.
This no longer works in the modern world, especially on Windows (Linux is open and can be cut down enough that you can figure out what's going on). With the current virus scanners, file indexers, programs attempting to optimize by doing their own caching, the OS' own caching, usage of complex file formats, etc, it's no longer possible to predict when the disk is going to be accessed.
Yes, it's doable if you only use your removable storage to copy files to it, and then from it, but if you actually open some types of files on the removable drive, access patterns stop being predictable.
The problem isn't so much that (journalling filesystems can deal with it) as with the data inside the file.
If you're using a program that writes over parts of the file it's working on, at unpredictable intervals (a database, say), it may postpone writing crucial information until the program is shut down. Or it may decide to start writing over some critical part right when you're extracting the drive. Waiting until nothing is being written won't make extraction safe in that case.
For a less contrived example, people run firefox from flash drives. I imagine some might run thunderbird as well. If you remove the drive right when a message is being written to disk you can lose that message, or the whole store, depending on how thunderbird stores it.
Other programs store data in complicated ways. For example, file A might contain an offset at which data can be found in file B. That's another nasty case.
I've used USB drives on Windows for years and I've never seen such a warning. It might warn you if you pulled it during a file copy (I've never done that, obviously it sounds like a bad idea) but certainly not if you wait for the copy to complete.
I remember getting it on Win2K, not sure if the later versions do it
In fact, it would be really cool if it popped up an alert if you pulled the drive while it was still writing to the effect of "oh no! plug it back in and I'll finish the operation so you'll have a coherent filesystem" (hopefully something worded more professional and less techy)
That would be nice, if it could tell that you didn't change the FS since it was removed. Otherwise that could result in some nasty corruption.
However, neither that, nor what Windows does will prevent damage on a FAT32 formatted device, because the filesystem isn't made to deal with that. And even for a filesystem like ext3, reiserfs or ntfs that will not corrupt itself in this case, you'll still lose data if you yank the drive while a file is being written. Windows will warn you if you yank the drive without telling it to disconnect the drive precisely for this reason.
Really the only way of dealing with this perfectly is making the media impossible to disconnect until the filesystem is dismounted orderly. This can be done with CD and tape drives, but isn't going to work with anything connected to an USB port.
The av-vendor side was that they just want to hook their scanner so that it goes before a file is allowed to be opened and other file operations. They also want to scan contents being written and be able to deny the write.
The kernel side was that a full implementation in the kernel is very difficult because you can't do that for mmap, and that if the intention is protecting Windows boxes they could just do it in userspace (patch Samba to scan files, say).
My impression is that AV vendors would love to have an on-demand scanner in Linux, whether such a thing is actually needed or not. If it's made, expect them all to start pushing protection of Linux systems, even if it's completely unnecessary.
Sorry, but I think you're being close-minded. If we take operating system for example, ther's one big glaringly obvious idea that has been much talked about but never fully implemented system-wide - the idea of a virtual file system that would replace the file/folder metaphor with something resembling the filing system of email clients, with virtual folders, tags, etc. Object in a computer - single emails, files, whatever - should act the same.
Nice idea in theory. Doesn't work in practice.
Why can't I file my pictures of cousin Larry along with my emails from and to cousin Larry in the same place?
Well, look at this for instance. For a start, for this to work properly you'd need the system to know that larry@example.com, larry324@aol.com, and c00ld00d@msn.com are actually the same person. If you want to do this with IM, add the same for MSN, AIM, and ICQ. This is doable but already implies effort, on your part. Are you going to sit for an hour creating a list linking various online identifiers to an unique identity? I'm a geek and I wouldn't.
Now the pictures present an even greater problem: They must have a tag of some sort specifying that they're of cousin Larry. You'll need to ensure every picture is adequately tagged, and that involves getting grandma to figure out how to do it, or correct every picture she sends. Then there's the issue of that some pictures are tagged "Larry", some "Larry Laffer", some "Larry S. Laffer", some "Larry Samuel Laffer", some "Lar", and a few tagged "Sparky" for the nickname he got for grabbing a live wire. Most will be completely untagged of course. And this gets more interesting if you know several people called "John Smith".
