Actually, no, your not hijacking the stereo to play your music because your listening to the music being played does not change what the owner of the stereo is listening to.
And, it is not the same as walking into a house with an unlocked door. To enter a house with a locked door, you still have to OPEN the door. Connecting to WiFi networks, where there are multiple signals, is often as easy as being presented with a list and clicking on one. Or, perhaps the strongest signal is tried first.
Even my example above is flawed. The article/blog had a better one. Suppose a house has an outdoor security light that is on at night. Suppose there is a nearby bench that happens to be under part of the light. Nothing is wrong with sitting on the bench and, for example, reading a book or newspaper, from the light. The light is broadcast to a public area and you are using what is broadcast.
Some argue that because WiFi sends a signal back that it is entirely different, but they are wrong. Sending a signal back THAT IS ACCEPTED by the other end is part of the protocol that makes WiFi work. WiFi is becoming more pervasive every year. There are not always signs for EVERYONE in an access point's coverage area to see.
WiFi networks, by their very nature, are permissive, meaning, if there is one operating, it wants to be used by any devices that are within range. It advertises itself to the public, telling others "Here I am, use me!"
WiFi networks may be secured to make the NOT be permissive. When they are secured in such a way, and THEN someone figures out how to circumvent that security, then there is a case for illegal usage.
Using your example above, using a public wifi is not like someone walking into a house with an unlocked door, it is more like someone walking into a public area, such as a shopping mall, while the mall doors are unlocked and allowing people to enter.
WiFi networks are able to be secured. As someone else pointed out, there are several places where WiFi access points are configured to give public access outside in public areas.
Bottom line, if the library, or anyone else, wants to restrict access to a wifi network, it is possible to do so without spending a lot of money. Enable the basic encryption, make people sign in and register, and redirect everyone else to a sign-on page or a no not use page. There are many ways to do this.
Look at the commercial hot-spots. You connect, are sent to a pay/sign on page, pay/login, then you are connected. If the library wants to restrict users to the wifi, then enable some basic sign on method. I believe there are even specific linux distributions for access points like the linksys wrt54g (??) that do this for you.
Some people do not realize they are running a public hotspot. Other people intentionally run a hot spot for the public to use. And still others run private access points.
The private access points should be set up to secure access to authorized users. Failure to do so is their network admin's fault. Not the fault of a hapless user that just happens to connect to it when in range.
Public wifi users in a new area that want to connect to the network will probably just tell their system to connect. They probably don't use sniffing systems or other "hacker tools" to try and get in. They just connect to the first access point that lets them connect and gives them internet access. That's the whole point of the WiFi technology.
It's also in the unlicensed spectrum area where anyone may use the frequencies. Again, if someone doesn't want people on there, then restrict access.
Unlike cell phone networks, where people used to clone working phones to get free service by basically faking authentication credentials, unsecured public wifi access points actively allow anyone to connect. There is no bypassing of security measures involved with public access points like that.
For the record, people that go around connecting to access points and then start nosing through private filse or systems are still committing whatever computer trespass laws exist.
Not for accessing the publicly accessable network, but for accessing computers that are not public. While the admins/owners of these computers are still at fault for not securing their machines, it is still a different situation.
Having a wifi connection that extends into a public area is like having a stereo turned up loud enough for people outside to hear. People walking by may like the music and stop to listen for a while. Likewise, people with wifi equipment may find the signal and stop to use it for a while.
Count me as one. A friend had an XM Roady 2 in the car when we were commuting to a class. It was OK. When I heard about the XMPCR and TimeTrax, I figured I would go out and buy one and sign up. The first few places I went were out of stock.
I don't NEED the XM radio. AM and FM radio work just fine for me. However, it was the XMPCR and TimeTrax combination that sold me. Take that away, and I ain't buying.
I have a Compaq laptop with an extended warranty. The first time, the experience with the people on the phone was frustrating because of thick accents and the "support" person not clearly understanding English (and very obviously using some kind of script). But, the repair went smoothly. This was at my current home.
