Patents for which there is prior are are just plain invalid - they damage the overall economy, and it's the filer's own fault for not doing the reseach before filing.
God forbid we should try to prevent people from getting government-protected monopolies on the obvious! It will wreck the nation!
>Fair use is about criticism and review, not making a backup copy.
Oh, for god's sake, does anyone but Jack Valenti believe that?
Supreme Court decisions clearly state that fiar use includes the right to convert your working copy to a more convient medium; this is from the case in which the MPAA tried to ban VCRs back in the early 80s.
Suppose I'd like to buy my Disney movies on DVD, then let my toddler watch them off VHS copies. In the not unlikely event she breaks or wears out the media, I can make another copy.
This is clearly fair use, and would be legal if there were a legal way to do it; DVD copy prevention and the DMCA makes it a criminal act.
See, this is why we need something like capabilities or that NSA Linux, so we can safely run untrusted (ie, any) program and give it only the exact permissions it needs. That's no help with a database, but it'll keep a bad game out of your personal finance data...
(I suppose *real* paranoids could run their Loki games under User-Mode Linux, eh?)
Re:My take, based on input so far
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 1
It's got to be something stable, so some kind of motorised scooter or rollerblades are not going to sweep all before it as they would be difficult to keep balanced, especially with even just a little luggage.
So you fit it with the dynamic balance system from teh iBot wheelchair... no problemo.
Really, when was the last time that a client needed to do reformatting outside of font resizing?
See, once HTML became a language for presentation rather than semantics, everything went to hell, and *that's* what gave us the 100MB browsers. XML and stylesheets are just plaster over this fundamental cock-up. (Ok, that's a little harsh on XML, which may have other uses.)
Do you think virtualization of this sort is a feature that we fundamentally ought to have, or is it more of a hack to get around the limitations of current OSes? Obviously it's a win for multiple OSes, but for security/configurability/reliability issues wouldn't it be better to just have OSes that suck less?
(And yes, in that regard, Linux is better than NT - between chroot and capabilities, you can monkey up most of what you get from Plex86, but not nearly as slick as, say, Inferno.)
Er, I don't thinks so. They have a different *distribution* of receptors - four kinds (instead of three) with relatively tight color-bands, and one type which responds to the full visible light spectrum. This is why you can see B/W in very low light - still enough to trigger enough of the broad-spectrum receptors, but not enough for the tight-spectrum color recievers. This is why animals with very good night vision usually can't see color - they punt the color entirely for extra broad-spectrum receptors.
The space for those extra receptors in a tetrachromat came from somewhere, presumably other color receptors. I would *guess* that means they need more light to see in color than we do, but see finer color gradients....??
It seems likely to me that tetrachromats would have poorer low-light vision than trichromats, or at least would require more light to see in color as opposed to black-and-white. Anybody understand the physiology well enough to clarify?
On the other hand, if you modify a pre-existing GPL program, they can't exactly claim rights to your work; it becomes illiegal to distribute (outside the university?) your work wihout first putting it under the GPL...
The point of Gartner reports isn't prediction, or somebody would have noticed by now that they're right out to a timeframe of exactly one corporate budget cycle and further out are about as accurate as my magic 8-ball.
Their real purpose is to codifiy and legitimize the conventional wisdom among IT executives by making it expensive and official. For only $5K/year you, too, can CYA!
Yes, 2.2 with Apache is a little slower than NT, but should still handle >500 hits/second. You'll run out of bandwidth first. Tux on 2.4 crushes all opposition. Static web-server performance is a useless pissing contest, and anyone who seriously worries about pure speed doesn't know what they're talking about.
adding a certain hash to parts of the music that we can't hear
Which are exactly the parts thrown away by compression. Just watermarking won't work; it needs to be a access-control scheme a la CSS - otherwise, why would anyone buy a SDMI player, or sell one?
Slashdot Mirror
>OTOH, put a railgun in a submarine
Um, is it just me, or is that a Bad Idea?
What exactly happens when that projectile hits the water?
Now, if you want to use one to make battleships out of aircraft carriers, that's interesting...
Patents for which there is prior are are just plain invalid - they damage the overall economy, and it's the filer's own fault for not doing the reseach before filing.
God forbid we should try to prevent people from getting government-protected monopolies on the obvious! It will wreck the nation!
Sheesh.
Does any American really think they have to 'defend' themselves from someone else?
Yes.
We think we have to defend Kuwait and Western Europe (especially France) too, apparently.
I can't imagine where we got that idea....
>Fair use is about criticism and review, not making a backup copy.
Oh, for god's sake, does anyone but Jack Valenti believe that?
Supreme Court decisions clearly state that fiar use includes the right to convert your working copy to a more convient medium; this is from the case in which the MPAA tried to ban VCRs back in the early 80s.
