When the pipe fills up, do you just get a bigger pipe? No. Any sane network administrator on the planet will tell you that when the network starts to become overutilized - you figure out why it's overutilized before you buy a bigger pipe.
The problem here is that your technical expertise spans as far as your position - of a college sysadmin. You know how to buy a bigger pipe. You know how to ban. You have no idea how to control and use your pipe efficiently.
I would suggest you go and read about Quality of Service over IP, Random Early Detection, Classed Based Queing, Ingress Traffic Policying, etc, etc.
These things are more than 5 years old now. Van Jacobson (yes the same VJ) and Sally Floyd have started developing them in the mid 90-ties.
Have alook at ee.lbl.gov and learn how to control instead of banning.
This also means that you will have to change your network design quite a bit. You cannot simply slap QoS on an existing network. The result is shit. You have to design for QoS
This is a result of system administrator stupidity multiplied by their ignorance. This may sound like an obvious flaimebait considering the quantity of software development in some Universities, but that is the way things actually are. Even if there is a development going on in an university those are usually not the people who administer the networks and define policies. They used to be, but they are no longer there.
The reason for this is very simple. Everything is driven by cost. But not by cost as should (as in economics laws) but by the laws of reverse economics operating in modern academia.
Namely:
staff costs are set by almost all sponsors to be a fixed percentage or have a limited percent from overall spending. So as a result academia buys the biggest boxes they can buy to afford staff. And noone gives a fsck about developing anything because development actually drops costs and requires higher personnel expenses instead of new iron.
I have heard that this trend is becoming popular in the US as well so if I am not correct please correct me, but in EU this is exactlly the way things are going. Tempus and Copernicus projects all operate on a fixed percentage principle for iron and staff.
As a result of this academic projects or government projects that deal with efficient networking and efficient machine usage never get implemented in the "computing part" of the academia. The "computing part" of the academia is not interested. No food. They are implemented in physics, chemistry, biology, etc where the computing is a secondary expense.
There are numerous examples to this but there is no point quoting them so I will restrict myself to the a appropriate technology for VOIP, napster, streaming media, etc. This is QOS over IP, either as RED or as Class Based Queing. They have been initially developed as an US government project. Further development has circulated around various universities...
If this technology was used, the situation would be as follows:
Who cares about napster, put a limit of 33.6K for the entire university on it burstable to full bandwidth. As a result as bandwidth becomes precious and important it will be forced to accomodate itself in the 33.6. Otherwise it will use only what is available to it.
Same stands for the free VOIP services, etc.
The only problem here is that the system administrators will have to use FreeBSD (or Linux 2.2.+) as means to controll the bandwidth. And they do not want this because this means:
1. They will have to learn 2. They will not be able to justify the "buy the next big routing iron (usually blue)" project.
Put it into public domain BEFORE they patent it. Than, the fact that it was developed with government money protects you. It may not be withdrawn from public domain for reasons other than security. Even one percent of government monet is enough to put the project under this status.
In btw this is one of the additional protections on linux besides GPL. Have a look at the ethernet drivers.
After it has been patented the situation becomes much more difficult. There is a number of patents floating around that have actually been developed with government money (mostly in biology, pharmacology, chemistry, etc). And US government seems reluctant to chase the offenders. I do not know the reasons for the reluctance but it is quite likely that US legal system protects the offender in this case.
Phoenix is definitely not everyone's favourite BIOS company in terms of setting things up and user interface but they are the de-facto standard for the BIOS programming interface.
If you take any BIOS programming guide you will find mostly two names: Phoenix and IBM. IBM is actually resposnsible mostly for the PS2 additions. Some of them have been adopted, some not.
So a BIOS design usually looks like - Phoenix starts, defines the interface spec and everyone else follows.
As a user I dislike phoenix as much as you do if not more, but as a programmer I have to admit that if you want your things to work you have to rely on their docs, standards and implementation. Se la vie...
