I *was* going to comment that obfuscated c tends to obfuscate function, while obfuscated fortran tends to hide transfer of control. However, I think I"d blanked out nightmares like that one.
I never truly understood the horror of spaghettic code until I needed to use a program of my boss's. I was using Fortran 90 at the time (Absoft on x86 Linux and dec/compaq on alpha [and Steve was the one who answered some of my problems, come to think of it {and while I'm abusing subparentheses, my boss probably would have had an alpha if compaq fortran had been available for linux/alpha at the time}[), and the program was allegedly in F77. It was closer to FIV, but hadn't even used parts of *that* that would make it clearer (I suspect it descended from the Numerical Recipes book), so the thing ended up as a mix of II, IV, 77, and 90 . . . but that we could have dealt with. It was all of the gratuitious gotos that meant it took three days to figure out what the program was doing . . .
. . . but Fortran *is* still changing, sometimes rapidly. No, it doesn't have everything that C does--nor should it. For many types of heavy computation, it is still the language of choice (Including my own research).
The strengths aren't just from what is *in* fortran, but from what is left *out*. Because certain classes of pointers/objects/whatever aren't there, stronger assumptions can be made while optimizing. You can quickly write fast code faster in Fortran than C.
Don't get me wrong--it's not that C *can't* produce numerical code as fast as the corresponding Fortran; it can. However, this happens after hand-tuning and optimizing the C, and it generally reaches roughly parity with the initial Fortran program.
g77 and f2c cut it or some legacy applications. They don't have the extensions that many of us took for granted in the 80's, let alone anything resembling F90/95.
For that matter, is there any F90 support in Watcom? Not that it will make much difference; we need to order a Linux Fortran compiler in the next month or so, so it looks like Absoft again (which is a fine compiler with the best tech support I've ever found for *any* product).
In the late 70's (maybe the first couple of years of the 80's), Popular Electronics reported on a device that used a tiny video camera and a 64x64 grid of electrodes on the user's back to impart images. A user claiemd that it was probably comparable to a bad b&w television picture.
I want to say that it was the one-page article right before the back cover of that issue, but it's been 20 years, so don't hold me to that:)
I am a lawyer, and I type quite fast, thank you. Enough so that rather than dictation, I typed in drafts for secretaries to finish. I don't know my current speed (not that important now that most of my life is ans an economist), but I used to do over 100wpm on a manual. As fate would have it, I had one of the few legal secretaries in town who typed faster than I do . . .
Anyway, having been involved in this issue from multiple sides (interviewee presented with NDA, interviewor presenting NDA, attorney writing and advising on NDA's . ..), I'll comment. However, this is not legal advice; if you need that, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
An NDA at the initial interview should not be alarming, at least if drawn properly. A non-competition agreement, however, would be another matter. [sidenote: almost all non-competition agreements out there are unenforceable. They must go *no* farther than absolutely necessary to effect the underlying agreement, as they interfere with the fundamental right to practice one's trade or profession, and I've seen very few that meet this requirement.]
Just as an example of appropriate: a consultant being hired to solve a problem. We needed to disclose enough to see how the consultant would react to this particular problem--we had already determined the hard way that knowing the general skills wee needed wasn't enough.
I am a laweyr, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
I haven't read the law (and don't have a Colorado license anyway). However, what makes or break this as a viable solution is the issue of joinder: the way in which these can be combined in a single suit. If each person has to file each complaint as a separate action, it's close to useless; most of us won't front the filing fee, plus another $20 or so to serve it, etc., over ten bucks.
On the other hand, if the ISP can file these in bulk, perhaps making part of the terms of service an option for the ISP to file and keep a share in return for hirin an attorney, it's a whole new ball game (actually, this is my preferred solution: a standard statutory liquid damages of $10 or so, and joinder rules which permit ISP's to step in on behalf of all subscribers).
One of CP/M's problems when the hard disk rolled around was that it *didn't* have directories.
CP/M had a four bit numerical user, and only files from the current user setting (no security; you just told it which user to be) and those for user 0 were visible. There was no protection, iirc, to prevent user 7 from overwriting a file with the asame name in user 3.
