Lets ignore the whole unverifiable "intermediary" Sun's CEO brought up and lets also ignore Netapp's claim that Sun contacted them 18 months before that post.
The only real proof Netapp's CEO has provided is an email which states there were demands over one and a half year before December 2006 (so 27 months before that post, can't be the same communication he is talking about unless he doesn't know what he is talking about). Which puts it well before the takeover. Question is, did Sun push for them to enter a cross licensing deal after the takeover or was the deal proposed in the email inherited too? Hard to say without knowing the context of the single email provided.
It's unavoidable. Innovation will happen with or without software patents, there are no original ideas which won't be thought of again in 17 fucking years. Metadata snapshotting is such an idea (I'm using the term a student doing research at IBM gave it when he reinvented it, because it's a much better name than WAFL).
Hell, I'd argue WAFL is just the filesystem equivalent of KeyKOS. Very few thoughts are original... and when they are it's by accident not by brilliance. Brilliance is not in short supply.
Unless the operation is big enough (or secret enough) to be able to afford a large team of armed guards a vault in a metropolitan area to me seems the more secure option.
"out of the way" and "nearly unknown location" are just security by obscurity...
Re:Sounds somewhat like Gunslinger Girl.
on
Joss Whedon Back on TV
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Lsof was of course done locally, but if you look at the image in the article of their connection to the NETBIOS name server you can see it was from a different IP (192.168.69.2 192.168.69.21). In theory he could have run the ntp request and the connection to the netcat service they started locally, but it seems wholly unlikely. Give the guy some credit, C't isn't written by complete idiots.
The netbios name service and NTP run regardless of how empty the services list seems to be. Also they never mentioned root, they ran netcat as a user and it was remotely accessible.
I can't see how you could argue Leopard's setting are badly worthed, or the other way around... it's a completely meaningless argument. It's just plain untruthful. Heise are used to the meaning of words not being changed just to make it so Apple is right.
D/A converters and the expertise in making good mixed digital/analog circuitry has improved immensely over the last decade... there is nothing about a good design for CD player design which makes it costly and thus market forces have commodotized quality.
That does assume blind testing of course, without blind testing the bling can be heard.
You might understand it's a TV show, you just seem to misunderstand what the fact it's a TV show means. Simply put, they will lie to make more interesting TV.
These statistical correlations are fact. The conclusions might not be, but given the local variations in lead reduction and corresponding reduction in violent crime she makes a much better case than you.
There is a difference between cynicism and skepticism.
E3 let the developers compete for eyeballs in a more honest way than normal PR (at the cost of having an extra huge milestone). That was rewarded with much more media hype and consumer interest than they are getting now AFAICS. Anyone can lie and get those lies spread by proxy, all it takes is money and no soul, shining at E3 took talent... I don't think the loss of E3 was good for the good developers or even the industry as a whole.
You missed the word "also". Also while they don't use/sell information which personally identifies me they can use and sell information which identifies my computer. With my MAC address and IP it ain't that hard to find out who I am, the difference between identifying me or my computer is purely academic IMO.
Fluid dynamic codes are relatively simple in structure, you can still follow the control flow in your head and have a good idea how it would run in parallel. For something a little less simple (say rigid body physics) there are far more opportunities for deadlock / livelock / race-conditions / etc, analyzing programs to prevent them is hard with the ton of aliasing present in most languages (but not occam). It's a pity Transputers died, old Occam was just too rough to survive without them. Modern Occam is quite nice... the roughest edges have been removed (a better type system for data structures and mobile data types to avoid copying) but it's too little too late.
As soon as you think you know the "why" of certain physical events you believe you know something about their odds of occurring... which is exactly the moment you kiss science goodbye. Using religion to provide a reason for the big bang doesn't present much of a roadblock to a scientific mindset, using religion to find reason in the last volcano outburst (or crop failure, or Islamic idiots flying a plane into your office) most certainly does.
Every single source file with the GPLv2 or later license applied can still be used under GPLv2 or later, no matter if you have to derive the right to distribute the binaries from the GPLv3 because it's linked to GPLv3 code... I think to say it becomes GPLv3 only is a bit disingenuous.
Why is this modded insightful? Yes, when you use the latter version to derive your right to distribute the code (has bugger all to do with use) then the newer version supersedes the old in it's entirety. You only need one license to be allowed to distribute the code, no matter how many other licenses you can also get.
If you link GPLv2 or later code with a GPLv3 or later code the result becomes GPLv3 licensed.
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's an attitude which hurts scientific progress. The data and your software for analyzing it should be part and parcel of the papers you write IMO.
That they can put themselves in the place of someone with more intimate domain knowledge than themselves, all the while whiping knowledge from their thoughts while doing so. Are they superbeings capable of running world simulations in their heads to go back in time? Thinking for yourself is hard enough, only lawyers would suppose you could think for someone else... they are asking for the impossible from patent examiners, and obviously they are not doing the impossible. Obviousness is just an opinion, everything else just padding.
It's just like being in high school again, having to pad the text for a higher grade.
The science is only relevant to the people interested in the science, which can not be usefully abbreviated... it's only the implications which are relevant to the general public. If I want the science I'll read the paper.
You can't prove anything outside of mathematics and there seem multiple ways to make deterministic theories compatible with EPR experiments. For instance there is the grand daddy of deterministic QM... Bohm, who's theory Bell himself liked and thought far too readily dismissed by the physics community.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets ignore the whole unverifiable "intermediary" Sun's CEO brought up and lets also ignore Netapp's claim that Sun contacted them 18 months before that post.