He has replied at least to me. If you tell him constructively why the fsck he is off the mark he usually replies. Same stands for cases when you catch him that he has gone only half the way or was scared to write what he actually thinks in order to be politically correct (actually Katz is usually politically correct and does not touch too deep very controvercial topics). But this means that you should explain in your comment why he is off the mark, why do you think that he is not telling what he thinks, etc.
If you just pull a flamethrower... Oh well... I would not answer in his place either;-)
Both are about to learn the hard way what American educators, religious leaders, law enforcement officials - even politicians - are just beginning to figure out: The Net isn't censorable. Neither is the software that runs programs, links Web sites, plays, movies and music, stores or transmits information and ideas.
I wish you to be right. But I think you are wrong. Neither the politicians, nor the leaders had the resources behind them MPAA has. They had to push questionable laws and usually they failed (Australia being a noteable exemption). The difference in this case is:
The law (MCPA) has already been pushed and quite a few previous laws exist.
These people do not need to finance a media campaign to promote their cause. And they can promote it at no extra expense. As I said in one of the previous threads on the topic they can lie as much as they wish and there is nobody to oppose them with an equivalent amount of firepower. Quoting myself from a previous thread:
A LIE REPEATED ONE HUNDRED TIMES BECOMES THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Gobels
Repeat after me: "encrypted DVD cannot be copied" - exempt from the presentation of MPAA for the preliminary injuction in New York. The transcript is at:2600.com - one of the sites hit with injunction. The quote is located in the very beginning.
Presenting it here once again for sake of paranoia (who knows what will they try to injunct next time, the truth maybe):
MR. GOLD: Now, before plaintiffs were willing to make DVDs available, they decided that they had to have an encryption technology so that the content and their copyright interest in the content could be protected, something that would scramble the picture and scramble the sound. And that system was created, and it is called CSS, which stands for content scrambling system. And you can't watch a movie unless you have an authorized DVD player, and the authorized DVD player has the computer key to the program. So with a DVD and an authorized player, the authorized player will unscramble the picture and the sound and you can watch your movie. But you can't copy it. The CSS technology prevents that.
Yeah, right, not like I can copy the entire DVD bit by bit encrypted, make a 100000 copies and sell them...
And as you see the judge accepted this argument wholehartedly and put the entire weight of the US law system behind it. Though the argument is a lie. One that has been repeated 100 times so far and shall be repeated until Gobels holds true.
There has not been a single case when such firepower and finances have been used to make the net silent. And the chances of bringing the Net silent in this case are too high.
You also miscalculate for the fact that all those who failed before are likely to join the crusade seeing MPAA to score points aginst the net as a whole. The Net against all who want to put it under control... Well, I will make no guesses here. I doubt that the net will win so we can all go to O'Raily and by ourselfs a coopy of DataBase Nation to educate ourselves on how shall we live further on. Or a copy of 1984 for that matter.
First signal reaction. Reflexes without thinking. Boycott Holywood - to hell no. Boycott any non-DVD media - to hell yes. Then as people say: money talks. Namely sales figures talk.
Your quote is slightly off the mark. The proper quote is:
A LIE REPEATED ONE HUNDRED TIMES BECOMES THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Gobels
Repeat after me: "encrypted DVD cannot be copied" - exempt from the presentation of MPAA for the preliminary injuction in New York. The transcript is at:2600.com - one of the sites hit with injunction. The quote is located in the very beginning. Presenting it here once again for sake of paranoia (who knows what will they try to injunct next time, the truth maybe):
MR. GOLD: Now, before plaintiffs were willing to make DVDs available, they decided that they had to have an encryption technology so that the content and their copyright interest in the content could be protected, something that would scramble the picture and scramble the sound. And that system was created, and it is called CSS, which stands for content scrambling system. And you can't watch a movie unless you have an authorized DVD player, and the authorized DVD player has the computer key to the program. So with a DVD and an authorized player, the authorized player will unscramble the picture and the sound and you can watch your movie. But you can't copy it. The CSS technology prevents that.
