Disclaimer: I work for Chiaro, a potential competitor of Hyperchip.
I recently heard from a public source that they raised $40 million (prolly US$, given the $70 million figure quoted - prolly C$), with $30 coming from government loan guarantees.
Many next-generation router companies have fallen on hard times, with some closing up shop, in this tech-recession. Hyperchip and Chiaro are the few still standing.
Obviously, I'd like to say more, but since I work for a potential competitor, I can not.
But, the problem here is that real time processing does not belong in a macrokernel architechture.
I'm inclined to agree, but I see no reason to exclude an attempt at "poor-man's" real-time processing in a macro kernel, by making the kernel preemptable. So long as one does not have serious hard real-time constraints (e.g. manned aircraft auto-pilot) and is concerned with snappier interactive response and media streaming this seams appropriate. This is certainly the case if it can be compiled in or out at will.
I had the most time to do serious software work when I was in school. After I started working, very little of what I did or had the time to do was significant anymore, and that which was got done only by fighting tooth and nail to do it right.
Heck, I don't even think that Teradyne has yet released all the changes I made to GPL code for them (of course, I don't know that they even released binaries so don't presume a GPL violation).
hivno?/me has vague recollections of vulgar terms in Czech for excrement and finds this hivno smells suspiciously similar.
Re:If I was the person in charge Ida CRUCIFIED him
on
McOwen Case Settled
·
· Score: 2
Er, I don't think the issue is so much the rightness or wrongness of the act as it is the severity, or potential severity, of the punishment.
Fines should match losses, and perhaps offer a bit of a deterrant. However, I can't see how the loss of otherwise unused computer time could be quantified. Bandwidth is another issue, but I see quantifying that as iffy a best. At most, this looks like trespass with no property damage or service interruption.
Funny, I've never seen one that didn't. Though, they all disclaim that such information will not be used to affect a hiring decision. (I know, then why ask?)
McOwen will have no felony or misdemeanor record...
You know, I always wondered about this "... no record..." business. When I apply for a job, I'm often asked if I was ever arrested. In Illinois, where I lived for a time, if you get stopped for a traffic violation, and given a ticket, you are technically arrested -- read the ticket. (Of course, IANAL, and the usual disclaimers apply).
For simple violations, like an illegal lane change (which was the charge I faced, and got dismissed in court), you are genereally released on your promise to either (a) pay the fine, or contest the charge. In Illinois, you can pay extra, admit guilt, take a driver's ed course, and have no record.
But what's the point, when one is asked if one was ever "arrested"? To say no, because there was no record of the arrest might work, but it would be deceitful.
Of course, in the interest of completeness, many job application forms do explicitly exempt arrests for routine traffic violations.
ER, I was under the impression that one's security clearance, or lack thereof (or perhaps just the level of clearance) were classified.
Was I mistaken?
Re:National ISPs that don't block SMTP... IA
on
SMTP-Friendly ISPs?
·
· Score: 2
I use Internet America, and they have no problem with me using their SMTP server so long as:
1) it is directed to one of their addresses;
OR
2) it comes from one of their static IP addresses (mine -- dunno about their dialup accounts) and is addressed anywhere.
Of course, I make sure my SMTP server does not relay.
As far as I can tell, they have no trouble with SMTP traffic that they just route at the IP level -- they don't appear to firewall port 25 and force tou to send email via their SMTP servers. Theis is generally how I send mail.
So, they will accept mail for their destinations, and will relay mail that comes from their static IPs.
Yes, they know I am running an SMTP server, and ask only that I (a) do not spam (not relaying ensures that I do not permit others to do this); (b) send excessive traffic upstream. This strikes me as a reasonable policy. I am a satisfied customer.
Your political critics and opponents will use a broad brush to denegrate a fine detail, and will use the finest details to derail any broad activities...
They will do this anyway.
Open source software is already in place, presumably because it is the best tool for the job, used by people who don't need hand-holding, or expensive "retraining". That speaks for itself.
Of course, if it is not the best tool for the job (secretary's desks, etc.) it should not be there. Not yet, anyway.
1) It saves the taxpayers money which can be directed to better serve the community instead of a remote software vendor.
2) Because the software is open, anyone can examine it to "check on" the government's IT operations. This may be a minor point, but it falls under the heading of "openness and accountability".
An additional point, if you want to make it, is that the government is not vulnerable to security weaknesses that have plagued Microsoft software, of late.