Same goes for office documents. Most people don't even know they can be tagged, and if you make them, they will be unable to come up with good tags. People designing these systems for some reason think that the kind of person that names files "invoice1.doc", "invoice2.doc", "invoice99.doc", then spends half an hour trying to figure out which was the one for Yoyodyne Corp will tag meaningfully are deluded. Good tags are even harder to come up with than a halfway decent filename.
The entire desktop metaphor should also be ditched in favor of something else and serious improvements are required in the area of error recovery - for example, why won't the OS auto-save each document I'm working on every 1-5 minutes so I can recover from mistakenly overwriting a file or saving it when I intended to discard changes?
How could it? The OS doesn't know about the internals of the word processor. Not that it's needed anyway, I can't think of a single modern word processor that doesn't do this already. Unless you mean having the OS doing file versioning, which isn't a new idea. Been done in VMS.
Why can't they put an undo button on the desktop and file manager?
Technically complicated. For one, there are a lot more files than documents, and figuring out what to undo would be complicated and error-prone. It's technically doable, but another whole issue is how to make it intuitive. I hear this sort of thing can be had in ZFS.
There's this innovative Linux-based project, Symphony OS, but it suffers from lack of volunteers.
My guess is that despite how good "innovation" sounds, most people aren't that interested in it. My reason for using Linux isn't that it's innovative, is that it's predictable and unobtrusive. Switching to a tag based filesystem is about the last thing in the list of things I want. Features like file versioning are nice, but I'm not going to bother getting them.
What I want is something that Linux gives me already: A system that does what I ask of it without interrupting me constantly, doesn't attempt to limit what I do with my data, and doesn't require constant maintenance.
Sending back the.gif file is a way to make sure you are a "real computer" at the particular address their "phone home" data says you are at. If you were spoofing the address, the gif file would not make the trip, so to speak, and they would know that.
Incorrect. HTTP works over TCP. TCP connection establishment happens before the GET can be sent, so by the time you can request anything from the webserver, it already knows the IP address isn't spoofed. Of course it could be a proxy, but there has to be an actual computer at that address.
The.gif might have something encoded into it, or be used simply to attempt to slip by monitoring tools. People watching network activity are likely to ignore everything that looks harmless, such as normal HTML and image requests, and pay more attention to strange chunks of binary data.
You've damned us all because you wanted the government to force customers to choose FOSS
Got any references for that?
MS has been forced to provide documentation. That is good for everybody, OSS and closed source companies. Same goes with things like ODF. Nobody says OpenOffice must be used. MS can implement ODF if they want to compete.
The calculations are a lot more complicated than that. You can check the source for the calculator (linked earlier) to get an idea of all that needs to be taken into account.
Of course. That's why I said "assuming it runs at full capacity 24/7". This won't actually happen in reality, but you can calculate the amount of sunlight the panel will receive and produce a more realistic figure from that.
Secondly, you're confusing watts and watt hours. Watts are a unit of power, while watt hours are a unit of energy (a Joule, another common unit of energy, is a watt second). If your panel is producing 1W, then it's producing 1 Wh every hour -- i.e., 8.8 kWh/year. But if it's simply a panel that's rated for 1W, and isn't on a heliostat, you'll probably get something like 0.5 to 1.5kWh/year, depending on where you are.
What exactly I'm confusing? 8.8 * 50 * 20 = 8800 kW after 20 years, same result I arrived at (except for the loss in precision in this last one)
It's the grandparent who is confused, as he was trying to claim that the cost would be $1/kW. Though the article is confusing in this respect.
I imagine though that the $1/Watt isn't a $1/Watt in the panel's lifetime, but $1 for a panel that will generate 1 Wh, when used at full capacity.
Assuming a lifetime of 20 years, a $50 panel producing 50Wh will produce 8760 kW at $.005/KWh, assuming it runs at full capacity 24/7. An actual real world figure would be several times worse, but that still comes out looking very good.