I do not think that you have any idea how close you are. The only difference is that they have been removed from the beta test list due to their inclusion on the payroll list.
Explain: MS have actually hired some of the best Windoze security people lately. David LeBlanc for example. There was a message on Bugtraq today but I guess it is not in the archive yet. So do not expect them to post any more messages about Windoze vulnerabilities any more...
This is just an index to lots of documents listed at the end. And these documents actually cost money to obtain (just gessing, but Gartner has to earn its living somehow).
I get the same feeling. Almost felt like printing it immediately and glueing to the wall with superglue.
The most concise and precise analysis of OSS I have seen so far.
I wish there were more documents like that. I do not know how much gartner chrages for their services, but unless the redistribution is forbidden this is worth including in any Linux or BSD distribution.
I mean only the index. Gartner can still keep the ownership of the child documents (noted in the text) and get their money from them. So by redistributing this document as a part of an OS or software distribution Gratner should actually earn money (lots of PHBs want figures and they are in the child docs which Gartner does not give out free like this index).
The reason is that especially the new kernels are quite stubborned on the topic of receive only interfaces. You do have problems making those work and most vendors do not bother.
Amidst the few noteable exemptions are satellite news feeds and stuff but you hardly need such a staellite service. The only reason these use linux is that it is a platform of choice for combining encryption (these services cost money), hardware access and a working news server.
Take a look at a few of the most widely ported software packages around. How many of these redefine the types in order to "know the size of their types"? Not many, I can tell you.
Quite a few. Amazingly these are usually those that have portability problems. PGP 5 is a good example.
Doesn't "fast enough" outweigh "fastest possible" if you get it sooner?.
Yes it does but only if this is something you want to run not very often. If it is running constantly - think kernel, daemons, etc it does not outweight a thing.
Also perl or python still beat the sh... out of Java on anything and develkoping in either one of those is much faster. What I actually want to see finally is a perl.so or python.so plugin that loads perl (or python perse) as an application and does policing on all dangerous IO functions.
After all browser functionality is just an elementary module. Than the entire jabba the hut issue will be finally put where it belongs - to rest.
Think of Java licencing and control issues. Discussed widely on slashdot. Actually I shall retract this statement if one of the MAJOR league players will accept Crusoe as a primary CPU for at least one machine class.
Otherwise it is obvious that it could be thy Java machine, but it is least likely to be.
I think Cruose will actually make a reality something else which is much cooler than Java. It will make real thy developer's dream - the coat of many colors: The affordable machine of many architectures.
On the basis of Crusoe even now you can build a machine that can happily emulate:
Mac, Sun (lower end), IBM PPC (lower end), SGI (lower end), Alpha and curse it x86.
1. All these are PCI based.
2. The differences in chipsets can be ignored under the "one OS to rule them all, one os to find them, one os to bring them all and in (oh well cutting out darkness) bind them ". It can have drivers for the chipset and peripherals in question.
3. You may actually do the reverse thing and develop drivers for the peripherals and the chipset for all platforms in question (not a hell of an effort, actually quite achievable). If peripherals are something like adaptec, tulip and a PCI VGA the drivers are basically there already. So you have only the chipset left. Actually you can intercept these and emulate chipset behaviour if you so desire.
Overall - the developer's dream can become a reality for just a few bucks - about the price of a PC (excluding licencing for OSes and sowftare of course;-)
1. Thermodynamics say that in order to convert CO2 into CH3OH you have to use quite a lot of energy. So whatever you burn like that will be bloody inefficient
2. The only productive thing you can actually do with the CH3OH is burn it so back to CO2. It can be converted into some plastics and stuff but the overall demand for such material is not high to satisfy a massive generation of CH3OH.