It has come to my attention that Philips frowns on the practice of attempting to make audio compact disks crippled by copy-protection schemes and still bearing the Philips 'Compact Disk Digital Audio' trademark (likely without permission).
BRAVO!
I am a technically savy person who prefers using equipment that does not interfere with my fair use rights to copyright material. I respect artists' and producers' copyrights but still desire to manage my music collection in a manner that requires (a) serving from a home computer to various audio devices in my home, for my convenience; (b) making backup copies. Copy-protection schemes make this difficult, if not impossible.
Your position in this matter means that I will consider Philips first and foremost when it comes to future audio equipment purchases."
As one who has made a public decision to use whatever tools I can so I can listen to, watch, archive, and distribute (within my own home, for my own purposes) audio and video in the form of CDs and DVDs for which I have paid dearly, even as I may be breaking some inane law in the process, I applaud you.
I do not believe what I am doing is wrong, and therefore do it openly and publicly. While I probably wouldn't redistribute a turnkey system that would significanly ease others' attempts to violate copyright law, I'd have no qualms in eventually describing what I did and how to anyone who wants to reproduce my efforts for their personal convenience.
In my case, the stakes are rather higher than for most: I am a Canadian in the U.S. legally on an H1-B visa, with a green-card petition pending. I can be deported for breaking the law. I am supposed to be a law-abiding person. And, against the ultimate law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, I believe that I am. In fact, it is my respect and admiration for the principles in that document and the Bill of Rights that compel me to object to what I perceive as unconstitutional laws, and to disobey them in a civil manner. I believe H. Thoreau had a lot to say about that.
I've seen what happened when Canadians took their rights for granted, and didn't defend them: we have a "notwithstanding" clause in our constitution, added c. 1982 that effectively lets the government trump the courts. This has been used to prevent public communication and commerce in languages other than French in Quebec (ironic, since it was a separatist Quebec government that used that law to their benefit), among other things.
Americans are in grave danger of losing the liberties they value above life itself (if Patrick Henry is to be taken as an example of a patriot) to a combination of rapacious fictional corporate citizens and corrupt government. It would be a sad day indeed, if the principle of liberty set forth by such a great nation was to be snuffed out by it's own hand.
Yes, of course you may do with the DVD what you wish, short of violating copyright, under pre-DMCA law.
However, the DMCA forbids trafficing in a tool to circumvent access control mechanisms used to protect copyright. Thus, it is difficult, if not illegal, to obtain the tool to let you excersize your fair use and explicit interoperability rights.
The problem is clearly that the tool necessary to excercize your rights is the same tool that can be used to violate the copyright holder's rights (even as this can be done without the tool), and because of this "danger" access to the tool is restricted.
Consider the following analogy (which may not hold in some parts of the world, particularly the U.S.): you have a right to defend yourself, but there is a prohibition against posession of firearms (gotta love that second amemdment). There may be circumstances where shooting someone is the only available self-defense option. Yet, firearms are restricted, even as they have legitimate, and legal uses: the dangers supposedly outweigh the benefits.
Of course, I think such laws are insane, and I have intentionally used code like libdvdcss.so to enable me to watch DVDs that I purchased under GNU/Linux. The firearm case is more controversial, of course, because it deals with life and not just money (though you'd think that Valenti, Rosen, et. al. have those priorities reversed).
The way I see it, under present law (ObWarning: I am not a lawyer), is that you may view that DVD any damn way you wish, but it might be illegal for others to provide you with the means to do so if you can't do it yourself. This is absurd.
But he has been using it in a domain name longer. Seams to me that he can prevent it's use in a domain name by anyone other than him under trademark law.
This is very interesting... domain name disputes being settled on the basis of trademark holders trumping non-trademark holders.
But wait! So long as two businesses aren't confused, they can both use the same trademark! (IANAL, but that is my understanding of trademark law in Canada, and presumably in the U.S.).
So, A has website A.com. A" comes along and gets A® trademarked for A"s business. A" yanks domain A.com from A because A" has a trademark and A doesn't.... A goes and registers A® as a trademark of A, for A's business.
A now sues A" for "using A® in the domain name A.com in a matter confusable with A's prior use in a domain name". A" is entitled to the trademark A®, of course, as is A, because they are non-confusable businesses. But A" can not use it as a domain name because of A's prior use in that fashion.