The second time, the people on the phone were even WORSE. Then, they shipped the return box to an old address. This was after THEY confirmed my address was correct, so they very clearly knew the right address. I called to ask where the box was, and they told me where it was shipped. I corrected them, and they shipped another box. Where'd it go? You guessed, to the wrong address AGAIN. It took a series of email messages and phone calls to finally get them to send a box to me.
All in all, I probably spent between 3 and 4 hours on the phone, and had a laptop I couldn't fully use for about a month.
The first experience was acceptably high that I bought my wife and HP computer when she needed one. Now, after this, I won't be so quick to buy another HP.
I lived in Atlanta in 1992, 4 years before the 1996 Olympics there. The IOC was going around nailing anybody with ANYTHING remotely like "Olympic" in their company name or product. One example, Olympian Pools, or something like that.
That, combined with all of the corruption (remember the fall out from Utah and Japan not too long ago), and the flat-out censorship of participants (athletes are not able to keep blogs, and somewhere I think they were restricted from writing their personal experiences even after the games, if the IOC doesn't get its cut), not to mention the many other layers of crap reported earlier here on/., are all reasons why I don't even bother tuning in.
I stopped watching, paying attention, or even caring about the Olympics after I saw what they did in Atlanta.
Judging by the dismal ticket sales, perhaps this is a growing trend.
I read the article, until I found Laura DiDio, or whatever her name is, referenced as a source. Then I just closed the window. If they are quoting her as an authority, then the entire piece has lost credibility and I don't waste my time reading any further. I then realized this is the third time in as many days that I have done that to an article.
So, how many of you read an article until they quote some person as an authority (could be Laura or anyone else) that you feel lacks any credibility, and then stop reading any further? I'm curious.
I was reading something the other day, when someone was quoted spouting some nonesense that I firmly believe is untrue, and then they referred to the name and the "group" she represents. It seems she gets quoted a lot, especially anything remotely anti-Linux related. I would rather read an author's opinions than have that "group's" opinions quoted as facts. Articles carry more credibility with me when the author stands up him or herself, and doesn't resort to pointing fingers, "see, she said it".
I am sick of hearing people say "just don't do anything illegal" or "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care".
Just because something is legal today doesn't mean that it will be legal tomorrow. So, today they record and monitor voice and data traffic "for our safety". Tomorrow, suppose it is illegal to read something like slashdot, or that it becomes illegal to say certain words. The most likely example is that fair use rights will be minimized until they are practically non-existant.
Yes, those are somewhat far-fetched examples, but I hope it gets the point across. Every day, it seems, new laws are passed. Some may be good, others, such as the DMCA, are much more questionable. Sure, today nothing you do is illegal, so of course you have nothing to hide. But, can you be sure that tomorrow won't come and new laws make you a criminal? At the current rate, eventually everyone will be a criminal to one degree or another.
The laws are so numerous and cover so many details that it sometimes becomes virtually impossible to follow all of them. Take for instance the roads in cities like San Francisco that ban vehicles over 6,000 pounds GVW. This includes just about all full size SUVs, not to mention the big pickup trucks. Most people would not realize the signs apply to their SUVs. They didn't set out with the intent to break the law, they were just driving down the street.
So, the next time someone says "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care...", think about it, and tell them why.
It seems we are getting closer and closer to the point where the pivotal beta case will likely be overturned.
Wasn't it the beta ruling that included language about not preventing technology that could be used for illegal purposes if there were clear legal purposes it could be used for? That the mere ability for something to be used illegally is not reason enough to ban it or prevent its manufacture, sale, and use?
P2P does have other uses besides piracy. How many ISOs of legally distributable linux operating systems are distributed using systems like bittorrent? Unfortunately, the piracy makes all the headlines, and the piracy is what people hear about. Never mind the legal uses that P2P networks may be used for.
Isn't the Tor system a type of P2P system that is being developed with backing from the Navy?
Next, cars will be banned, because they can be used as getaway vehicles for bank robberies.
If the site is in violation of the disability law, then he should take down his copycat site (already done it looks like) and then immediately sue Odeon for the violation.
After all, it sounds like this guy can probably document the two years of "we'll have it soon" delay tactics. Two years is MORE than enough time to comply.