3. Better stop cutting the brazilian forests. I actually check the labels on all the stuff I buy and try not to buy anything that is not:
3.1. Made of recycled paper (this technology is dirty as well but still better than nothing).
3.2. Made out of planted forests in scandinavia or somehewhere else where they plant at least as much as they cut.
In btw: these labels are almost standard on anything sold in the EU.
The people who run the repository have to translate all the prior art into "patent" language. Have a look at some of the "click-and" patents like A... and so on. Unless you have reformulated the prior art and published it in the "patentable" form than it becomes a question of interpretation - i.e. a question to be settled in court, so the repository has actually achieved nothing.
The only way to achieve this is to hire patent lawyers and other specialists in the aret of reformulating the obvious into obscure. And these folks cost money. Quite a lot actually. The expences for a patent consultant usually exceed by far the patent fees.
Some flames;-): You frogot to note that regional encoding is not for just to make copying harder. Movies cost different in different regions. You can also buy yourself a multyregional player but this of course costs _more_ money. So it is not just for control, it is milking the consumer to the maximal extent possible permitted by the consumer statuatory rights and slightly beyond...
Though I would say that this is not authopities sence of humour, it is a MPAA legal problem.
It will actually be reproduced in any such case in the future. All the defendant will need will be to make sure that the "offending code is entered as an evidence in court.
After that it is a matter of the public record accessible freely in almost any country. Any motion to close it will be a motion for a closure of a public record which has very low chances to succeed.
I can get downmarked for flamebait for this but whatever:
911 is helpless if a crime is to be comitted besides the few cases when police is allowed preemptive action. These are mostly cases that do not deal with crime against individuals.
So you may cry to 911 (or 999 or 112 in other countries) as much as you wish. Before that someone has actually attacked you police cannot do a thing. And than it is usually too bloody late.
This makes these number to be quite useless for anything but medical emergencies, reporting accidents and fires. Their crime fighting capabilities are largely overrated.
Slashdot Mirror
when the network starts to become overutilized - you figure out why it's overutilized before you buy a bigger pipe.
The problem here is that your technical expertise spans as far as your position - of a college sysadmin. You know how to buy a bigger pipe. You know how to ban. You have no idea how to control and use your pipe efficiently.
I would suggest you go and read about Quality of Service over IP, Random Early Detection, Classed Based Queing, Ingress Traffic Policying, etc, etc.
These things are more than 5 years old now. Van Jacobson (yes the same VJ) and Sally Floyd have started developing them in the mid 90-ties.
Have alook at ee.lbl.gov and learn how to control instead of banning.
This also means that you will have to change your network design quite a bit. You cannot simply slap QoS on an existing network. The result is shit. You have to design for QoS
This is a result of system administrator stupidity multiplied by their ignorance. This may sound like an obvious flaimebait considering the quantity of software development in some Universities, but that is the way things actually are. Even if there is a development going on in an university those are usually not the people who administer the networks and define policies. They used to be, but they are no longer there.
The reason for this is very simple. Everything is driven by cost. But not by cost as should (as in economics laws) but by the laws of reverse economics operating in modern academia.
Namely:
staff costs are set by almost all sponsors to be a fixed percentage or have a limited percent from overall spending. So as a result academia buys the biggest boxes they can buy to afford staff. And noone gives a fsck about developing anything because development actually drops costs and requires higher personnel expenses instead of new iron.
I have heard that this trend is becoming popular in the US as well so if I am not correct please correct me, but in EU this is exactlly the way things are going. Tempus and Copernicus projects all operate on a fixed percentage principle for iron and staff.
As a result of this academic projects or government projects that deal with efficient networking and efficient machine usage never get implemented in the "computing part" of the academia. The "computing part" of the academia is not interested. No food. They are implemented in physics, chemistry, biology, etc where the computing is a secondary expense.
There are numerous examples to this but there is no point quoting them so I will restrict myself to the a appropriate technology for VOIP, napster, streaming media, etc. This is QOS over IP, either as RED or as Class Based Queing. They have been initially developed as an US government project. Further development has circulated around various universities...