By the mid 80's, CP/M-86 was running MS-DOS executabiles and reading MS-DOS disks, but couldn't access MS-DOS directories.
OTOH, CCP/M (later CDOS, later DR-DOS, etc.) could multitask MS-DOS programs on an 8086. But the lack of directories was a killer . . .
> Err... last time I checked Canada was part of North America.
Not any more; see above. Once the US was magically removed, Canada flew off into space . . . hopefully their air survives long enough to land on mars, but for the moment all of candada is no longer the tld.ca, but instead moved to.ca.et . . .
> In fact, I seem to recall that the White House was originally white > because they had to whitewash it to hide the burn marks. No lie.
Nope, it started white, just like all of the other similar buildings of its era. But wasn't it Aaron Burr who wanted to paint it black?
>It could be argued that the British won the war of 1812,
For a very strange version of "win":) We got what the war was (at least nominally:) about--an end to the boarding of US ships by the Royal Navy to impress sailors into naval service. Seems they weren't recognizing US citizenship . . .
The war ended with a treaty in Paris just in time to save the British--before word of the treaty got back, the only remaining significant british force in North America was obliterated at New Orleans, with its remnants scattered across three or four states. General (previously Colonel, later President) Jackson sent the commanding british general home in a rum barrel. . .
oh, and as for the stuff several pages up--as a matter of economic reality, the US *is* the center of the world. That's likely to change over the next fifty years, just as it has become less so in the past fifty, and just as the US was of minor importance prior to WWI.
>Oh, let me guess, you think that MS became the world's largest and >most profitable software company without being able to do anything >right
Microsoft is *neither* of those. IBM alone has *divisions* that have higher software sales *and* profits than all of microsoft. Microsoft has a higher valuation in the stock market, but as an economist, I think it's a bubble.
>And then there are still lots of people who don't care what it looks >like and still use FVWM/TWM/Virtual Terminals.
It's not that we don't care, but that we want our real estate on the screen. Eye candy might be nice, but I've never seen anything with the appearance to get me to give up *any* of my real estate. And if it can't have any real estate . . .
>Expiring news was always up to the control of the local news admin. It >was assumed that many newsgroups would never be expired, at least on >some sites.
This is why the simple archival is not over the line. If they simply ran a universally accessible nntp server with no expiration dates, there would be no issue (though some would be annoyed ). The web interface is pushing it, as is the combining of the unmodified work with the banner adds--a close call, but I think they're withing bounds (though it is possible for reasanble lawyers to disagree; it's not clear-cut).
>For example, consider the comp.sources.* groups, >rec.humor.funny, and other moderated groups. Things like the expire: >line were hints to the local news admin, never a requirement.
Err, if you want to talk about day one, you really need to leave the newer distribution hierchies out of this:) Most readers here never read net.general, net.jokes, ba.general, etc., but many of us go back that far . . .
>Likewise, public access news sites have always been common, deja.com >is just continuing that tradition.
No, not always. If you worked hard enough, public access was often *possible*, but it certainly wasn't easy twenty years ago. I do recall a gopher server (umich?) in the mid 90's.
>Well, I have also created a derived work from your posting by >including your quotes. This has been accepted since day one also.
Yes. This *particular type* of derived work has been accepted since the beginning of usenet, and is accepted here as well.
>So, it comes down to, "by posting, the user has given implied concent >to do all sorts of things to the work,
Here is where you make the wrong turn. Consent is not general; it is specific and in context. If you proposed to publish a book of the recipes from rec.craft.brewing, you would be informed by many of the authors that you had better negotiate royalties first. [this actually happens every few months. Not one has been willing to pay the royalties so far, although a magazien did ask me to write a regular column--but was shocked when I wanted market rates rather than a few bucks plus my name in print.]
The implied consent includes redistribution of the unmodified (save for routing headers) original by nntp, and quoting with attribution for distribution of a new work (the reply) by nntp. That's all.
>including copying,
Only within the context above.
>making permanent public displays of the work
Absolutely not, save in the context above.
>and making some derived works."
Only the very narrow class above.
>You are going to have to argue that this particular type of derived >work was *not* implied.