And, unlike U.S. people, who would have sued the company first, this guy was just trying to be helpful. [He probably should have just submitted the data entered at his site directly to the appropriate script on Odeon's site.]
The first COW I built/worked with was in '92. It was a low capacity system, but it was entirely self contained, including a telescoping 100 or 150' tower. You could literally drive it to a location, plug in power, the antennas, raise the tower, and have a functional cell. Using a generator, you didn't need to plug in power. And, in 92, cellular penetration wasn't that deep so the low capacity wasn't a big problem.
A couple of years later I saw a SOW (Switch on Wheels), though it took a little more effort to deploy, it was still useful -- especially when Iowa got flooded around '93, taking out a switch in the process.
I haven't worked on any modern CDMA gear, but I'm surprised a site would take 3 semi trailers. Does that include a switch, or just a single site?
There is/was a plan for SimHouston. This looks like they copied the Houston plan and used it in Indiana. The SimHouston program turned into a big local scandal, similar to the Oracle scandal in California, with allegations of impropriety in the bidding and award process.
Several years ago there was someone that created this technology. When two people with PDAs using this technology shook hands, the PDAs used the "circuit" to exchange contact information. The logic went something like, if you shake their hand, you want to share and collect their information. Unlike wireless, you didn't just blindly share your info with everyone in close proximity.
Sounds like what Odigo started out as about 5 or 6 years ago. They provided you with a display so you could see who else was at the web site you were visiting, then you could IM them if you wanted. There was more, like the ability to search for people, etc.
However, the lluna interface looks more interesting.
Having one least-common-denominator vehicle for all of these purposes (e.g. the Suburban Assault Vehicle), is a poor use of resources - to use some tortured computer analogy, it is as if you burn a DVD-R with three words on it, every time you want to use a post-it.
While that sounds find in theory, the reality is different. Your assuming a few things that don't always hold true.
First, the person has the $$$ to have more than one vehicle, so he is able to choose which one he uses based on the activity about to be done.
Or, second, that the person that has the need once a week for the big vehicle has the ability to ALWAYS get the big vehicle when he/she needs it, without fail, and at a reasonable price.
What if all storage options, regardless of size, all cost about $20,000. You can buy only one. Would you buy the floppy sized one because it's more efficient when you need to just save a few words? Or would you buy the bigger one so that when you NEED to backup your entire family of documents you have the room to do it?
Under normal circumstances, I agree, driving the big trucks for just one or two people is a waste of resources. However, not everyone has the ability to have a vehicle for each of their needs. Now, if someone has a fuel efficient car, and the bug SUV, yet never drives the car because he gets off on the powertrip of the big bad truck, then that is the person to be targetted for wasting resources.
Sadly, I see Dell's quote as probably accurate. And, one of the things the patent system was supposed to help prevent. The innovators were supposed to be able to profit (for a time) from their efforts. Assuming bad business practices and/or poor financial handling, they should be able to stay in business. Even if they are not the market leaders - their technology would be, and they'd still be making revenue from the licensing.
It's the mentality of the Dell's that are hurting us. Innovation is required. Yet, to compete with the Dell's, innovation (and R&D) often suffer because R&D costs money. The companies that truly innovate, that really study and work hard with R&D, will have a harder time in our current greed-driven, shareholder value is the only goal mentality market place. Why? Because the R&D takes money from profits, making margins smaller. Therefore, the copycats (Dell) have better margins because the ride the coat tails of the innovator, without having the spend the money to innovate.
It is doubtful you could qualify as a type of common carrier. If anything, you may increase your odds of being liable because you may be held responsible for what others do on your connection.
It would be interesting to see how this would play out. The closest analogy I can think of would be automobiles. If you allowed someone else to use your car, you may be held liable for damages they cause while they are driving it. As far a criminal activity, you may be targetted if your car is identified as taking part in a crime, though you have a pretty good chance of being found innocent if you can prove you weren't driving the car.
Not perfect, but close. The idea sounds good though.
I think the key is this quote, "...the lawyers took a big risk to sue Microsoft with no guarantee of reward."