Would some lawyer venture as to what might (hypothetically, of course, not to be construed as legal advice, yada yada...) be wrong with such reasoning? I really don't want to have to register Hollan as a "registrered trademark of Rene Hollan" for purposes of marketting his computer skills to prospective employers.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently heard from a public source that they raised $40 million (prolly US$, given the $70 million figure quoted - prolly C$), with $30 coming from government loan guarantees.
Many next-generation router companies have fallen on hard times, with some closing up shop, in this tech-recession. Hyperchip and Chiaro are the few still standing.
Obviously, I'd like to say more, but since I work for a potential competitor, I can not.
I'm inclined to agree, but I see no reason to exclude an attempt at "poor-man's" real-time processing in a macro kernel, by making the kernel preemptable. So long as one does not have serious hard real-time constraints (e.g. manned aircraft auto-pilot) and is concerned with snappier interactive response and media streaming this seams appropriate. This is certainly the case if it can be compiled in or out at will.
Heck, I don't even think that Teradyne has yet released all the changes I made to GPL code for them (of course, I don't know that they even released binaries so don't presume a GPL violation).
hivno? /me has vague recollections of vulgar terms in Czech for excrement and finds this hivno smells suspiciously similar.
Fines should match losses, and perhaps offer a bit of a deterrant. However, I can't see how the loss of otherwise unused computer time could be quantified. Bandwidth is another issue, but I see quantifying that as iffy a best. At most, this looks like trespass with no property damage or service interruption.
Funny, I've never seen one that didn't. Though, they all disclaim that such information will not be used to affect a hiring decision. (I know, then why ask?)
You know, I always wondered about this "... no record ..." business. When I apply for a job, I'm often asked if I was ever arrested. In Illinois, where I lived for a time, if you get stopped for a traffic violation, and given a ticket, you are technically arrested -- read the ticket. (Of course, IANAL, and the usual disclaimers apply).
For simple violations, like an illegal lane change (which was the charge I faced, and got dismissed in court), you are genereally released on your promise to either (a) pay the fine, or contest the charge. In Illinois, you can pay extra, admit guilt, take a driver's ed course, and have no record.
But what's the point, when one is asked if one was ever "arrested"? To say no, because there was no record of the arrest might work, but it would be deceitful.
Of course, in the interest of completeness, many job application forms do explicitly exempt arrests for routine traffic violations.
I threw my MFM drives, evem the 150 Mb (or there abouts) Maxtor I had out. Paid $500 for the thing too.
Was I mistaken?
1) it is directed to one of their addresses;
OR
2) it comes from one of their static IP addresses (mine -- dunno about their dialup accounts) and is addressed anywhere.
Of course, I make sure my SMTP server does not relay.
As far as I can tell, they have no trouble with SMTP traffic that they just route at the IP level -- they don't appear to firewall port 25 and force tou to send email via their SMTP servers. Theis is generally how I send mail.
So, they will accept mail for their destinations, and will relay mail that comes from their static IPs.
Yes, they know I am running an SMTP server, and ask only that I (a) do not spam (not relaying ensures that I do not permit others to do this); (b) send excessive traffic upstream. This strikes me as a reasonable policy. I am a satisfied customer.
...of course it became way obsolete over time, and I scrapped it, except for the still-useful jumpers.
They will do this anyway.
Open source software is already in place, presumably because it is the best tool for the job, used by people who don't need hand-holding, or expensive "retraining". That speaks for itself.
Of course, if it is not the best tool for the job (secretary's desks, etc.) it should not be there. Not yet, anyway.
There are two important selling points:
1) It saves the taxpayers money which can be directed to better serve the community instead of a remote software vendor.
2) Because the software is open, anyone can examine it to "check on" the government's IT operations. This may be a minor point, but it falls under the heading of "openness and accountability".
An additional point, if you want to make it, is that the government is not vulnerable to security weaknesses that have plagued Microsoft software, of late.
Er, you've never seen Plan Nine from Outer Space, have you?
"To Whom It May Concern:
It has come to my attention that Philips frowns on the practice of attempting to make audio compact disks crippled by copy-protection schemes and still bearing the Philips 'Compact Disk Digital Audio' trademark (likely without permission).
BRAVO!
I am a technically savy person who prefers using equipment that does not interfere with my fair use rights to copyright material. I respect artists' and producers' copyrights but still desire to manage my music collection in a manner that requires (a) serving from a home computer to various audio devices in my home, for my convenience; (b) making backup copies. Copy-protection schemes make this difficult, if not impossible.