Nope, not even close. The onus is on the republisher to show permission or right to use. They just can't do this.
>good luck. IANAL, so I have no idea how you would do that.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
As an attorney, I'm just plain stunned by this.
The archiving of posts that they've been doing for years is at the border, but (I think) somewhat within. When posting to usenet, there is an implied consent for usenet distribution. Putting it on a universally readable website pushes this (arguably over the line), but is still at least vaguely consistent with the implied consent. [Note that the disclaimers banning particular organizations (typically msn) from posting the message have no effect, as the act of posting to usenet overrides that--because the msn server complies with usenet distribution.]
Inserting ads, topically or not, is creating a derived work. There is no argument of which I'm aware that extends the implied permission to display to do this, which leaves them only with what is allowed by copyright law--bringing them back to "derived work."
I haven't usually bothered with the x-no-archive header, as I haven't been particularly annoyed. Now, however, they're stealing from me, which I *do* mind.
Unfortunately, the nearest federal courthouse is a couple of hours from here, and I don't have time to deal with this over a few bucks. Nor does being a professor leave me the time to do this as a class action (which would be complicated by my membership in the class, anyway). However, *expect* this to happen.
A person has no more obligation to opt out by putting every header required by every news site in his postings than I have an obligation to inform every newspaper in the country that they may not use my oped pieces without paying me. I wrote it, it's mine, and theyt cannot create a derived work from it without my consent.
hawk, esq.
p.s. anywone know where to make "x-no-archive: yes" part of my default headers? I can't seem to find anything relevant in/etc/news . . .
I am a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. If you need a legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiciton.
I'm a US lawyer, and agree with geeklawyer. Our procedure isn's all that different than the brits--where do you think we got it from? [but we don't have to wear wigs:)]
A TRO is *really* easy to get--but *all* it does is protect the status quo; you can't get something ordered *to* be done.
I'd be surprised if the preliminary injunction issues at the hearing in a week or so. I expect the free association issue to utterly blast everything else out of the water. Even without that, this does not seem to be the type of behavior that would be a tortuious interference with contract (It's *really* hard to commit that one), and a libel action would seem difficult, as the yesmail description makes it sound like they commit the behavior described in the list.
As a side note, the protections for speech in this area tend to be stronger (for the speaker) under US law than british law.
Personally, I'm adding yesmail to my own list--just as soon as I figure out where debian keeps it:)
Also note that many of the ideas used by PARC predate the project. Notably, Jeff Raskin's Master's thesis . . . yes, Raskin worked at PARC, but he was able to implement some things on the Mac that he'd proposed nearly 20 years earlier.
It just makes me wonder, how many outstanding bugs are on file for StarOffice for failing to properly execute viruses?:)
When I worked at olivetti, they would have been slavishly duplicated [Yep, "It doesnt' crash when I XXX" was a valic bug if XXX would cause a PC to crash . ..]
Slashdot Mirror
I *was* going to comment that obfuscated c tends to obfuscate function, while obfuscated fortran tends to hide transfer of control. However, I think I"d blanked out nightmares like that one.
I never truly understood the horror of spaghettic code until I needed to use a program of my boss's. I was using Fortran 90 at the time (Absoft on x86 Linux and dec/compaq on alpha [and Steve was the one who answered some of my problems, come to think of it {and while I'm abusing subparentheses, my boss probably would have had an alpha if compaq fortran had been available for linux/alpha at the time}[), and the program was allegedly in F77. It was closer to FIV, but hadn't even used parts of *that* that would make it clearer (I suspect it descended from the Numerical Recipes book), so the thing ended up as a mix of II, IV, 77, and 90 . . . but that we could have dealt with. It was all of the gratuitious gotos that meant it took three days to figure out what the program was doing . . .
hawk
. . . but Fortran *is* still changing, sometimes rapidly. No, it doesn't have everything that C does--nor should it. For many types of heavy computation, it is still the language of choice (Including my own research).
The strengths aren't just from what is *in* fortran, but from what is left *out*. Because certain classes of pointers/objects/whatever aren't there, stronger assumptions can be made while optimizing. You can quickly write fast code faster in Fortran than C.