I still think it is excessive. $3,000 an hour for him, $2,000 an hour for other lawyers? In order for me to accept that, I'd have to see proof that their normal practice suffered as they worked almost exclusively on this, or that the $3,000 and $2,000 an hour fee includes the hourly fees for a team of support staff, or comparable billing rates for other cases the lawyers have tried in the past.
I don't know how many lawyers were on this "team", but, if these fees are the summed total of hourly rates for support staff, plus an hourly rate for the lawyer, plus other fees and costs, and it was calculated to be that total, that would be more believable. I would still have to see the balance sheet as proof.
I've heard lawyers typically get 30 to 40 percent of a settlement, especially on contingency and the case goes to trial. In cases like this though, does anyone know if they are allowed to get a percentage, or do they have to file for an actual fee value based on hourly rates?
BayStar hasn't withdrawn its demand that SCO return its money and BayStar's lawyers, he said, still haven't told SCO's lawyers how SCO breached their contract. So McBride figures BayStar doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and won't be able to get its money back. The money of course is paying for SCO's legal pursuits.
So, Baystar's demanding their money back due to breach of contract without telling how the contract was breached means they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Why does this sound so familiar?
Oh, that's right. SCO claims to own code that was put into Linux, but won't tell what code SCO claims to own.
Is this Darl's way of admitting that SCO doesn't have a legal leg to stand on?
Not necessarily. Think about it. Years ago it was Lotus 1-2-3. Then Borland created their version, Quattro Pro, and included the Lotus 1-2-3 menu structure (as an option) and macro compatibility.
It was this compatibility that enabled a lot of people to leave Lotus for other spreadsheets. I was pretty impressed when Quattro Pro 1, out of the box, was able to run my microwave path calculation tool, for 1-2-3, without ANY modification.
I don't remember early Excel days, by the time I started using Excel, I had been using Quattro Pro for a while. Excel worked in Windows similar to Quattro Pro on DOS, and that was nice at the time.
The point is, it took the compatibility and similarity with the "top dog" in order for new players to get into the game. Once they were in the game, they were able to provide features unique to their product, above and beyond the compatibility with the original. Eventually, the original began to lose its place as the leader.
I'm talking pre-Windows 95 timeframe.
This, and the Xandros Desktop in the previous story, may provide just the similarity necessary to get real people to switch and try it out. Once they find that they CAN make the switch and still do what they need to, they will be more inclined to try more new and different things. When that happens, then Linux on the desktop will be viable, and the Microsoft desktop penetration levels should begin to erode.
This is old news. I remember hearing about this back in 89 or so. The problem is worse if CDs are left out in open air, and in light. If memory serves, for longer lasting CDs, they need to be stored in the dark (not just in its case, but in a dark place like a drawer or safe).
I also think the newer CDs are more prone to this problem than the older ones. I don't know if the materials are much different, or thinner, in order to increase writing speed, but I have noticed that my newer CDs appear to show these signs fairly quickly, sometimes as early as just a few months -- especially if I don't keep them properly stored.
I would normally side against Rambus based on their track record. However, if the email message with the quote saying they were going to try and drive Rambus from the market is true, and the context around that quote is just as damaging, then Rambus may actually win. All because of a poor choice of words. I still think the end result would have been the same.
I know of several that intentionally bought alternative chipsets that supported anything BUT RDRAM because of Rambus. It was just natural that Intel finally caved to MARKET pressure to provide alternatives as well. Once that was done, the market really spoke and just about no one bought RDRAM.
The royalties made it more expensive. Forcing it to be installed in pairs made it more expensive. It was a "high end" solution, so it was also more expensive. In the end, it wasn't the solution people wanted.
That said, they will probably win because of the poor choice of words said in an email.
Welcome to world-wide business of litigation. Where it doesn't matter what your product is, how good or bad it works, or if it even does what advertisements claim, you can still get rich using the courts. Call now for your free kit on how to get rich using the courts. [Please remember to spell your name, and provide the address where you'd like subpoenas sent.]
Sounds like they are trying to make yet more arguments against disclosure of problems. Either that, or an indirect comment on why proprietary systems could be better, if disclosure of problems were not allowed.