No, ogg == container. That's the problem with the whole article.
Vorbis is the codec and the actual thing that does the audio compression and determines the resulting quality. And Vorbis data can be contained in any container, including DRMed Quicktime or whatever.
Got it now? The codec just encodes audio and has no DRM functions. Ogg, the container, has no DRM functionality. Vorbis, the codec, is what actually does the compression and can be contained inside a DRMed container.
Same way with this article. Theora doesn't need to have any DRM functions because that's the container's job.
Ogg is like Quicktime or ASF. There's nothing technically stopping anybody from delivering a mp3 inside an Ogg (seriously), Quicktime, or ASF container. Here's proof:
Putting a.mp3 inside an ogg container with no encoding:
$ ogmmerge -o test.ogg theatre\ of\ tragedy\ -\ cassandra.mp3 Using MP3 demultiplexer for theatre of tragedy - cassandra.mp3. +-> Using MP3 output module for audio stream. progress: 6538263/6538263 bytes (100%)
Verifying that it's an ogg container:
$ file test.ogg test.ogg: Ogg data
Mplayer shows how it's both an ogg container and the audio is MP3 (parts snipped, stupid lameness filter)
$ mplayer test.ogg Playing test.ogg. Ogg file format detected. Opening audio decoder: [mp3lib] MPEG layer-2, layer-3 Selected audio codec: [mp3] afm: mp3lib (mp3lib MPEG layer-2, layer-3) Video: no video Starting playback...
Why do you assume the lawyers are looking at everything the programmers or whoever they outsource to is doing? Maybe verizon contracted it to a consulting firm in the US or elsewhere and didn't bother to look at the license?
Because the potential consequences can be quite horrible? Infringe on the copyright of somebody like Microsoft or IBM, and things can get very unpleasant, fast. There are many companies with nasty terms out there. Some for example specify you give the company permission to run an audit on you at any time. Possibly at your expense. Some specify in what jurisdiction any issues will be litigated. Those are serious issues, and a sane company just can't leave decisions like that to a programmer on the bottom of the hierarchy.
I can think of a lot of things Verizon's lawyers might be doing including dealing with RIAA lawsuits against their customers. Big companies don't always think. If lawyers checked everything, we would never see patent lawsuits either. Think about it.
AFAIK, you can file a lawsuit for any reason. Look at SCO for instance. No proof at all, yet the whole thing managed to stay in court for years. You can bet they talked to lawyers before they filed it.
There are more uses for a lawsuit than the originally intended ones, look at SLAPP lawsuits or SCO.
Also, I'm not sure lawyers are that interested in a lack of lawsuits -- it'd be like an in-house programmer continously pointing to off the shelf products and not doing anything himself. I don't think years spent on giving advice to management and nothing inside the courtroom looks very good on a lawyer's resume.
You claim that Verizon, a huge company, which probably employs quite a few lawyers is unaware about the terms under which the code is distributed? Here's a hint: Every piece of software comes with a license. There are much nastier things out there than the GPL, and it'd be outright stupid for a large company to use anything without having a lawyer through the terms.
Now, if this makes them stop using GPL code, that's a perfectly good thing. I for one write GPL code for very good reasons and prefer it not to be used to infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need a firewall on each device.
Under NAT, you have one box, which has a table that says "port 80 goes to 192.168.1.3", "port 25 goes to 192.168.1.7", etc.
Under IPv6 with a firewall, you can have one box, which has a table that says "Connections from anywhere to ab:cd:ef::01 on port 80 are accepted", "Connections from anywhere to ab:cd:ef::02 on port 80 are accepted", etc.
I don't get where people get this strange idea that while NAT may control multiple computers behind it, a firewall somehow couldn't. The "protection" NAT provides is that it's a firewall with a "deny by default" policy, which is trivial to do without NAT if you want it.
Huh?
