When I went out to spend a $300 allowance for a PDA, I couldn't touch a Palm Vx for that. I got a Clie instead. ($350-$50 rebate + leather case rebate). If a Vx cost the same, I probably would have got it, in case I decided to pick up peripherals later.
I'm happy with the life on my clie. I use it alot (PIM stuff -- not movies) and cradle it every few days. Even so, I have never seen the battery indicator drop from 100% even by a pixel, so I can't extrapolate how long I really have.
Slick Willy himself signed the amended Lanham Act and the
Federal Trademark Dilution Act, which re-defined trademark dilution as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services
regardless of the presence or absence of competition between the owner of the famous
mark and other parties; or the likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception." (italics added)
While Bush may be unlikely to remedy the situation, let's keep it in perspective. Thats why I voted for neither.
Here are the first cut at arguments I can think of, posted here since it looks like the Copyright Office isn't taking new comments..
The problem is there are several entities that have informally referenced the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act when talking about a wide variety of protection
schemes they purport to have placed as a barrier to control access to their
work. In their hands, the phrase "technological measures" and "control access"
combine to form a hopelessly broad category which contains trivial or
well-known encoding schemes upon data which is dubiously classifiable as
copyrighted content.
Under such practice, it would be difficult without new legislation to define what
scope of "access controls" congress would protect, and which measures employ a
sufficient degree of technology. Would not a modern-day Da Vinci declare his
practice of backwards writing a "technological measure" and prosecute any who
realize and declare that a mirror would then give them access? Recent
experience shows that he would, and go farther -- in charging for the only
approved mirror and declaring other mirrors illegal under a poorly written law!
Thus one key concern may not be the access to the copyrighted works themselves,
but rather the access to the technology that accesses them. When this
technology is held as a trade secret, controlled via licensing with onerous
fees, or otherwise restricted from any who would build innovative delivery
channels for the copyrighted work, then the DMCA becomes a tool for those who
wish to consolidate control of both the content and the cradle-to-grave
distribution of the content into a few rich conglomerates. Technological
protections should not be able to be considered both as a "technological
measures that effectively control access" under DMCA and as a trade secret with
restricted distribution. There is no benefit to the public for both
considerations to be in effect simultaneously. Like patents, full disclosure
and registration of these "technological measures" should be required before
the additional protections of any law like DMCA may be invoked.
If a "technological measure" is implemented that goes further than simply
granting access to a work, but also executes additional policies, such as
giving one group of people access while (possibly temporarily) excluding
another group of noninfringing would-be customers, then is this scheme worthy
of protection under the DMCA? Citizens and consumers would say no. Why should
DMCA be cited to protect a scheme that allows the copyright holder the
unprecedented right of geographic designation of access, such as the regional
encoding scheme for DVDs? In the past, has it been illegal for duly printed and
purchased books, audio tapes, magazines, or other media to traverse
geographical boundaries? Are we to constitute a government with no powers of
censorship only to legislatively empower multinational corporations to
routinely exercise such power? There is an important distinction between the
DMCA's intent to prevent copyright infringment and industry's intent "to manage
access and to exclude unauthorized users" as described by the MPAA. The DMCA
must be clarified to forbid this type of practice and disallow descrimination
based on geography or based on any other demographic attribute except possibly
age.
I wonder if licensing is the key to keep M$ in check in this case. Rather, what if the kerberos team or MIT regents could seek a remedy from M$ for dilution of the value of the kerberos {trade|sales|service}mark. Like Sun did with Java.
Microsoft is receiving the benefits of associating its products with the kerberos name, a name that has value since the standard has a reputation for security and interoperability. Yet Microsoft's nonstandard secret implementation obviously does not live up to the standard's goals.
-- Kerbo-masochism: Embrace me! Extend me! Make me write bad tickets!
From the Intel site: Software Availability A Windows* version of the CDSA open source software will be available from Intel in May. The 64- and 32-bit Linux versions will be available in August. The software will be downloadable from Intel's Web site at http://developer.intel.com/ial/security.