"The Sasser worm attacks confirm our prediction that mass worm attacks against the multiple vulnerabilities disclosed by Microsoft on April 13 were likely,"...
We all knew these attacks were likely. Did their timing have something to do with the disclosure? Possibly. Would they have happened without the disclosure? Yes, I think they would have.
The root of the problem, in this case, lies squarely with Microsoft, and the various design decisions they made implementing their OS and other products.
Nice reply as well. Your right, good comments do seem to be a rarity here.
The development target is never standing still. Microsoft and the Samba team both have put a fair amount of effort towards performance enhancements. I wish I could remember the source, but I remember reading where a new record for file sharing was established, using Samba for the server and a bunch of Windows 2000 (or NT?) workstations.
I do have to disagree with the point you made about interoperability. Microsoft has used interoperability as a sword multiple times, going back to their DOS days. I don't see that practice changing here. Their practice of "embrace and extend" is a noted tactic to get into a market and then change things to make it difficult or impossible for other systems to work with it. Remember the old Windows beta on DR DOS error message? Or the "It is not done until Lotus won't run" mantra from way way back? Or more recently, their Kerberos implementation that caused problems. [Admittedly, I don't know too many details behind that one, so it may not be a good example.]
I agree that companies with large investments would not be happy, and are unlikely to make massive changes over night. However, it isn't the overnight changes that concern me. Microsoft can deploy, starting now, if they haven't already, updated code that will recognize to "new" methods in Longhorn. Assuming they do this, when Longhorn is released, those with large Windows deployments will view Longhorn as a seamless integration, as it should be. The real question will be the ones with large deployments of mixed networks. Time will tell the outcome of this.
As for this eweek article, is it reactionary? Probably. Is it FUD? Perhaps because of the "sky is falling" tone, it could be classified that way. Though, I don't believe the message itself is FUD. I don't know too much about eweek, though based on your observation, I'd agree their credibility is suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no, your not hijacking the stereo to play your music because your listening to the music being played does not change what the owner of the stereo is listening to.
And, it is not the same as walking into a house with an unlocked door. To enter a house with a locked door, you still have to OPEN the door. Connecting to WiFi networks, where there are multiple signals, is often as easy as being presented with a list and clicking on one. Or, perhaps the strongest signal is tried first.
Even my example above is flawed. The article/blog had a better one. Suppose a house has an outdoor security light that is on at night. Suppose there is a nearby bench that happens to be under part of the light. Nothing is wrong with sitting on the bench and, for example, reading a book or newspaper, from the light. The light is broadcast to a public area and you are using what is broadcast.
Some argue that because WiFi sends a signal back that it is entirely different, but they are wrong. Sending a signal back THAT IS ACCEPTED by the other end is part of the protocol that makes WiFi work. WiFi is becoming more pervasive every year. There are not always signs for EVERYONE in an access point's coverage area to see.
WiFi networks, by their very nature, are permissive, meaning, if there is one operating, it wants to be used by any devices that are within range. It advertises itself to the public, telling others "Here I am, use me!"
WiFi networks may be secured to make the NOT be permissive. When they are secured in such a way, and THEN someone figures out how to circumvent that security, then there is a case for illegal usage.
Using your example above, using a public wifi is not like someone walking into a house with an unlocked door, it is more like someone walking into a public area, such as a shopping mall, while the mall doors are unlocked and allowing people to enter.
WiFi networks are able to be secured. As someone else pointed out, there are several places where WiFi access points are configured to give public access outside in public areas.
Bottom line, if the library, or anyone else, wants to restrict access to a wifi network, it is possible to do so without spending a lot of money. Enable the basic encryption, make people sign in and register, and redirect everyone else to a sign-on page or a no not use page. There are many ways to do this.
Look at the commercial hot-spots. You connect, are sent to a pay/sign on page, pay/login, then you are connected. If the library wants to restrict users to the wifi, then enable some basic sign on method. I believe there are even specific linux distributions for access points like the linksys wrt54g (??) that do this for you.
Some people do not realize they are running a public hotspot. Other people intentionally run a hot spot for the public to use. And still others run private access points.