If this technology was used, the situation would be as follows:
Who cares about napster, put a limit of 33.6K for the entire university on it burstable to full bandwidth. As a result as bandwidth becomes precious and important it will be forced to accomodate itself in the 33.6. Otherwise it will use only what is available to it.
Same stands for the free VOIP services, etc.
The only problem here is that the system administrators will have to use FreeBSD (or Linux 2.2.+) as means to controll the bandwidth. And they do not want this because this means:
1. They will have to learn
2. They will not be able to justify the "buy the next big routing iron (usually blue)" project.
Written by an ex-academia sysadmin...
Put it into public domain BEFORE they patent it. Than, the fact that it was developed with government money protects you. It may not be withdrawn from public domain for reasons other than security. Even one percent of government monet is enough to put the project under this status.
In btw this is one of the additional protections on linux besides GPL. Have a look at the ethernet drivers.
After it has been patented the situation becomes much more difficult. There is a number of patents floating around that have actually been developed with government money (mostly in biology, pharmacology, chemistry, etc). And US government seems reluctant to chase the offenders. I do not know the reasons for the reluctance but it is quite likely that US legal system protects the offender in this case.
So my suggestion is Hurry. IANAL of course...
Phoenix is definitely not everyone's favourite BIOS company in terms of setting things up and user interface but they are the de-facto standard for the BIOS programming interface.
If you take any BIOS programming guide you will find mostly two names: Phoenix and IBM. IBM is actually resposnsible mostly for the PS2 additions. Some of them have been adopted, some not.
So a BIOS design usually looks like - Phoenix starts, defines the interface spec and everyone else follows.
As a user I dislike phoenix as much as you do if not more, but as a programmer I have to admit that if you want your things to work you have to rely on their docs, standards and implementation. Se la vie...
You are wrong.
;-)
He has replied at least to me. If you tell him constructively why the fsck he is off the mark he usually replies. Same stands for cases when you catch him that he has gone only half the way or was scared to write what he actually thinks in order to be politically correct (actually Katz is usually politically correct and does not touch too deep very controvercial topics). But this means that you should explain in your comment why he is off the mark, why do you think that he is not telling what he thinks, etc.
If you just pull a flamethrower... Oh well... I would not answer in his place either
I wish you to be right. But I think you are wrong. Neither the politicians, nor the leaders had the resources behind them MPAA has. They had to push questionable laws and usually they failed (Australia being a noteable exemption). The difference in this case is:
The law (MCPA) has already been pushed and quite a few previous laws exist.
These people do not need to finance a media campaign to promote their cause. And they can promote it at no extra expense. As I said in one of the previous threads on the topic they can lie as much as they wish and there is nobody to oppose them with an equivalent amount of firepower. Quoting myself from a previous thread:
A LIE REPEATED ONE HUNDRED TIMES BECOMES THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Gobels
Repeat after me: "encrypted DVD cannot be copied" - exempt from the presentation of MPAA for the preliminary injuction in New York. The transcript is at:2600.com - one of the sites hit with injunction. The quote is located in the very beginning.
Presenting it here once again for sake of paranoia (who knows what will they try to injunct next time, the truth maybe):
MR. GOLD: Now, before plaintiffs were willing to make DVDs available, they decided that they had to have an encryption technology so that the content and their copyright interest in the content could be protected, something that would scramble the picture and scramble the sound. And that system was created, and it is called CSS, which stands for content scrambling system. And you can't watch a movie unless you have an authorized DVD player, and the authorized DVD player has the computer key to the program. So with a DVD and an authorized player, the authorized player will unscramble the picture and the sound and you can watch your movie. But you can't copy it. The CSS technology prevents that.
Yeah, right, not like I can copy the entire DVD bit by bit encrypted, make a 100000 copies and sell them...
