I take offense at the blurb's description of CSS as "copy protection". CSS has nothing to do with copying, it is "playback protection", just like almost any other sort of encryption. Actually it has to do with copying as well. The css encryption part is playback protection, but there's also css authentication which must be done before anything can be read from the dvd drive.
Try copying the vob files or taking a disc image from the dvd drive _before_ playing it, and you'll get a read error. If you first play the disc with a player which supports css or copy tracks with a css supporting copier (e.g. vobcopy + decss), after that copying with non-css tools also works fine.
There may be some differences between dvd drives, e.g. some of the oldest models might not have this copy protection built in but most do.
Grid computing and clustering technologies are on opposite ends of the parallel computing scale.
Actually the clustering technologies are in the middle of the scale. Symmetric multiprocessing with shared memory is the most tightly coupled end of the scale, then come the clusters, then the Grid technologies at the other end.
Each calls for a different style of application development too. In systems where IPC is really expensive, you want to minimise it as much as possible. Not all apps that are written to run on a Beowulf cluster will necessarily port straight over to a grid framework. However, for apps that can be made to run well on a grid, the potential computing power available is far, far greater.
Yes, the development strategies are certainly different. However, often the Grid technologies can be used to provide a way to access the clusters instead of distributing the whole software on several machines. In that case you usually need only relatively small changes to existing software.
The benefit in this kind of approach can be that the authentication, authorization and encryption services for the connection and data transfer are provided by the Grid framework. For instance you can use the Globus Java CoG kit to authenticate in "Globus style" if you prefer that to the options Java natively offers. (Mobile Analyzer developed in our group at Helsinki Institute of Physics does that.)
Currently it is often still a bit unconvenient (mappings between Grid credentials and local user accounts etc.) but as these services develop users probably will have access to many more machines than they have now, because they don't need an account in each box. Then they can run their job (which is not necessarily parallel at all) where they like or run the job on their desktop but access data in an external database using their Grid account.
The computer or cluster for the job can also be selected automatically. The NorduGRID group has implemented this kind of system which connects several clusters in Nordic countries, they have a status monitor on on their website.
For all I know, there is an "All Your src Are Belong To Us" clause in the user agreement.
No, there isn't. Here's an excerpt from the list
of conditions when creating a new project (subtitle
Free Software/Rights to Code):
You will be presented with a choice of Free Software licenses for your project. You will still be the owner of the content of your project. However, all these licenses give the freedom to anyone to use, copy, study from the source code and modify the software it contains.
However, these terms for new projects don't seem
to be accessible to people that are not registered
users of the system. I don't know why.
If my name were John Grisham or Stephen King my agent might be able to negotiate a better deal--but I'd be really, really surprised if better than 1% of freelance articles are bought on anything other than "all rights" terms
Yes, most publishers want to avoid any problems (on their side) and are pushing this sort of contracts. A group of freelancers actually had a dispute over this in Finland, when one magazine announced it would buy "all rights" from there on.
What they really wanted was unlimited publication rights for a single fee, the overly broad "all rights" clause was not necessary. Some might think those two are almost the same thing, but for me it made a difference to not lose my rights to the article. Now the magazine has a two month priviledge, after that I can sell my text elsewhere, post it on my personal website permitting free redistribution (the main thing I was interested in) or some day in the future make a collection of my works without asking for permission. Probably the magazine wouldn't be too interested to go after that kind of use anyway because it doesn't threat their profits, but I feel more secure legally keeping those rights.
There are still a few additional restrictions for the magazine, they can't for instance sell individual articles on a pay per view basis without paying royalties for authors. The writers managed also to crank up prices a bit to get compensation for more rights being sold.
Here's one real world example how you can do better than selling all rights.
Maybe this is not the biggest fight, but the most stupid patent is the Y2K "windowing" patent by McDonnell Douglas. A nominee for the Big Dumb Patent Bully category. Has the patent already been cancelled, by the way? (see USPTO Takes Second Look)
Slashdot Mirror
Try copying the vob files or taking a disc image from the dvd drive _before_ playing it, and you'll get a read error. If you first play the disc with a player which supports css or copy tracks with a css supporting copier (e.g. vobcopy + decss), after that copying with non-css tools also works fine.