The private access points should be set up to secure access to authorized users. Failure to do so is their network admin's fault. Not the fault of a hapless user that just happens to connect to it when in range.
Public wifi users in a new area that want to connect to the network will probably just tell their system to connect. They probably don't use sniffing systems or other "hacker tools" to try and get in. They just connect to the first access point that lets them connect and gives them internet access. That's the whole point of the WiFi technology.
It's also in the unlicensed spectrum area where anyone may use the frequencies. Again, if someone doesn't want people on there, then restrict access.
Unlike cell phone networks, where people used to clone working phones to get free service by basically faking authentication credentials, unsecured public wifi access points actively allow anyone to connect. There is no bypassing of security measures involved with public access points like that.
For the record, people that go around connecting to access points and then start nosing through private filse or systems are still committing whatever computer trespass laws exist.
Not for accessing the publicly accessable network, but for accessing computers that are not public. While the admins/owners of these computers are still at fault for not securing their machines, it is still a different situation.
Having a wifi connection that extends into a public area is like having a stereo turned up loud enough for people outside to hear. People walking by may like the music and stop to listen for a while. Likewise, people with wifi equipment may find the signal and stop to use it for a while.
Count me as one. A friend had an XM Roady 2 in the car when we were commuting to a class. It was OK. When I heard about the XMPCR and TimeTrax, I figured I would go out and buy one and sign up. The first few places I went were out of stock.
I don't NEED the XM radio. AM and FM radio work just fine for me. However, it was the XMPCR and TimeTrax combination that sold me. Take that away, and I ain't buying.
I have a Compaq laptop with an extended warranty. The first time, the experience with the people on the phone was frustrating because of thick accents and the "support" person not clearly understanding English (and very obviously using some kind of script). But, the repair went smoothly. This was at my current home.
The second time, the people on the phone were even WORSE. Then, they shipped the return box to an old address. This was after THEY confirmed my address was correct, so they very clearly knew the right address. I called to ask where the box was, and they told me where it was shipped. I corrected them, and they shipped another box. Where'd it go? You guessed, to the wrong address AGAIN. It took a series of email messages and phone calls to finally get them to send a box to me.
All in all, I probably spent between 3 and 4 hours on the phone, and had a laptop I couldn't fully use for about a month.
The first experience was acceptably high that I bought my wife and HP computer when she needed one. Now, after this, I won't be so quick to buy another HP.
That's fine, "Olympics" can't be used. But, that shouldn't be true of "Olympus", "Olympian", "Olympiad" (Ok, well maybe olympiad").
Not to mention, "olympic sized swimming pool" is a description, not a play against marketing. Now it's "competition size" or something like that.
I lived in Atlanta in 1992, 4 years before the 1996 Olympics there. The IOC was going around nailing anybody with ANYTHING remotely like "Olympic" in their company name or product. One example, Olympian Pools, or something like that.
/., are all reasons why I don't even bother tuning in.
That, combined with all of the corruption (remember the fall out from Utah and Japan not too long ago), and the flat-out censorship of participants (athletes are not able to keep blogs, and somewhere I think they were restricted from writing their personal experiences even after the games, if the IOC doesn't get its cut), not to mention the many other layers of crap reported earlier here on
I stopped watching, paying attention, or even caring about the Olympics after I saw what they did in Atlanta.
Judging by the dismal ticket sales, perhaps this is a growing trend.
I read the article, until I found Laura DiDio, or whatever her name is, referenced as a source. Then I just closed the window. If they are quoting her as an authority, then the entire piece has lost credibility and I don't waste my time reading any further. I then realized this is the third time in as many days that I have done that to an article.
So, how many of you read an article until they quote some person as an authority (could be Laura or anyone else) that you feel lacks any credibility, and then stop reading any further? I'm curious.
I was reading something the other day, when someone was quoted spouting some nonesense that I firmly believe is untrue, and then they referred to the name and the "group" she represents. It seems she gets quoted a lot, especially anything remotely anti-Linux related. I would rather read an author's opinions than have that "group's" opinions quoted as facts. Articles carry more credibility with me when the author stands up him or herself, and doesn't resort to pointing fingers, "see, she said it".
