"Great, so you can pay $40+ (USD) for an oilchange, along with god knows what a dealer charges for the rest of the routine maintence."
Actually, my last two cars have included routine maintenance with the price of the car. All oil changes and everything else for 4 years / 50k miles. (~80,000 km)
Also, the oil change intervals have gone from 10k miles to 15k miles (16k - 24k km) on my current vehicle. For everyone who doubts that this is any good for the engine. Well...it's leased. If the engine dies, it's not *my* problem. It'll be off lease while still under warranty.
I think this is the future of internal combusion vehicles, at least. Longer warranties with ever-longer service intervals. It's not inconceivable that a car such as this might only need oil changes at 20,000 miles, at the same time it would need other major service work as well.
I think any law which places a burden on many citizens to police the actions of a few is misguided and sets a bad precedent. In addition to viewing the entire state population as 'guilty until proven innocent', it imposes the burden of the change upon the people. The article mentions a 'tax credit' to be given to car owners converting their vehicles, but makes no mention of low-income residents who might not be able to pay for the device and then wait for a refund.
Of course, the first thing most people will do to avoid the inconvenience is disable the system. Therefore this law will inevitably be followed by yet more legislation to make disabling the system illegal, to make selling any device for disabling the system illegal, and probably, to even criminalize the mere dissemination of information on how to perform such modifications. Oh, and of course, an agency would have to supervise the installation of such devices, with 'authorized dealers','inspection stations', and certification, adding another layer of bureaucracy and expense to this ill-advised undertaking.
If you live in NM, please take the time to phone or fax your representative and voice your opinion. A law like this is the first step to a police state with presumptive-guilt laws.
"My SMTP server gets email from joeblow@123.com. I finger joeblow@123.com. If 123.com says joeblow is a real user I then accept the email, other wise I can it."
I'm not sure that technique would work for a lot of spam with forged headers - I can forge the email header to appear to be from joeblow@123.com, where joeblow is a real user.
"what substantial everyday product could be discovered/invented that we don't have already? We have cars, planes, phones, radios, musical instruments, diagnostic machines, robotics, computers, refrigerators, bass boats, thinkgeek.com...
I don't know. Maybe I'm a cynic but it seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need."
I'm sure that not that long ago, someone said "We have the printing press, the locomotive, steamships, and the telegraph...It seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need"
I think it's actually pointless to argue too much about EZ-Pass being tracked. As soon as its potential use in court becomes obvious, the states will just start including RFID tags embedded in license plates. I don't think *that* will be an opt-out situation...
Get real, folks, the PHB types have been taking note of all the security incidents in the open source world lately, and at this point you couldn't get them to touch anything "open source" with a ten foot pole.
Aw, what the hell, it's Saturday morning, I guess someone needs to feed the trolls...
This is in contrast, of course, to the entirely spotless record of closed-source architectures lately...?
They're charging for a patent on software they rightfully own and have created. They're charging a quarter (US $0.25) per device, including pre-formatted media and devices that read them, e.g., mp3 players, cameras, etc.
FWIW, their license page talks only about those two types of devices. They don't mention software implementations, which could mean that
A) They don't care about software implementations of non-embedded devices
B) They don't plan to
offer a license for non-embedded uses
Obviously, the kernel will be affected if they decide to make licensing mandatory for software uses. My guess is that if the requirements become too onerous, or the margins too thin, that manufacturers in the embedded market will use some free implementation of an alternate filesystem. It probably wouldn't be a huge deal for most non-removable media, and for the others, there's always the possibility of a windows FS driver.
Really, the situation is not much different from a commercial developer wanting to license a GPL'd filesystem and not release source - they'd need to pay some royalty to the developers / FSF
(If this is even possible - It's been mentioned that you'd need agreement from all of the owners)
> It's so sad we've come to calling an idea "stupid" > simply because it is easily conceivable as to how > someone could hurt themselves with it.
No kidding...Under current thinking, we'd probably never have invented motorcycles - imagine the product liability lawsuits if a new product like that came out, and similar statements:
"Why, people could *hurt* themselves on one of those crazy things." "What kind of idiot would ride a bicycle powered by an internal combustion engine." "What a stupid idea. Nobody would ever buy one!" [a motorcycle, for those of you not paying attention, before I get flamed for criticizing the original article].
This article neglects to mention that Cisco and Linksys have had available a very well tested and engineered product, i.e., the Linux Kernel, which they have modified to use in their product. The development costs alone for them to duplicate something like that would be astronomical. They're benefitting from free work that was shared under a specific license. That they now refuse to share the source to their modified kernels is a very clear violation of the licensing of said kernel.