Suppose I'd like to buy my Disney movies on DVD, then let my toddler watch them off VHS copies. In the not unlikely event she breaks or wears out the media, I can make another copy. This is clearly fair use, and would be legal if there were a legal way to do it; DVD copy prevention and the DMCA makes it a criminal act.
Tanks, no, but fighter jets?
See, this is why we need something like capabilities or that NSA Linux, so we can safely run untrusted (ie, any) program and give it only the exact permissions it needs. That's no help with a database, but it'll keep a bad game out of your personal finance data...
(I suppose *real* paranoids could run their Loki games under User-Mode Linux, eh?)
It's got to be something stable, so some kind of motorised scooter or rollerblades are not going to sweep all before it as they would be difficult to keep balanced, especially with even just a little luggage.
So you fit it with the dynamic balance system from teh iBot wheelchair... no problemo.
So surely, if CPRM means that we can finally download those films & MP3's legitimatly, thats got to be a good thing?
But we'll not be able to download them with an open-source app. CPRM + DMCA = no legal open source for popular media formats.
Really, when was the last time that a client needed to do reformatting outside of font resizing?
See, once HTML became a language for presentation rather than semantics, everything went to hell, and *that's* what gave us the 100MB browsers. XML and stylesheets are just plaster over this fundamental cock-up. (Ok, that's a little harsh on XML, which may have other uses.)
Do you think virtualization of this sort is a feature that we fundamentally ought to have, or is it more of a hack to get around the limitations of current OSes? Obviously it's a win for multiple OSes, but for security/configurability/reliability issues wouldn't it be better to just have OSes that suck less?
(And yes, in that regard, Linux is better than NT - between chroot and capabilities, you can monkey up most of what you get from Plex86, but not nearly as slick as, say, Inferno.)
>they just have extra reception
Er, I don't thinks so. They have a different *distribution* of receptors - four kinds (instead of three) with relatively tight color-bands, and one type which responds to the full visible light spectrum. This is why you can see B/W in very low light - still enough to trigger enough of the broad-spectrum receptors, but not enough for the tight-spectrum color recievers. This is why animals with very good night vision usually can't see color - they punt the color entirely for extra broad-spectrum receptors.
The space for those extra receptors in a tetrachromat came from somewhere, presumably other color receptors. I would *guess* that means they need more light to see in color than we do, but see finer color gradients....??
It seems likely to me that tetrachromats would have poorer low-light vision than trichromats, or at least would require more light to see in color as opposed to black-and-white. Anybody understand the physiology well enough to clarify?
Yes. Stupid, but innovative. He can *have* that patent, so long as it doesn't cover, say, perfume-scented letters (for which there is prior art :).
Does any of the money generated by the browser get back to Mozilla? I kinda doubt it.
Knucklehead. Who exactly do you think is paying for mozilla.org and the salaries of most of the programmers?
Hmmmm... do they have to pretend that at least one of them works for SDMI to qualify under the DMCA as an 'effective access control' device?
On the other hand, if you modify a pre-existing GPL program, they can't exactly claim rights to your work; it becomes illiegal to distribute (outside the university?) your work wihout first putting it under the GPL...
>Nader appears to have cost Gore Oregano, Ohio, and Florida.
We also believe that Hagelin cost Gore Parsley, and that Buchanan cost Bush chili pepper.
The point of Gartner reports isn't prediction, or somebody would have noticed by now that they're right out to a timeframe of exactly one corporate budget cycle and further out are about as accurate as my magic 8-ball.
Their real purpose is to codifiy and legitimize the conventional wisdom among IT executives by making it expensive and official. For only $5K/year you, too, can CYA!
Please note folks... AFS is not JFS. AFS is a remote file-sharing protocol, like NFS, which fails to suck in most of the ways that NFS sucks.
Watermark music?
Try to catch the wind, instead.
Here we go again.
With an average filesize of 10k, 200k hits/day is around
0.05MB/s. Not only is that not a network scalability limitation, it isn't very plausible.
Zdnet Linux 2.2/Apache benchmark
Ludicrous TUX/2.4 numbers
Yes, 2.2 with Apache is a little slower than NT, but should still handle >500 hits/second. You'll run out of bandwidth first. Tux on 2.4 crushes all opposition. Static web-server performance is a useless pissing contest, and anyone who seriously worries about pure speed doesn't know what they're talking about.
adding a certain hash to parts of the music that we can't hear
Which are exactly the parts thrown away by compression. Just watermarking won't work; it needs to be a access-control scheme a la CSS - otherwise, why would anyone buy a SDMI player, or sell one?
Does Ook the Caveman pointing at what he wants and grunting count as prior art?