I am sick of hearing people say "just don't do anything illegal" or "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care".
...", think about it, and tell them why.
Just because something is legal today doesn't mean that it will be legal tomorrow. So, today they record and monitor voice and data traffic "for our safety". Tomorrow, suppose it is illegal to read something like slashdot, or that it becomes illegal to say certain words. The most likely example is that fair use rights will be minimized until they are practically non-existant.
Yes, those are somewhat far-fetched examples, but I hope it gets the point across. Every day, it seems, new laws are passed. Some may be good, others, such as the DMCA, are much more questionable. Sure, today nothing you do is illegal, so of course you have nothing to hide. But, can you be sure that tomorrow won't come and new laws make you a criminal? At the current rate, eventually everyone will be a criminal to one degree or another.
The laws are so numerous and cover so many details that it sometimes becomes virtually impossible to follow all of them. Take for instance the roads in cities like San Francisco that ban vehicles over 6,000 pounds GVW. This includes just about all full size SUVs, not to mention the big pickup trucks. Most people would not realize the signs apply to their SUVs. They didn't set out with the intent to break the law, they were just driving down the street.
So, the next time someone says "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care
It seems we are getting closer and closer to the point where the pivotal beta case will likely be overturned.
Wasn't it the beta ruling that included language about not preventing technology that could be used for illegal purposes if there were clear legal purposes it could be used for? That the mere ability for something to be used illegally is not reason enough to ban it or prevent its manufacture, sale, and use?
P2P does have other uses besides piracy. How many ISOs of legally distributable linux operating systems are distributed using systems like bittorrent? Unfortunately, the piracy makes all the headlines, and the piracy is what people hear about. Never mind the legal uses that P2P networks may be used for.
Isn't the Tor system a type of P2P system that is being developed with backing from the Navy?
Next, cars will be banned, because they can be used as getaway vehicles for bank robberies.
Anyone notice this?
...
IDGNS: Why did SCO recently decide to file a trademark claim for AT&T Corp.'s old Unix subsidiary, Unix Systems Laboratories (USL)?
McBride: There are a couple of reasons around going back to the USL part of the business.
We think that there's a very bright future in the company to return to the model that we had in the past with Unix Systems Laboratories.
Quite a bit of revisionist history going on there, with Calde^H^H^H^H^HSCOG along with McBride and company at USL.
If the site is in violation of the disability law, then he should take down his copycat site (already done it looks like) and then immediately sue Odeon for the violation.
After all, it sounds like this guy can probably document the two years of "we'll have it soon" delay tactics. Two years is MORE than enough time to comply.
And, unlike U.S. people, who would have sued the company first, this guy was just trying to be helpful. [He probably should have just submitted the data entered at his site directly to the appropriate script on Odeon's site.]
The first COW I built/worked with was in '92. It was a low capacity system, but it was entirely self contained, including a telescoping 100 or 150' tower. You could literally drive it to a location, plug in power, the antennas, raise the tower, and have a functional cell. Using a generator, you didn't need to plug in power. And, in 92, cellular penetration wasn't that deep so the low capacity wasn't a big problem.
A couple of years later I saw a SOW (Switch on Wheels), though it took a little more effort to deploy, it was still useful -- especially when Iowa got flooded around '93, taking out a switch in the process.
I haven't worked on any modern CDMA gear, but I'm surprised a site would take 3 semi trailers. Does that include a switch, or just a single site?
There is/was a plan for SimHouston. This looks like they copied the Houston plan and used it in Indiana. The SimHouston program turned into a big local scandal, similar to the Oracle scandal in California, with allegations of impropriety in the bidding and award process.
Several years ago there was someone that created this technology. When two people with PDAs using this technology shook hands, the PDAs used the "circuit" to exchange contact information. The logic went something like, if you shake their hand, you want to share and collect their information. Unlike wireless, you didn't just blindly share your info with everyone in close proximity.
Sounds like what Odigo started out as about 5 or 6 years ago. They provided you with a display so you could see who else was at the web site you were visiting, then you could IM them if you wanted. There was more, like the ability to search for people, etc.