Hmm. Few details. Long time table. Could do biometrics. I smell vapor. How many monkeys could port libpam to windows by August, and make the same claims that are in this release? It looks like there is no choice but to wait and see about the license, functionality, etc.
It seems to me that Microsoft has a fundamental problem here: How to include sufficient product indoctrination in the MCSE curriculum without including any spurious education that would encourage the "engineer" to think for himself. The more awareness the grads have of the true role of standards, the challenges of development work, and the detrimental effect of greed on technology -- all these play to Microsoft's disadvantage.
Education versus indoctrination. Is explains why, in years past, I have had career enhancing, even illuminating experiences reading documentation selected from HP, and Borland, and Cisco. Yet despite reading mountains of SDKs and DDKs docs for Windows, I have no memory of such an experience there. The reasons are clearer to me now.
it's Promise's fault for making the cards so similar that such a simple modification makes the cheap card the expensive card
Let me guess: you are such a code stud that you're ready to toggle in that BIOS code from memory. Oh yeah, you would have to know it well since you also had to compose it and debug it, possibly from scratch, without infringing their copyright. Remember, flashing the BIOS is part of the modification. Easy to pirate? Yes. Simple? - my sphincter!
That BIOS is software. Written. Debugged. Tested. By folks who like to bring home paychecks. If it's so simple, post your clean room BIOS.
To say they have no legal recourse to protect their copyright is false, though it may be impractical for them to come after anybody. But that doesn't absolve a single pirate, and it surely doesn't place them 'at fault' at least not legally or ethically.
6) Flash the BIOS with the FASTTRAK66 Bios update. The card will no longer funtion as the Ultra66 that it used to be. (sic)
Hey timothy, if I serve a page saying you can *FLASH* your Win 95 box's hard drive with a neighbor's Win 2K firmware, will you post the/. article? Responsible journalism is irrelevant.
I'm glad someone else saw this too. Firmware development can be a major portion of a manufacturer's development costs. The product's sales price reflects the investment.
I wonder how well the open source code community will defray costs for commodity hardware in the future. The problem is convincing any particular manufacturer that their board really is a commodity.
One group I've noted is the growing retired population that, ever since Matlock was cancelled, have found there way to sites full of sickeningly mirthful drivel, outdated virus alert scams, and obvious urban legends and learned to press some button on Outlook Express that must read [SEND TO EVERY DISTANT COUSIN ON THE PLANET].
I'll bet that every time Slashdot's load delays, it's because someone's Granny just sent out the "GOOD TIMES" bulletin to a list that would make a pro spammer envious. Nobody wants to tell her that they don't want to read her mail -- It would crush her to know what we think. So day after day we hammer the delete key and wait for her to sign up to the big ISP in the sky.
This would be DependsNet (TM) the Internet In-Continent.
If I can't badmouth a bad company, then what can I say about it? This is a effectively a universal gag order against opponents of all lame, litigous, wealthy companies. Would I have to take back all my kind posts discussing that wonderful company called Microsoft? Not that I'd need to.. ahem.
And will it stop with companies if price is right? If I register dot-com and hire a rabid lawyer does that mean no-one can badmouth me?
This makes me sick. It seems losetup -e with a well-hidden backup is more important than ever.
I was saddened, and consensus among my peers is the Madeline had a way of getting through to the psyche of a geek.
Lets not forget a few other roles: how about the Gypsy voice in A Bug's Life? Or the fussy fiance Eunice Burns in What's Up Doc? Or hitting on Kermit in The Muppet Movie?
Did he say ANY consumer? Sounds like someone who needs to sit at a help desk for a while. Hmm.. This takes me back to 3 years ago this month, when was pouring over hardware compatibility lists for a PPRO that would support Solaris x86, OpenBSD, and Linux. Found 3 vendors. Each *refused* to sell without Windows or for that matter without the MS application bundle. Naively, I actually allowed the machine to boot 95 rather than booting the machine from an alternate OS and wiping the disk. (Who reads the EULA of something they never wanted?) I figure several hundred of my hard-earned bucks are sitting in Billy's account in return for little or no value received. I hope that one of those suits has my name on it..