Don't get me wrong--it's not that C *can't* produce numerical code as fast as the corresponding Fortran; it can. However, this happens after hand-tuning and optimizing the C, and it generally reaches roughly parity with the initial Fortran program.
hawk, still using Fortran
g77 and f2c cut it or some legacy applications. They don't have the extensions that many of us took for granted in the 80's, let alone anything resembling F90/95.
For that matter, is there any F90 support in Watcom? Not that it will make much difference; we need to order a Linux Fortran compiler in the next month or so, so it looks like Absoft again (which is a fine compiler with the best tech support I've ever found for *any* product).
hawk
In the late 70's (maybe the first couple of years of the 80's), Popular Electronics reported on a device that used a tiny video camera and a 64x64 grid of electrodes on the user's back to impart images. A user claiemd that it was probably comparable to a bad b&w television picture.
:)
I want to say that it was the one-page article right before the back cover of that issue, but it's been 20 years, so don't hold me to that
Ahem.
.), I'll comment. However, this is not legal advice; if you need that, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
I am a lawyer, and I type quite fast, thank you. Enough so that rather than dictation, I typed in drafts for secretaries to finish. I don't know my current speed (not that important now that most of my life is ans an economist), but I used to do over 100wpm on a manual. As fate would have it, I had one of the few legal secretaries in town who typed faster than I do . . .
Anyway, having been involved in this issue from multiple sides (interviewee presented with NDA, interviewor presenting NDA, attorney writing and advising on NDA's . .
An NDA at the initial interview should not be alarming, at least if drawn properly. A non-competition agreement, however, would be another matter. [sidenote: almost all non-competition agreements out there are unenforceable. They must go *no* farther than absolutely necessary to effect the underlying agreement, as they interfere with the fundamental right to practice one's trade or profession, and I've seen very few that meet this requirement.]
Just as an example of appropriate: a consultant being hired to solve a problem. We needed to disclose enough to see how the consultant would react to this particular problem--we had already determined the hard way that knowing the general skills wee needed wasn't enough.
> as a practicing lawyer,
.. . .
:) ]
Yikes, we're coming out of the woodwork on this one
hawk, no longer a practicing lawyer, but instead a recovering lawyer, not having sued anyone in over six years [*applause*]
[hey, where do I get my five year pin?
I am a laweyr, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
I haven't read the law (and don't have a Colorado license anyway). However, what makes or break this as a viable solution is the issue of joinder: the way in which these can be combined in a single suit. If each person has to file each complaint as a separate action, it's close to useless; most of us won't front the filing fee, plus another $20 or so to serve it, etc., over ten bucks.
On the other hand, if the ISP can file these in bulk, perhaps making part of the terms of service an option for the ISP to file and keep a share in return for hirin an attorney, it's a whole new ball game (actually, this is my preferred solution: a standard statutory liquid damages of $10 or so, and joinder rules which permit ISP's to step in on behalf of all subscribers).
hawk, esq.
One of CP/M's problems when the hard disk rolled around was that it *didn't* have directories.
CP/M had a four bit numerical user, and only files from the current user setting (no security; you just told it which user to be) and those for user 0 were visible. There was no protection, iirc, to prevent user 7 from overwriting a file with the asame name in user 3.
By the mid 80's, CP/M-86 was running MS-DOS executabiles and reading MS-DOS disks, but couldn't access MS-DOS directories.
OTOH, CCP/M (later CDOS, later DR-DOS, etc.) could multitask MS-DOS programs on an 8086. But the lack of directories was a killer . . .
hawk
> Err ... last time I checked Canada was part of North America.
.ca, but instead moved to .ca.et . . .
Not any more; see above. Once the US was magically removed, Canada flew off into space . . . hopefully their air survives long enough to land on mars, but for the moment all of candada is no longer the tld
:)
> In fact, I seem to recall that the White House was originally white
:) We got what the war was :) about--an end to the boarding of US ships by
> because they had to whitewash it to hide the burn marks. No lie.
Nope, it started white, just like all of the other similar buildings
of its era. But wasn't it Aaron Burr who wanted to paint it black?
>It could be argued that the British won the war of 1812,
For a very strange version of "win"
(at least nominally
the Royal Navy to impress sailors into naval service. Seems they
weren't recognizing US citizenship . . .