Claiming ignorance of the terms of the GPL (not that they're doing this) is not an excuse. Try using that one on the BSA when they ask why you're running Windows on 30 workstations while having licenses for five. You can say you "didn't know" you couldn't reuse your licenses, but that's not likely to keep you from a hefty fine.
If they had bothered to consider the ramifications of their actions, I'm sure they could have properly segregated any proprietary code from the kernel modifications and thus made it possible to comply with the word and spirit of the GPL while still maintaining their competitiveness and any trade secrets.
The GPL isn't all or nothing. I think there are plenty of opportunities to make use of GPL'd code and not compromise your own works. You just have to maintain separation between GPL'd and your derived works and any ancillary software you need for your product.
Article like this serve only to further the FUD that GPL will ruin your product, bankrupt your company and who knows what else.
> maybe now the most-technologically-advanced > United States will catch up with third-world > South Korea in broadband!!
Um, I don't think you can really call South Korea a 'third-world' country, especially since they're number 12 in the world in GDP, just ahead of Canada.
Um, I don't think you can really call South Korea a 'third-world' country, especially since they're number 12 in the world in GDP, just ahead of Canada.
I've been trying to accomplish the same thing - have a music workstation that is easy enough to use that it doesn't distract from the music-making process. I ended up buying the little Fostex that records on CF and have been very happy with it. Not the most powerful tool out there, but relatively easy to use and allows me to get my ideas down. Hopefully the software situation on Linux will continue to improve and someday maybe my audio card will even be supported (Antex Studiocard, anyone?)
Portland sits right on the border of Washington and Oregon. Because of lower property prices & taxes, a lot of people live in Vancouver, Washington and commute to Portland every day...Any Portland residents will know how I-5 looks every afternoon with the thousands of WA residents heading back across the border. This seems unfair because WA will not / may not have the system and so WA residents will purchase gas in OR where it will finally be cheaper, and yet probably not pay taxes on it. Unless, of course, they have a default rate, in which case, we're back to the simpler system of just having a flat rate on the gas to begin with...
Also, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but is anyone considering the costs of administering this system? That may well eat up all of the [anticipated] increased revenue.
I don't think Bill Joy's issue is with Nanotubes per se, but with self-replicating nanomachines that could, due to a 'programming' bug or something similar, not stop replicating even after their task is done, hence the 'gray-goo' you hear about. It's a legitimate concern, but IMO should not and does not justify the cessation for nanotechnology research.
As a consumer and a high-level technical consultant, I am writing to express my regrets that Lexmark is continuing with their suit against Smartek for providing a product which allows users to use a third-party ink cartridge in their Lexmark printers.
Although I'm sure that the Lexmark branded cartridges provide better value and quality, I feel very strongly that this issue should be left to the end user, and perhaps mitigated through marketing and product engineering. If Lexmark cannot provide a better value than a third party, the solution is not in litigation or legislation.
I cannot in good conscience use any products from a company that supports these business practices, nor would I recommend any such products to any of my clients.
Please contact your legal department and urge them to withdraw their complaint and terminate this lawsuit.
You have *got* to be kidding. Putting ourselves at risk by letting them use the technology contained in a StrongARM 133MHz chip? Or a budget-level PDA? Hello!? Do you have any idea how many of the contract developers at top companies are foreign, and in particular, Indian or Pakistani? I _think_ they already have plenty of technology, thank you, without any pathetic attempts to 'babysit' them. If *anyone* needs to be limited in the use of advanced technology, it is probably *US* (the U.S.)
And don't let me get started on how the 9/11 hijackings could have been prevented if *only* the terrorists didn't have access to PDAs and text-to-speech.
It's this kind of arrogant, patronizing attitude that isolates the United States from the rest of the world.
Actually...I'm thinking of LEP - Light Emitting Polymers. Not OLEDS. Similar technology, but probably has better implications for the economics.
Re:Will they be able to compete with lcd in 2 year
on
15" OLED Display Prototype
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't think they'll have a problem competing with LCD products. LCDs are a relatively difficult product to manufacture, and fab facilities are not cheap either, which means the investment must be recovered through product pricing. Once initial technical hurdles have been overcome, OLEDs should be much less expensive as well as more flexible, literally and figuratively.
I believe Cambridge Display Technologies as well as some other researchers are teaming up with the ink jet people to produce these kinds of displays by "printing" them on a substrate. If they can perfect that kind of technology, you could see a display nearly cheap enough to be disposable.
Slashdot Mirror
- "Great, so you can pay $40+ (USD) for an oilchange, along with god knows what a dealer charges for the rest of the routine maintence."
Actually, my last two cars have included routine maintenance with the price of the car. All oil changes and everything else for 4 years / 50k miles. (~80,000 km)Also, the oil change intervals have gone from 10k miles to 15k miles (16k - 24k km) on my current vehicle.