Slashdot Mirror
When I went out to spend a $300 allowance for a PDA, I couldn't touch a Palm Vx for that. I got a Clie instead. ($350-$50 rebate + leather case rebate). If a Vx cost the same, I probably would have got it, in case I decided to pick up peripherals later.
I'm happy with the life on my clie. I use it alot (PIM stuff -- not movies) and cradle it every few days. Even so, I have never seen the battery indicator drop from 100% even by a pixel, so I can't extrapolate how long I really have.
While Bush may be unlikely to remedy the situation, let's keep it in perspective. Thats why I voted for neither.
The problem is there are several entities that have informally referenced the Digital Millenium Copyright Act when talking about a wide variety of protection schemes they purport to have placed as a barrier to control access to their work. In their hands, the phrase "technological measures" and "control access" combine to form a hopelessly broad category which contains trivial or well-known encoding schemes upon data which is dubiously classifiable as copyrighted content.
Under such practice, it would be difficult without new legislation to define what scope of "access controls" congress would protect, and which measures employ a sufficient degree of technology. Would not a modern-day Da Vinci declare his practice of backwards writing a "technological measure" and prosecute any who realize and declare that a mirror would then give them access? Recent experience shows that he would, and go farther -- in charging for the only approved mirror and declaring other mirrors illegal under a poorly written law!
Thus one key concern may not be the access to the copyrighted works themselves, but rather the access to the technology that accesses them. When this technology is held as a trade secret, controlled via licensing with onerous fees, or otherwise restricted from any who would build innovative delivery channels for the copyrighted work, then the DMCA becomes a tool for those who wish to consolidate control of both the content and the cradle-to-grave distribution of the content into a few rich conglomerates. Technological protections should not be able to be considered both as a "technological measures that effectively control access" under DMCA and as a trade secret with restricted distribution. There is no benefit to the public for both considerations to be in effect simultaneously. Like patents, full disclosure and registration of these "technological measures" should be required before the additional protections of any law like DMCA may be invoked.
If a "technological measure" is implemented that goes further than simply granting access to a work, but also executes additional policies, such as giving one group of people access while (possibly temporarily) excluding another group of noninfringing would-be customers, then is this scheme worthy of protection under the DMCA? Citizens and consumers would say no. Why should DMCA be cited to protect a scheme that allows the copyright holder the unprecedented right of geographic designation of access, such as the regional encoding scheme for DVDs? In the past, has it been illegal for duly printed and purchased books, audio tapes, magazines, or other media to traverse geographical boundaries? Are we to constitute a government with no powers of censorship only to legislatively empower multinational corporations to routinely exercise such power? There is an important distinction between the DMCA's intent to prevent copyright infringment and industry's intent "to manage access and to exclude unauthorized users" as described by the MPAA. The DMCA must be clarified to forbid this type of practice and disallow descrimination based on geography or based on any other demographic attribute except possibly age.
Waiter: Okay, who ordered the broiled fish with honeycomb?
That would be 50¢ x 240 x 320 = $38,400.
That should cover all medical care for the eyestrain caused by trying to tell the difference between 12-bit and 16-bit images.
Microsoft is receiving the benefits of associating its products with the kerberos name, a name that has value since the standard has a reputation for security and interoperability. Yet Microsoft's nonstandard secret implementation obviously does not live up to the standard's goals.
--
Kerbo-masochism:
Embrace me! Extend me! Make me write bad tickets!
From the Intel site:
Software Availability A Windows* version of the CDSA open source software will be available from Intel in May. The 64- and 32-bit Linux versions will be available in August. The software will be downloadable from Intel's Web site at http://developer.intel.com/ial/security.
Hmm. Few details. Long time table. Could do biometrics. I smell vapor. How many monkeys could port libpam to windows by August, and make the same claims that are in this release? It looks like there is no choice but to wait and see about the license, functionality, etc.
Education versus indoctrination. Is explains why, in years past, I have had career enhancing, even illuminating experiences reading documentation selected from HP, and Borland, and Cisco. Yet despite reading mountains of SDKs and DDKs docs for Windows, I have no memory of such an experience there. The reasons are clearer to me now.