The war ended with a treaty in Paris just in time to save the British--before word of the treaty got back, the only remaining significant british force in North America was obliterated at New Orleans, with its remnants scattered across three or four states. General (previously Colonel, later President) Jackson sent the commanding british general home in a rum barrel. . .
oh, and as for the stuff several pages up--as a matter of economic reality, the US *is* the center of the world. That's likely to change over the next fifty years, just as it has become less so in the past fifty, and just as the US was of minor importance prior to WWI.
hawk
>well first of all K6's were never a highly recommended potential OC chip,..
??? I don't know about later ones, but at the beginning, AMD all
but told you how fast you could take them.
Essentially all of the 166's could go to 200, and most to 233.
AMD also kind of coughed and pointed at the bus speed with a chipset that
was designed for 83mhz . . .
hawk, who got the 166 one day for a mere $99 when a retailer probably screwed up the day's price
>Oh, let me guess, you think that MS became the world's largest and
>most profitable software company without being able to do anything
>right
Microsoft is *neither* of those. IBM alone has *divisions* that have
higher software sales *and* profits than all of microsoft. Microsoft
has a higher valuation in the stock market, but as an economist, I think
it's a bubble.
hawk
>And then there are still lots of people who don't care what it looks
>like and still use FVWM/TWM/Virtual Terminals.
It's not that we don't care, but that we want our real estate on
the screen. Eye candy might be nice, but I've never seen anything
with the appearance to get me to give up *any* of my real estate. And
if it can't have any real estate . . .
Just offhand, Trumpet supposedly has an NT kernel clone. I want to say that there's another project, but my memory is going fuzzy on it . . .
> Penn State DOES pay my salery, but I don't imagine they want to :)
:), but that's not enough for my :)
:)
> adopt my opinions
They pay my salary (as of next month
opinions
But I'll follow that link when I get back (I've suddenly had an urgent matter dumped in my lap
Since Bill laid the egg (aka Windows), he must be the female.
By elimination, the other one (Tux) is male.
:)
hawk
>They were NEVER to get into enforcement, hell, they were never supposed
."
>to carry guns.
That would have made for interesting early days, as the task force to deal with Capone and the like.
"Oh Mr. Capone! Would you please stop? I'll tell the police if you don't . .
:)
>The cube is only 8" x 8" on the top.
Hey, that's perfect to put the toaster on top . . .
:)
or a 4 cup coffe pot . . .
hawk
>Expiring news was always up to the control of the local news admin. It
>was assumed that many newsgroups would never be expired, at least on
>some sites.
This is why the simple archival is not over the line. If they simply ran a universally accessible nntp server with no expiration dates, there would be no issue (though some would be annoyed ). The web interface is pushing it, as is the combining of the unmodified work with the banner adds--a close call, but I think they're withing bounds (though it is possible for reasanble lawyers to disagree; it's not clear-cut).
>For example, consider the comp.sources.* groups,
>rec.humor.funny, and other moderated groups. Things like the expire:
>line were hints to the local news admin, never a requirement.
Err, if you want to talk about day one, you really need to leave the newer distribution hierchies out of this
>Likewise, public access news sites have always been common, deja.com
>is just continuing that tradition.
No, not always. If you worked hard enough, public access was often *possible*, but it certainly wasn't easy twenty years ago. I do recall a gopher server (umich?) in the mid 90's.
>Well, I have also created a derived work from your posting by
>including your quotes. This has been accepted since day one also.
Yes. This *particular type* of derived work has been accepted since the beginning of usenet, and is accepted here as well.
>So, it comes down to, "by posting, the user has given implied concent
>to do all sorts of things to the work,
Here is where you make the wrong turn. Consent is not general; it is specific and in context. If you proposed to publish a book of the recipes from rec.craft.brewing, you would be informed by many of the authors that you had better negotiate royalties first. [this actually happens every few months. Not one has been willing to pay the royalties so far, although a magazien did ask me to write a regular column--but was shocked when I wanted market rates rather than a few bucks plus my name in print.]