For everyone who doubts that this is any good for the engine. Well...it's leased. If the engine dies, it's not *my* problem. It'll be off lease while still under warranty.
I think this is the future of internal combusion vehicles, at least. Longer warranties with ever-longer service intervals.
It's not inconceivable that a car such as this might only need oil changes at 20,000 miles, at the same time it would need other major service work as well.
I think any law which places a burden on many citizens to police the actions of a few is misguided and sets a bad precedent. In addition to viewing the entire state population as 'guilty until proven innocent', it imposes the burden of the change upon the people. The article mentions a 'tax credit' to be given to car owners converting their vehicles, but makes no mention of low-income residents who might not be able to pay for the device and then wait for a refund.
Of course, the first thing most people will do to avoid the inconvenience is disable the system. Therefore this law will inevitably be followed by yet more legislation to make disabling the system illegal, to make selling any device for disabling the system illegal, and probably, to even criminalize the mere dissemination of information on how to perform such modifications. Oh, and of course, an agency would have to supervise the installation of such devices, with 'authorized dealers','inspection stations', and certification, adding another layer of bureaucracy and expense to this ill-advised undertaking.
If you live in NM, please take the time to phone or fax your representative and voice your opinion. A law like this is the first step to a police state with presumptive-guilt laws.
- "My SMTP server gets email from joeblow@123.com. I finger joeblow@123.com. If 123.com says joeblow is a real user I then accept the email, other wise I can it."
I'm not sure that technique would work for a lot of spam with forged headers - I can forge the email header to appear to be from joeblow@123.com, where joeblow is a real user.> Rome wasn't burned in a day.
Nice mixed metaphor
I don't suppose you think the community is fiddling while Rome is being built?
- "what substantial everyday product could be discovered/invented that we don't have already? We have cars, planes, phones, radios, musical instruments, diagnostic machines, robotics, computers, refrigerators, bass boats, thinkgeek.com...
I don't know. Maybe I'm a cynic but it seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need."
I'm sure that not that long ago, someone said "We have the printing press, the locomotive, steamships, and the telegraph...It seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need"I think it's actually pointless to argue too much about EZ-Pass being tracked. As soon as its potential use in court becomes obvious, the states will just start including RFID tags embedded in license plates. I don't think *that* will be an opt-out situation...
- Get real, folks, the PHB types have been taking note of all the security incidents in the open source world lately, and at this point you couldn't get them to touch anything "open source" with a ten foot pole.
Aw, what the hell, it's Saturday morning, I guess someone needs to feed the trolls...This is in contrast, of course, to the entirely spotless record of closed-source architectures lately...?
- B) They don't plan to
- offer a license for non-embedded uses
Obviously, the kernel will be affected if they decide to make licensing mandatory for software uses. My guess is that if the requirements become too onerous, or the margins too thin, that manufacturers in the embedded market will use some free implementation of an alternate filesystem. It probably wouldn't be a huge deal for most non-removable media, and for the others, there's always the possibility of a windows FS driver.Really, the situation is not much different from a commercial developer wanting to license a GPL'd filesystem and not release source - they'd need to pay some royalty to the developers / FSF (If this is even possible - It's been mentioned that you'd need agreement from all of the owners)
Isn't this how Airwolf got its start?
> It's so sad we've come to calling an idea "stupid"
> simply because it is easily conceivable as to how
> someone could hurt themselves with it.
No kidding...Under current thinking, we'd probably never have invented motorcycles - imagine the product liability lawsuits if a new product like that came out, and similar statements:
"Why, people could *hurt* themselves on one of those crazy things." "What kind of idiot would ride a bicycle powered by an internal combustion engine." "What a stupid idea. Nobody would ever buy one!" [a motorcycle, for those of you not paying attention, before I get flamed for criticizing the original article].
This article neglects to mention that Cisco and Linksys have had available a very well tested and engineered product, i.e., the Linux Kernel, which they have modified to use in their product. The development costs alone for them to duplicate something like that would be astronomical. They're benefitting from free work that was shared under a specific license. That they now refuse to share the source to their modified kernels is a very clear violation of the licensing of said kernel.
Claiming ignorance of the terms of the GPL (not that they're doing this) is not an excuse. Try using that one on the BSA when they ask why you're running Windows on 30 workstations while having licenses for five. You can say you "didn't know" you couldn't reuse your licenses, but that's not likely to keep you from a hefty fine.
If they had bothered to consider the ramifications of their actions, I'm sure they could have properly segregated any proprietary code from the kernel modifications and thus made it possible to comply with the word and spirit of the GPL while still maintaining their competitiveness and any trade secrets.
The GPL isn't all or nothing. I think there are plenty of opportunities to make use of GPL'd code and not compromise your own works. You just have to maintain separation between GPL'd and your derived works and any ancillary software you need for your product.