The only real proof Netapp's CEO has provided is an email which states there were demands over one and a half year before December 2006 (so 27 months before that post, can't be the same communication he is talking about unless he doesn't know what he is talking about). Which puts it well before the takeover. Question is, did Sun push for them to enter a cross licensing deal after the takeover or was the deal proposed in the email inherited too? Hard to say without knowing the context of the single email provided.
All I know for sure is who initiated a lawsuit.
It's unavoidable. Innovation will happen with or without software patents, there are no original ideas which won't be thought of again in 17 fucking years. Metadata snapshotting is such an idea (I'm using the term a student doing research at IBM gave it when he reinvented it, because it's a much better name than WAFL).
... and when they are it's by accident not by brilliance. Brilliance is not in short supply.
Hell, I'd argue WAFL is just the filesystem equivalent of KeyKOS. Very few thoughts are original
Unless the operation is big enough (or secret enough) to be able to afford a large team of armed guards a vault in a metropolitan area to me seems the more secure option.
...
"out of the way" and "nearly unknown location" are just security by obscurity
More Nikita than Alias.
Simply disallowing all incoming UDP traffick is trivially easy ... and doesn't break all that much.
Lsof was of course done locally, but if you look at the image in the article of their connection to the NETBIOS name server you can see it was from a different IP (192.168.69.2 192.168.69.21). In theory he could have run the ntp request and the connection to the netcat service they started locally, but it seems wholly unlikely. Give the guy some credit, C't isn't written by complete idiots.
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/bilder/98120/1/1
The netbios name service and NTP run regardless of how empty the services list seems to be. Also they never mentioned root, they ran netcat as a user and it was remotely accessible.
... it's a completely meaningless argument. It's just plain untruthful. Heise are used to the meaning of words not being changed just to make it so Apple is right.
I can't see how you could argue Leopard's setting are badly worthed, or the other way around
D/A converters and the expertise in making good mixed digital/analog circuitry has improved immensely over the last decade ... there is nothing about a good design for CD player design which makes it costly and thus market forces have commodotized quality.
That does assume blind testing of course, without blind testing the bling can be heard.
You might understand it's a TV show, you just seem to misunderstand what the fact it's a TV show means. Simply put, they will lie to make more interesting TV.
These statistical correlations are fact. The conclusions might not be, but given the local variations in lead reduction and corresponding reduction in violent crime she makes a much better case than you.
There is a difference between cynicism and skepticism.
E3 let the developers compete for eyeballs in a more honest way than normal PR (at the cost of having an extra huge milestone). That was rewarded with much more media hype and consumer interest than they are getting now AFAICS. Anyone can lie and get those lies spread by proxy, all it takes is money and no soul, shining at E3 took talent ... I don't think the loss of E3 was good for the good developers or even the industry as a whole.
You missed the word "also". Also while they don't use/sell information which personally identifies me they can use and sell information which identifies my computer. With my MAC address and IP it ain't that hard to find out who I am, the difference between identifying me or my computer is purely academic IMO.
Define "such loads". Mission critical systems running on 100s of CPUs? 1000s? What?
Fluid dynamic codes are relatively simple in structure, you can still follow the control flow in your head and have a good idea how it would run in parallel. For something a little less simple (say rigid body physics) there are far more opportunities for deadlock / livelock / race-conditions / etc, analyzing programs to prevent them is hard with the ton of aliasing present in most languages (but not occam). It's a pity Transputers died, old Occam was just too rough to survive without them. Modern Occam is quite nice ... the roughest edges have been removed (a better type system for data structures and mobile data types to avoid copying) but it's too little too late.
As soon as you think you know the "why" of certain physical events you believe you know something about their odds of occurring ... which is exactly the moment you kiss science goodbye. Using religion to provide a reason for the big bang doesn't present much of a roadblock to a scientific mindset, using religion to find reason in the last volcano outburst (or crop failure, or Islamic idiots flying a plane into your office) most certainly does.
Not to run anyway, VOIP is a very cheap service ignoring patent litigation.
Every single source file with the GPLv2 or later license applied can still be used under GPLv2 or later, no matter if you have to derive the right to distribute the binaries from the GPLv3 because it's linked to GPLv3 code ... I think to say it becomes GPLv3 only is a bit disingenuous.
Why is this modded insightful? Yes, when you use the latter version to derive your right to distribute the code (has bugger all to do with use) then the newer version supersedes the old in it's entirety. You only need one license to be allowed to distribute the code, no matter how many other licenses you can also get.
If you link GPLv2 or later code with a GPLv3 or later code the result becomes GPLv3 licensed.
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's an attitude which hurts scientific progress. The data and your software for analyzing it should be part and parcel of the papers you write IMO.
The most common cheat is to pretend there was no David Hume.
That they can put themselves in the place of someone with more intimate domain knowledge than themselves, all the while whiping knowledge from their thoughts while doing so. Are they superbeings capable of running world simulations in their heads to go back in time? Thinking for yourself is hard enough, only lawyers would suppose you could think for someone else ... they are asking for the impossible from patent examiners, and obviously they are not doing the impossible. Obviousness is just an opinion, everything else just padding.
It's just like being in high school again, having to pad the text for a higher grade.
Obviousness is neither, all the tests lawyers (and lawyers pretending to be judges) have come up with to disguise that basic fact are bunk.
So according to you the only thing worth reporting on is mathematics?
http://xkcd.com/263/
The science is only relevant to the people interested in the science, which can not be usefully abbreviated ... it's only the implications which are relevant to the general public. If I want the science I'll read the paper.
You can't prove anything outside of mathematics and there seem multiple ways to make deterministic theories compatible with EPR experiments. For instance there is the grand daddy of deterministic QM ... Bohm, who's theory Bell himself liked and thought far too readily dismissed by the physics community.