You can do exactly the same stuff with a firewall as you do with NAT. If you want to forbid all incoming connections by default, and only allow specific ones, you can do so very easily with a firewall.
The only difference is that with NAT you have one IP address, and port 80 (for example) either is directed to a specific computer on the network, or isn't.
In comparison, with IPv6, no NAT, and a firewall you'd be able to control whether each computer on the internal network accepts connections on port 80 or not, separately. You can have this control done centrally from a single firewall, just like with NAT.
edit /etc/ssh/sshd_config
PermitRootLogin no
If you want to disable password auth and use keys instead:
PasswordAuthentication no
Probably because back when it was being approved, it already existed as a standard, and was already implemented by multiple applications.
Unlike OOXML, ODF (or OASIS as IIRC it was referred to more often) was the main format for Open Office, and at least KDE was supporting it as well.
The fact is, if MS suddenly drops OOXML, everybody else will instantly lose interest in it. Meanwhile ODF has wide adoption: You can open it with OpenOffice, AbiWord, KWord or a MS Office plugin, for instance.
Pasting a lame bit of PHP over a perfectly nice picture by Escher (whose pictures are about as geeky as they get) isn't very clever, IMO.
Art that appeals to me: Escher, Da Vinci (Mona Lisa excluded), Boris Vallejo (not all of it), works by Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland, but Sylvie and Bruno is another good but much less well known one), Dali, xkcd, pbf, Jin Wicked (check out her painting of Stallman)
Art that doesn't appeal to me: Piet Mondrian (except the Piet programming language, that is funny), Warhol, Mona Lisa (I agree with another poster that Da Vinci made much more interesting things), cubism, most very abstract things that don't look like anything in particular.
I haven't seen anything in the GPL3 that would forbid you from making a program that implements DRM, and say, refuses to play media files that don't satisfy licensing requirements.
What it doesn't allow you is to code a player that through DRM enforcement is itself not modifiable, but such a thing isn't really GPLd in the first place. What good does source do to anybody if it can't be used in practice?
Write through caching won't save you from a background process deciding to create thumbnails, or MS Word trying to autosave right when you're about to disconnect the drive.
Things like that don't happen under DOS because there's no multitasking, but they're perfectly possible on systems like Windows that are full of automated services working without the user's intervention.
Journalling is nice and all, but not perfect. There are several versions of it.
For example, ReiserFS only does filesystem data journalling by default. This means the filesystem's integrity is preserved, the data inside files isn't. It was quite famous for leaving random junk in files that were open at the time of an unclean shutdown.
There's a "data journalling" mode that solves the above problem, but it still isn't a perfect solution.
Example scenario: Program when saving a file opens it, truncates, then rewrites from the beginning. At that moment you yank the drive. The journalling FS recovers, you have no filesystem damage, and the data that got written is correct. But it only managed to write 1/3 of the file, so it's all hosed anyway. Journalling can't save you from that.
The only solution here is to have a transactional filesystem (reiserfs4 does this I think), where the application can tell the OS that a sequence of writes is supposed to be done all at once, or not at all. But this needs filesystem (only reiserfs4 does this AFAIK) and application support.
And that last part is precisely why it could be done on DOS. With no multitasking this is trivial. On a modern multitasking OS, there are things that access the disk for reasons of their own, at unknown intervals.
Back when DOS was used, experts knew how their computer worked so well that they could know the purpose of every executable file, and knew when the computer was supposed to be writing to disk. You could figure out whether the computer was infected with a virus when the floppy drive or hard disk made a noise at a moment it shouldn't.
This no longer works in the modern world, especially on Windows (Linux is open and can be cut down enough that you can figure out what's going on). With the current virus scanners, file indexers, programs attempting to optimize by doing their own caching, the OS' own caching, usage of complex file formats, etc, it's no longer possible to predict when the disk is going to be accessed.
Yes, it's doable if you only use your removable storage to copy files to it, and then from it, but if you actually open some types of files on the removable drive, access patterns stop being predictable.
The problem isn't so much that (journalling filesystems can deal with it) as with the data inside the file.