And as you see the judge accepted this argument wholehartedly and put the entire weight of the US law system behind it. Though the argument is a lie. One that has been repeated 100 times so far and shall be repeated until Gobels holds true.
There has not been a single case when such firepower and finances have been used to make the net silent. And the chances of bringing the Net silent in this case are too high.
You also miscalculate for the fact that all those who failed before are likely to join the crusade seeing MPAA to score points aginst the net as a whole. The Net against all who want to put it under control... Well, I will make no guesses here. I doubt that the net will win so we can all go to O'Raily and by ourselfs a coopy of DataBase Nation to educate ourselves on how shall we live further on. Or a copy of 1984 for that matter.
P.S. I hope I am wrong as well... But...
First signal reaction. Reflexes without thinking. Boycott Holywood - to hell no. Boycott any non-DVD media - to hell yes. Then as people say: money talks. Namely sales figures talk.
Very good point.
I am out of modpoints so someone who has points left please BUMP this up!!!
A LIE REPEATED ONE HUNDRED TIMES BECOMES THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Gobels
Repeat after me: "encrypted DVD cannot be copied" - exempt from the presentation of MPAA for the preliminary injuction in New York. The transcript is at:2600.com - one of the sites hit with injunction. The quote is located in the very beginning. Presenting it here once again for sake of paranoia (who knows what will they try to injunct next time, the truth maybe):
MR. GOLD: Now, before plaintiffs were willing to make DVDs available, they decided that they had to have an encryption technology so that the content and their copyright interest in the content could be protected, something that would scramble the picture and scramble the sound. And that system was created, and it is called CSS, which stands for content scrambling system. And you can't watch a movie unless you have an authorized DVD player, and the authorized DVD player has the computer key to the program. So with a DVD and an authorized player, the authorized player will unscramble the picture and the sound and you can watch your movie. But you can't copy it. The CSS technology prevents that.
A bootleg has been released in fourth world countries very long ago. About a week after the movie hit the screen. Go skying ;-)
Nerd also means a sence of humour. Usually a very wierd nerdy one. This is what you miss.
I do not think that you have any idea how close you are. The only difference is that they have been removed from the beta test list due to their inclusion on the payroll list.
Explain: MS have actually hired some of the best Windoze security people lately. David LeBlanc for example. There was a message on Bugtraq today but I guess it is not in the archive yet. So do not expect them to post any more messages about Windoze vulnerabilities any more...
Yes.
This is just an index to lots of documents listed at the end. And these documents actually cost money to obtain (just gessing, but Gartner has to earn its living somehow).
I get the same feeling. Almost felt like printing it immediately and glueing to the wall with superglue.
The most concise and precise analysis of OSS I have seen so far.
I wish there were more documents like that. I do not know how much gartner chrages for their services, but unless the redistribution is forbidden this is worth including in any Linux or BSD distribution.
I mean only the index. Gartner can still keep the ownership of the child documents (noted in the text) and get their money from them. So by redistributing this document as a part of an OS or software distribution Gratner should actually earn money (lots of PHBs want figures and they are in the child docs which Gartner does not give out free like this index).
Linux is not an option for most of these.
The reason is that especially the new kernels are quite stubborned on the topic of receive only interfaces. You do have problems making those work and most vendors do not bother.
Amidst the few noteable exemptions are satellite news feeds and stuff but you hardly need such a staellite service. The only reason these use linux is that it is a platform of choice for combining encryption (these services cost money), hardware access and a working news server.
IBM has a similar service as well. What do you think they use the "obscure patent nominations" for ;-)
Quite a few. Amazingly these are usually those that have portability problems. PGP 5 is a good example.
Doesn't "fast enough" outweigh "fastest possible" if you get it sooner?.
Yes it does but only if this is something you want to run not very often. If it is running constantly - think kernel, daemons, etc it does not outweight a thing.
Also perl or python still beat the sh... out of Java on anything and develkoping in either one of those is much faster. What I actually want to see finally is a perl.so or python.so plugin that loads perl (or python perse) as an application and does policing on all dangerous IO functions.