Your position in this matter means that I will consider Philips first and foremost when it comes to future audio equipment purchases."
I should hope not, espescially if sent through the public internet, but even if distributed internally.
is what I meant, of course.
As one who has made a public decision to use whatever tools I can so I can listen to, watch, archive, and distribute (within my own home, for my own purposes) audio and video in the form of CDs and DVDs for which I have paid dearly, even as I may be breaking some inane law in the process, I applaud you.
I do not believe what I am doing is wrong, and therefore do it openly and publicly. While I probably wouldn't redistribute a turnkey system that would significanly ease others' attempts to violate copyright law, I'd have no qualms in eventually describing what I did and how to anyone who wants to reproduce my efforts for their personal convenience.
In my case, the stakes are rather higher than for most: I am a Canadian in the U.S. legally on an H1-B visa, with a green-card petition pending. I can be deported for breaking the law. I am supposed to be a law-abiding person. And, against the ultimate law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, I believe that I am. In fact, it is my respect and admiration for the principles in that document and the Bill of Rights that compel me to object to what I perceive as unconstitutional laws, and to disobey them in a civil manner. I believe H. Thoreau had a lot to say about that.
I've seen what happened when Canadians took their rights for granted, and didn't defend them: we have a "notwithstanding" clause in our constitution, added c. 1982 that effectively lets the government trump the courts. This has been used to prevent public communication and commerce in languages other than French in Quebec (ironic, since it was a separatist Quebec government that used that law to their benefit), among other things.
Americans are in grave danger of losing the liberties they value above life itself (if Patrick Henry is to be taken as an example of a patriot) to a combination of rapacious fictional corporate citizens and corrupt government. It would be a sad day indeed, if the principle of liberty set forth by such a great nation was to be snuffed out by it's own hand.
Yes, of course you may do with the DVD what you wish, short of violating copyright, under pre-DMCA law.
However, the DMCA forbids trafficing in a tool to circumvent access control mechanisms used to protect copyright. Thus, it is difficult, if not illegal, to obtain the tool to let you excersize your fair use and explicit interoperability rights.
The problem is clearly that the tool necessary to excercize your rights is the same tool that can be used to violate the copyright holder's rights (even as this can be done without the tool), and because of this "danger" access to the tool is restricted.
Consider the following analogy (which may not hold in some parts of the world, particularly the U.S.): you have a right to defend yourself, but there is a prohibition against posession of firearms (gotta love that second amemdment). There may be circumstances where shooting someone is the only available self-defense option. Yet, firearms are restricted, even as they have legitimate, and legal uses: the dangers supposedly outweigh the benefits.
Of course, I think such laws are insane, and I have intentionally used code like libdvdcss.so to enable me to watch DVDs that I purchased under GNU/Linux. The firearm case is more controversial, of course, because it deals with life and not just money (though you'd think that Valenti, Rosen, et. al. have those priorities reversed).
The way I see it, under present law (ObWarning: I am not a lawyer), is that you may view that DVD any damn way you wish, but it might be illegal for others to provide you with the means to do so if you can't do it yourself. This is absurd.
Try: shot, hanged, boiled in oil, disemboweled, drawn and quartered, fed to sharks, and then tried for heresy.
so, when he sends to goons to arrest you, are you "asscuffed"?
But he has been using it in a domain name longer. Seams to me that he can prevent it's use in a domain name by anyone other than him under trademark law.
Me'n'mine had jus' the one. And, we had to share it. Try kumpootin' wit' just the one bit, sum 'o da time, I tell ya'.
But wait! So long as two businesses aren't confused, they can both use the same trademark! (IANAL, but that is my understanding of trademark law in Canada, and presumably in the U.S.).
So, A has website A.com. A" comes along and gets A® trademarked for A"s business. A" yanks domain A.com from A because A" has a trademark and A doesn't.... A goes and registers A® as a trademark of A, for A's business.
A now sues A" for "using A® in the domain name A.com in a matter confusable with A's prior use in a domain name". A" is entitled to the trademark A®, of course, as is A, because they are non-confusable businesses. But A" can not use it as a domain name because of A's prior use in that fashion.
Would some lawyer venture as to what might (hypothetically, of course, not to be construed as legal advice, yada yada...) be wrong with such reasoning? I really don't want to have to register Hollan as a "registrered trademark of Rene Hollan" for purposes of marketting his computer skills to prospective employers.
You had electricity?!