If you're using a program that writes over parts of the file it's working on, at unpredictable intervals (a database, say), it may postpone writing crucial information until the program is shut down. Or it may decide to start writing over some critical part right when you're extracting the drive. Waiting until nothing is being written won't make extraction safe in that case.
For a less contrived example, people run firefox from flash drives. I imagine some might run thunderbird as well. If you remove the drive right when a message is being written to disk you can lose that message, or the whole store, depending on how thunderbird stores it.
Other programs store data in complicated ways. For example, file A might contain an offset at which data can be found in file B. That's another nasty case.
I remember getting it on Win2K, not sure if the later versions do it
That would be nice, if it could tell that you didn't change the FS since it was removed. Otherwise that could result in some nasty corruption.
You can disable caching on Linux with -o sync.
However, neither that, nor what Windows does will prevent damage on a FAT32 formatted device, because the filesystem isn't made to deal with that. And even for a filesystem like ext3, reiserfs or ntfs that will not corrupt itself in this case, you'll still lose data if you yank the drive while a file is being written. Windows will warn you if you yank the drive without telling it to disconnect the drive precisely for this reason.
Really the only way of dealing with this perfectly is making the media impossible to disconnect until the filesystem is dismounted orderly. This can be done with CD and tape drives, but isn't going to work with anything connected to an USB port.
I remember seeing a recent thread on lkml about that.
The av-vendor side was that they just want to hook their scanner so that it goes before a file is allowed to be opened and other file operations. They also want to scan contents being written and be able to deny the write.
The kernel side was that a full implementation in the kernel is very difficult because you can't do that for mmap, and that if the intention is protecting Windows boxes they could just do it in userspace (patch Samba to scan files, say).
My impression is that AV vendors would love to have an on-demand scanner in Linux, whether such a thing is actually needed or not. If it's made, expect them all to start pushing protection of Linux systems, even if it's completely unnecessary.
If the domain name contains characters not from the system's character set, highlight them (with another color say), and warn the user.
It's not a new problem either, "slashdot", and "sIashdot" will look the same in many fonts.
Nice idea in theory. Doesn't work in practice.
Well, look at this for instance. For a start, for this to work properly you'd need the system to know that larry@example.com, larry324@aol.com, and c00ld00d@msn.com are actually the same person. If you want to do this with IM, add the same for MSN, AIM, and ICQ. This is doable but already implies effort, on your part. Are you going to sit for an hour creating a list linking various online identifiers to an unique identity? I'm a geek and I wouldn't.
Now the pictures present an even greater problem: They must have a tag of some sort specifying that they're of cousin Larry. You'll need to ensure every picture is adequately tagged, and that involves getting grandma to figure out how to do it, or correct every picture she sends. Then there's the issue of that some pictures are tagged "Larry", some "Larry Laffer", some "Larry S. Laffer", some "Larry Samuel Laffer", some "Lar", and a few tagged "Sparky" for the nickname he got for grabbing a live wire. Most will be completely untagged of course. And this gets more interesting if you know several people called "John Smith".
Same goes for office documents. Most people don't even know they can be tagged, and if you make them, they will be unable to come up with good tags. People designing these systems for some reason think that the kind of person that names files "invoice1.doc", "invoice2.doc", "invoice99.doc", then spends half an hour trying to figure out which was the one for Yoyodyne Corp will tag meaningfully are deluded. Good tags are even harder to come up with than a halfway decent filename.
How could it? The OS doesn't know about the internals of the word processor. Not that it's needed anyway, I can't think of a single modern word processor that doesn't do this already. Unless you mean having the OS doing file versioning, which isn't a new idea. Been done in VMS.
Technically complicated. For one, there are a lot more files than documents, and figuring out what to undo would be complicated and error-prone. It's technically doable, but another whole issue is how to make it intuitive. I hear this sort of thing can be had in ZFS.