Article like this serve only to further the FUD that GPL will ruin your product, bankrupt your company and who knows what else.
Just RTFL before using any code that isn't yours.
> maybe now the most-technologically-advanced
> United States will catch up with third-world
> South Korea in broadband!!
Um, I don't think you can really call South Korea a 'third-world' country, especially since they're number 12 in the world in GDP, just ahead of Canada.
Um, I don't think you can really call South Korea a 'third-world' country, especially since they're number 12 in the world in GDP, just ahead of Canada.
> "Oh, by the way, these slides are running on
> a desktop in Italy, being remotely displayed here
> suing NX".
Oh...Was SCO involved?
> How do you get through the barriers if you're /me: "We don't need a card to pass the barrier"
> jamming the smartcard signals?
Machine: "You don't need a card to pass this barrier. Move along now"
> "Oh, wait, 11 *pounds*? Damn, we did all our
>calculations for an 11 *kilo* plane!" (sound of a
>spash)
Actually, that would be to their advantage - their aircraft would be 2.2x lighter...
What makes you think that they aren't already doing this. It's not like they'd post to Slashdot if they were successful.
I've been trying to accomplish the same thing - have a music workstation that is easy enough to use that it doesn't distract from the music-making process. I ended up buying the little Fostex that records on CF and have been very happy with it. Not the most powerful tool out there, but relatively easy to use and allows me to get my ideas down. Hopefully the software situation on Linux will continue to improve and someday maybe my audio card will even be supported (Antex Studiocard, anyone?)
Portland sits right on the border of Washington and Oregon. Because of lower property prices & taxes, a lot of people live in Vancouver, Washington and commute to Portland every day...Any Portland residents will know how I-5 looks every afternoon with the thousands of WA residents heading back across the border. This seems unfair because WA will not / may not have the system and so WA residents will purchase gas in OR where it will finally be cheaper, and yet probably not pay taxes on it. Unless, of course, they have a default rate, in which case, we're back to the simpler system of just having a flat rate on the gas to begin with...
Also, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but is anyone considering the costs of administering this system? That may well eat up all of the [anticipated] increased revenue.
I don't think Bill Joy's issue is with Nanotubes per se, but with self-replicating nanomachines that could, due to a 'programming' bug or something similar, not stop replicating even after their task is done, hence the 'gray-goo' you hear about. It's a legitimate concern, but IMO should not and does not justify the cessation for nanotechnology research.
Dear Sir / Madam,
As a consumer and a high-level technical consultant, I am writing to
express my regrets that Lexmark is continuing with their suit against
Smartek for providing a product which allows users to use a third-party
ink cartridge in their Lexmark printers.
Although I'm sure that the Lexmark branded cartridges provide better value
and quality, I feel very strongly that this issue should be left to the
end user, and perhaps mitigated through marketing and product engineering.
If Lexmark cannot provide a better value than a third party, the solution
is not in litigation or legislation.
I cannot in good conscience use any products from a company that supports
these business practices, nor would I recommend any such products to any
of my clients.
Please contact your legal department and urge them to withdraw their
complaint and terminate this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The best email I've been able to find so far is their Corporate Communications alias: (Anyone have something for their sales division?)
CorpComm@lexmark.com
If you think that this policy would deter you from buying a printer, or for that matter, any Lexmark product, please let them know. I plan to.
You have *got* to be kidding. Putting ourselves at risk by letting them use the technology contained in a StrongARM 133MHz chip? Or a budget-level PDA? Hello!? Do you have any idea how many of the contract developers at top companies are foreign, and in particular, Indian or Pakistani? I _think_ they already have plenty of technology, thank you, without any pathetic attempts to 'babysit' them. If *anyone* needs to be limited in the use of advanced technology, it is probably *US* (the U.S.)
And don't let me get started on how the 9/11 hijackings could have been prevented if *only* the terrorists didn't have access to PDAs and text-to-speech.
It's this kind of arrogant, patronizing attitude that isolates the United States from the rest of the world.
Actually...I'm thinking of LEP - Light Emitting Polymers. Not OLEDS. Similar technology, but probably has better implications for the economics.
I don't think they'll have a problem competing with LCD products. LCDs are a relatively difficult product to manufacture, and fab facilities are not cheap either, which means the investment must be recovered through product pricing. Once initial technical hurdles have been overcome, OLEDs should be much less expensive as well as more flexible, literally and figuratively.
I believe Cambridge Display Technologies as well as some other researchers are teaming up with the ink jet people to produce these kinds of displays by "printing" them on a substrate. If they can perfect that kind of technology, you could see a display nearly cheap enough to be disposable.
Animated cereal boxes, anyone?