Let me guess: you are such a code stud that you're ready to toggle in that BIOS code from memory. Oh yeah, you would have to know it well since you also had to compose it and debug it, possibly from scratch, without infringing their copyright. Remember, flashing the BIOS is part of the modification. Easy to pirate? Yes. Simple? - my sphincter!
That BIOS is software. Written. Debugged. Tested. By folks who like to bring home paychecks. If it's so simple, post your clean room BIOS.
To say they have no legal recourse to protect their copyright is false, though it may be impractical for them to come after anybody. But that doesn't absolve a single pirate, and it surely doesn't place them 'at fault' at least not legally or ethically.
Catch a clue before you graduate.
Hey timothy, if I serve a page saying you can *FLASH* your Win 95 box's hard drive with a neighbor's Win 2K firmware, will you post the /. article? Responsible journalism is irrelevant.
I'm glad someone else saw this too. Firmware development can be a major portion of a manufacturer's development costs. The product's sales price reflects the investment.
I wonder how well the open source code community will defray costs for commodity hardware in the future. The problem is convincing any particular manufacturer that their board really is a commodity.
USPTO Employment Application
1. Name ______________ 2. Date _______________
3. DOB _______________ 4. SSN ________________
5. I.Q. (check one)
( ) Moron
( ) Idiot
( ) Dim-wit
( ) Liberal Arts Flunkee
(Y or N) Have you ever been affiliated with a terrorist organization or
received a grade D or or better on an engineering examination?
(Y or N) Can you be trained to operate a rubber stamp within a period
of 16 weeks?
(Y or N) Are you able to employ a method and process for inducing
condensation upon a reflecting surface?
(Y or N) Do you agree that you deserve a patent for the above?
(Y or N) Were you alive when Al Gore invented the Internet?
(Y or N) Do you agree he deserves a patent for that?
I'll bet that every time Slashdot's load delays, it's because someone's Granny just sent out the "GOOD TIMES" bulletin to a list that would make a pro spammer envious. Nobody wants to tell her that they don't want to read her mail -- It would crush her to know what we think. So day after day we hammer the delete key and wait for her to sign up to the big ISP in the sky.
This would be DependsNet (TM) the Internet In-Continent.
And that's also why commercially offered Linux-support will help spreading Linux even though it violates our initial ideals.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Charging for software support services is consistent with the GPL. We all like to eat.
And will it stop with companies if price is right? If I register dot-com and hire a rabid lawyer does that mean no-one can badmouth me?
This makes me sick. It seems losetup -e with a well-hidden backup is more important than ever.
After all we did for them...
RECALL ALL THOSE TITANIC CPU CYCLES!
I found some interesting case law here, if you can stand such legal drivel, and and interesting commentary on this enforcement trend from back in '95.
Violanti: ...
I don't know how to answer that. Use is use. If you place a device in a clock
Such are the great legal minds enforcing this: blindly speculating that someone might be using for surreptitious purposes.
The only thing they left out of this violation of common sense was the usual line about how someone can use this technology to abuse children.
I was saddened, and consensus among my peers is the Madeline had a way of getting through to the psyche of a geek.
Lets not forget a few other roles: how about the Gypsy voice in A Bug's Life? Or the fussy fiance Eunice Burns in What's Up Doc? Or hitting on Kermit in The Muppet Movie?
Did he say ANY consumer? Sounds like someone who needs to sit at a help desk for a while. Hmm.. This takes me back to 3 years ago this month, when was pouring over hardware compatibility lists for a PPRO that would support Solaris x86, OpenBSD, and Linux. Found 3 vendors. Each *refused* to sell without Windows or for that matter without the MS application bundle. Naively, I actually allowed the machine to boot 95 rather than booting the machine from an alternate OS and wiping the disk. (Who reads the EULA of something they never wanted?) I figure several hundred of my hard-earned bucks are sitting in Billy's account in return for little or no value received. I hope that one of those suits has my name on it..