The implied consent includes redistribution of the unmodified (save for routing headers) original by nntp, and quoting with attribution for distribution of a new work (the reply) by nntp. That's all.
>including copying,
Only within the context above.
>making permanent public displays of the work
Absolutely not, save in the context above.
>and making some derived works."
Only the very narrow class above.
>You are going to have to argue that this particular type of derived
>work was *not* implied.
Nope, not even close. The onus is on the republisher to show permission or right to use. They just can't do this.
>good luck. IANAL, so I have no idea how you would do that.
Since I don't have to, I won't worry about it
hawk
Is Taco old enough to remember? :)
:)
I was using one for development in 82, and by 87 it was kind of strange not to have one . . .
OTOH, I remember being excited about Apple adding the *floppy* as an available peripheral
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
/etc/news . . .
As an attorney, I'm just plain stunned by this.
The archiving of posts that they've been doing for years is at the border, but (I think) somewhat within. When posting to usenet, there is an implied consent for usenet distribution. Putting it on a universally readable website pushes this (arguably over the line), but is still at least vaguely consistent with the implied consent. [Note that the disclaimers banning particular organizations (typically msn) from posting the message have no effect, as the act of posting to usenet overrides that--because the msn server complies with usenet distribution.]
Inserting ads, topically or not, is creating a derived work. There is no argument of which I'm aware that extends the implied permission to display to do this, which leaves them only with what is allowed by copyright law--bringing them back to "derived work."
I haven't usually bothered with the x-no-archive header, as I haven't been particularly annoyed. Now, however, they're stealing from me, which I *do* mind.
Unfortunately, the nearest federal courthouse is a couple of hours from here, and I don't have time to deal with this over a few bucks. Nor does being a professor leave me the time to do this as a class action (which would be complicated by my membership in the class, anyway). However, *expect* this to happen.
A person has no more obligation to opt out by putting every header required by every news site in his postings than I have an obligation to inform every newspaper in the country that they may not use my oped pieces without paying me. I wrote it, it's mine, and theyt cannot create a derived work from it without my consent.
hawk, esq.
p.s. anywone know where to make "x-no-archive: yes" part of my default headers? I can't seem to find anything relevant in
>Wouldn't it have been smarter to release the source code before a complete rewrite,
It was. Here is the source code from the new version before a complete rewrite:
:)
In case you missed it, here it is again:
hawk
[great, now I get rbl'd for that AOLism . . . :) ]
:)]
:)
I am a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. If you need a legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiciton.
I'm a US lawyer, and agree with geeklawyer. Our procedure isn's all that different than the brits--where do you think we got it from? [but we don't have to wear wigs
A TRO is *really* easy to get--but *all* it does is protect the status quo; you can't get something ordered *to* be done.
I'd be surprised if the preliminary injunction issues at the hearing in a week or so. I expect the free association issue to utterly blast everything else out of the water. Even without that, this does not seem to be the type of behavior that would be a tortuious interference with contract (It's *really* hard to commit that one), and a libel action would seem difficult, as the yesmail description makes it sound like they commit the behavior described in the list.
As a side note, the protections for speech in this area tend to be stronger (for the speaker) under US law than british law.
Personally, I'm adding yesmail to my own list--just as soon as I figure out where debian keeps it
hawk, esq.
>and the things Steve Jobs saw at Xerox PARC were the Mac initial inspiratione
no, No, NO! A thousand times, NO!
PARC certainly influenced the mac, but it is not the source. The notion
that the Lisa was insired by PARC is pure urban legend.
The Lisa project began *before* the PARC tour. There were screen mockups *before* the PARC tour. Try
http://home.san.rr.com/deans/lisagui.html
for some of the history.
Also note that many of the ideas used by PARC predate the project. Notably, Jeff Raskin's Master's thesis . . . yes, Raskin worked at PARC, but he was able to implement some things on the Mac that he'd proposed nearly 20 years earlier.
hawk
It just makes me wonder, how many outstanding bugs are on file for StarOffice for failing to properly execute viruses? :)
.]
When I worked at olivetti, they would have been slavishly duplicated [Yep, "It doesnt' crash when I XXX" was a valic bug if XXX would cause a PC to crash . .