There may be some differences between dvd drives, e.g. some of the oldest models might not have this copy protection built in but most do.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System
AJT
I used to hate info until I discovered that
:)
.bashrc:
:)
info --subnodes --output - | less
makes it work just like man
Thanks, that was a great hint! Immediately added this short function to my
function mani () { info $1 --subnodes --output - | less; }
Now the difference is reduced to one letter.
AJT
Grid computing and clustering technologies are on opposite ends of the parallel computing scale.
Actually the clustering technologies are in the middle of the scale. Symmetric multiprocessing with shared memory is the most tightly coupled end of the scale, then come the clusters, then the Grid technologies at the other end.
Each calls for a different style of application development too. In systems where IPC is really expensive, you want to minimise it as much as possible. Not all apps that are written to run on a Beowulf cluster will necessarily port straight over to a grid framework. However, for apps that can be made to run well on a grid, the potential computing power available is far, far greater.
Yes, the development strategies are certainly different. However, often the Grid technologies can be used to provide a way to access the clusters instead of distributing the whole software on several machines. In that case you usually need only relatively small changes to existing software.
The benefit in this kind of approach can be that the authentication, authorization and encryption services for the connection and data transfer are provided by the Grid framework. For instance you can use the Globus Java CoG kit to authenticate in "Globus style" if you prefer that to the options Java natively offers. (Mobile Analyzer developed in our group at Helsinki Institute of Physics does that.)
Currently it is often still a bit unconvenient (mappings between Grid credentials and local user accounts etc.) but as these services develop users probably will have access to many more machines than they have now, because they don't need an account in each box. Then they can run their job (which is not necessarily parallel at all) where they like or run the job on their desktop but access data in an external database using their Grid account.
The computer or cluster for the job can also be selected automatically. The NorduGRID group has implemented this kind of system which connects several clusters in Nordic countries, they have a status monitor on on their website.
AJT
No, there isn't. Here's an excerpt from the list of conditions when creating a new project (subtitle Free Software/Rights to Code):
You will be presented with a choice of Free Software licenses for your project. You will still be the owner of the content of your project. However, all these licenses give the freedom to anyone to use, copy, study from the source code and modify the software it contains.
However, these terms for new projects don't seem to be accessible to people that are not registered users of the system. I don't know why.
AJT
The topic Libre software for the blind and visually impaired of LSM last summer has some useful links. Jan Buchal was the chairman of that topic and the coordinator of the free-b-software project.
Just thought to note that I've done a major update to my Debian Conference page, somebody of course posted it just before I had my report ready. :-)
AJT
Yes, most publishers want to avoid any problems (on their side) and are pushing this sort of contracts. A group of freelancers actually had a dispute over this in Finland, when one magazine announced it would buy "all rights" from there on.
What they really wanted was unlimited publication rights for a single fee, the overly broad "all rights" clause was not necessary. Some might think those two are almost the same thing, but for me it made a difference to not lose my rights to the article. Now the magazine has a two month priviledge, after that I can sell my text elsewhere, post it on my personal website permitting free redistribution (the main thing I was interested in) or some day in the future make a collection of my works without asking for permission. Probably the magazine wouldn't be too interested to go after that kind of use anyway because it doesn't threat their profits, but I feel more secure legally keeping those rights.
There are still a few additional restrictions for the magazine, they can't for instance sell individual articles on a pay per view basis without paying royalties for authors. The writers managed also to crank up prices a bit to get compensation for more rights being sold. Here's one real world example how you can do better than selling all rights.
AJT
Maybe this is not the biggest fight, but the most stupid patent is the Y2K "windowing" patent by McDonnell Douglas. A nominee for the Big Dumb Patent Bully category. Has the patent already been cancelled, by the way? (see USPTO Takes Second Look)