My guess is that despite how good "innovation" sounds, most people aren't that interested in it. My reason for using Linux isn't that it's innovative, is that it's predictable and unobtrusive. Switching to a tag based filesystem is about the last thing in the list of things I want. Features like file versioning are nice, but I'm not going to bother getting them.
What I want is something that Linux gives me already: A system that does what I ask of it without interrupting me constantly, doesn't attempt to limit what I do with my data, and doesn't require constant maintenance.
Incorrect. HTTP works over TCP. TCP connection establishment happens before the GET can be sent, so by the time you can request anything from the webserver, it already knows the IP address isn't spoofed. Of course it could be a proxy, but there has to be an actual computer at that address.
The
Got any references for that?
MS has been forced to provide documentation. That is good for everybody, OSS and closed source companies.
Same goes with things like ODF. Nobody says OpenOffice must be used. MS can implement ODF if they want to compete.
Of course. That's why I said "assuming it runs at full capacity 24/7". This won't actually happen in reality, but you can calculate the amount of sunlight the panel will receive and produce a more realistic figure from that.
What exactly I'm confusing? 8.8 * 50 * 20 = 8800 kW after 20 years, same result I arrived at (except for the loss in precision in this last one)
It's the grandparent who is confused, as he was trying to claim that the cost would be $1/kW. Though the article is confusing in this respect.
I imagine though that the $1/Watt isn't a $1/Watt in the panel's lifetime, but $1 for a panel that will generate 1 Wh, when used at full capacity.
Assuming a lifetime of 20 years, a $50 panel producing 50Wh will produce 8760 kW at $.005/KWh, assuming it runs at full capacity 24/7. An actual real world figure would be several times worse, but that still comes out looking very good.
I never heard of this, so I searched around, and found this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wIDDAtVLRZw
WTF #1: Game awards are announced by writing the game's name in body paint on a naked woman
WTF #2: The gamecock people
I suddenly remembered why I don't watch TV anymore, sheesh.
No, ogg == container. That's the problem with the whole article.
Vorbis is the codec and the actual thing that does the audio compression and determines the resulting quality. And Vorbis data can be contained in any container, including DRMed Quicktime or whatever.
Got it now? The codec just encodes audio and has no DRM functions. Ogg, the container, has no DRM functionality. Vorbis, the codec, is what actually does the compression and can be contained inside a DRMed container.
Same way with this article. Theora doesn't need to have any DRM functions because that's the container's job.
Now there's an excellent reason why email should remain as plain text.
Ogg is like Quicktime or ASF. There's nothing technically stopping anybody from delivering a mp3 inside an Ogg (seriously), Quicktime, or ASF container. Here's proof:
Putting a
Because the potential consequences can be quite horrible? Infringe on the copyright of somebody like Microsoft or IBM, and things can get very unpleasant, fast. There are many companies with nasty terms out there. Some for example specify you give the company permission to run an audit on you at any time. Possibly at your expense. Some specify in what jurisdiction any issues will be litigated. Those are serious issues, and a sane company just can't leave decisions like that to a programmer on the bottom of the hierarchy.
AFAIK, you can file a lawsuit for any reason. Look at SCO for instance. No proof at all, yet the whole thing managed to stay in court for years. You can bet they talked to lawyers before they filed it.
There are more uses for a lawsuit than the originally intended ones, look at SLAPP lawsuits or SCO.
Also, I'm not sure lawyers are that interested in a lack of lawsuits -- it'd be like an in-house programmer continously pointing to off the shelf products and not doing anything himself. I don't think years spent on giving advice to management and nothing inside the courtroom looks very good on a lawyer's resume.
Oh, bullshit.
You claim that Verizon, a huge company, which probably employs quite a few lawyers is unaware about the terms under which the code is distributed? Here's a hint: Every piece of software comes with a license. There are much nastier things out there than the GPL, and it'd be outright stupid for a large company to use anything without having a lawyer through the terms.
Now, if this makes them stop using GPL code, that's a perfectly good thing. I for one write GPL code for very good reasons and prefer it not to be used to infringement.