After all browser functionality is just an elementary module. Than the entire jabba the hut issue will be finally put where it belongs - to rest.
No it will not.
;-)
Think of Java licencing and control issues. Discussed widely on slashdot. Actually I shall retract this statement if one of the MAJOR league players will accept Crusoe as a primary CPU for at least one machine class.
Otherwise it is obvious that it could be thy Java machine, but it is least likely to be.
I think Cruose will actually make a reality something else which is much cooler than Java. It will make real thy developer's dream - the coat of many colors: The affordable machine of many architectures.
On the basis of Crusoe even now you can build a machine that can happily emulate:
Mac, Sun (lower end), IBM PPC (lower end), SGI (lower end), Alpha and curse it x86.
1. All these are PCI based.
2. The differences in chipsets can be ignored under the "one OS to rule them all, one os to find them, one os to bring them all and in (oh well cutting out darkness) bind them ". It can have drivers for the chipset and peripherals in question.
3. You may actually do the reverse thing and develop drivers for the peripherals and the chipset for all platforms in question (not a hell of an effort, actually quite achievable). If peripherals are something like adaptec, tulip and a PCI VGA the drivers are basically there already. So you have only the chipset left. Actually you can intercept these and emulate chipset behaviour if you so desire.
Overall - the developer's dream can become a reality for just a few bucks - about the price of a PC (excluding licencing for OSes and sowftare of course
Tough luck:
1. Thermodynamics say that in order to convert CO2 into CH3OH you have to use quite a lot of energy. So whatever you burn like that will be bloody inefficient
2. The only productive thing you can actually do with the CH3OH is burn it so back to CO2. It can be converted into some plastics and stuff but the overall demand for such material is not high to satisfy a massive generation of CH3OH.
3. Better stop cutting the brazilian forests. I actually check the labels on all the stuff I buy and try not to buy anything that is not:
3.1. Made of recycled paper (this technology is dirty as well but still better than nothing).
3.2. Made out of planted forests in scandinavia or somehewhere else where they plant at least as much as they cut.
In btw: these labels are almost standard on anything sold in the EU.
There is one problem:
The people who run the repository have to translate all the prior art into "patent" language. Have a look at some of the "click-and" patents like A... and so on. Unless you have reformulated the prior art and published it in the "patentable" form than it becomes a question of interpretation - i.e. a question to be settled in court, so the repository has actually achieved nothing.
The only way to achieve this is to hire patent lawyers and other specialists in the aret of reformulating the obvious into obscure. And these folks cost money. Quite a lot actually. The expences for a patent consultant usually exceed by far the patent fees.
Some flames ;-):
You frogot to note that regional encoding is not for just to make copying harder. Movies cost different in different regions. You can also buy yourself a multyregional player but this of course costs _more_ money. So it is not just for control, it is milking the consumer to the maximal extent possible permitted by the consumer statuatory rights and slightly beyond...
Very, very, very good point.
Though I would say that this is not authopities sence of humour, it is a MPAA legal problem.
It will actually be reproduced in any such case in the future. All the defendant will need will be to make sure that the "offending code is entered as an evidence in court.
After that it is a matter of the public record accessible freely in almost any country. Any motion to close it will be a motion for a closure of a public record which has very low chances to succeed.
I can get downmarked for flamebait for this but whatever:
911 is helpless if a crime is to be comitted besides the few cases when police is allowed preemptive action. These are mostly cases that do not deal with crime against individuals.
So you may cry to 911 (or 999 or 112 in other countries) as much as you wish. Before that someone has actually attacked you police cannot do a thing. And than it is usually too bloody late.
This makes these number to be quite useless for anything but medical emergencies, reporting accidents and fires. Their crime fighting capabilities are largely overrated.
You can't now. If this will happen you will be able to do that for sure within less then a year. Nature and Business both hate empty space ;-)