However, the lluna interface looks more interesting.
Having one least-common-denominator vehicle for all of these purposes (e.g. the Suburban Assault Vehicle), is a poor use of resources - to use some tortured computer analogy, it is as if you burn a DVD-R with three words on it, every time you want to use a post-it.
While that sounds find in theory, the reality is different. Your assuming a few things that don't always hold true.
First, the person has the $$$ to have more than one vehicle, so he is able to choose which one he uses based on the activity about to be done.
Or, second, that the person that has the need once a week for the big vehicle has the ability to ALWAYS get the big vehicle when he/she needs it, without fail, and at a reasonable price.
What if all storage options, regardless of size, all cost about $20,000. You can buy only one. Would you buy the floppy sized one because it's more efficient when you need to just save a few words? Or would you buy the bigger one so that when you NEED to backup your entire family of documents you have the room to do it?
Under normal circumstances, I agree, driving the big trucks for just one or two people is a waste of resources. However, not everyone has the ability to have a vehicle for each of their needs. Now, if someone has a fuel efficient car, and the bug SUV, yet never drives the car because he gets off on the powertrip of the big bad truck, then that is the person to be targetted for wasting resources.
Sadly, I see Dell's quote as probably accurate. And, one of the things the patent system was supposed to help prevent. The innovators were supposed to be able to profit (for a time) from their efforts. Assuming bad business practices and/or poor financial handling, they should be able to stay in business. Even if they are not the market leaders - their technology would be, and they'd still be making revenue from the licensing.
It's the mentality of the Dell's that are hurting us. Innovation is required. Yet, to compete with the Dell's, innovation (and R&D) often suffer because R&D costs money. The companies that truly innovate, that really study and work hard with R&D, will have a harder time in our current greed-driven, shareholder value is the only goal mentality market place. Why? Because the R&D takes money from profits, making margins smaller. Therefore, the copycats (Dell) have better margins because the ride the coat tails of the innovator, without having the spend the money to innovate.
It is doubtful you could qualify as a type of common carrier. If anything, you may increase your odds of being liable because you may be held responsible for what others do on your connection.
It would be interesting to see how this would play out. The closest analogy I can think of would be automobiles. If you allowed someone else to use your car, you may be held liable for damages they cause while they are driving it. As far a criminal activity, you may be targetted if your car is identified as taking part in a crime, though you have a pretty good chance of being found innocent if you can prove you weren't driving the car.
Not perfect, but close. The idea sounds good though.
I think the key is this quote, "...the lawyers took a big risk to sue Microsoft with no guarantee of reward."
I still think it is excessive. $3,000 an hour for him, $2,000 an hour for other lawyers? In order for me to accept that, I'd have to see proof that their normal practice suffered as they worked almost exclusively on this, or that the $3,000 and $2,000 an hour fee includes the hourly fees for a team of support staff, or comparable billing rates for other cases the lawyers have tried in the past.
I don't know how many lawyers were on this "team", but, if these fees are the summed total of hourly rates for support staff, plus an hourly rate for the lawyer, plus other fees and costs, and it was calculated to be that total, that would be more believable. I would still have to see the balance sheet as proof.
I've heard lawyers typically get 30 to 40 percent of a settlement, especially on contingency and the case goes to trial. In cases like this though, does anyone know if they are allowed to get a percentage, or do they have to file for an actual fee value based on hourly rates?
BayStar hasn't withdrawn its demand that SCO return its money and BayStar's lawyers, he said, still haven't told SCO's lawyers how SCO breached their contract. So McBride figures BayStar doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and won't be able to get its money back. The money of course is paying for SCO's legal pursuits.
So, Baystar's demanding their money back due to breach of contract without telling how the contract was breached means they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Why does this sound so familiar?
Oh, that's right. SCO claims to own code that was put into Linux, but won't tell what code SCO claims to own.
Is this Darl's way of admitting that SCO doesn't have a legal leg to stand on?
Not necessarily. Think about it. Years ago it was Lotus 1-2-3. Then Borland created their version, Quattro Pro, and included the Lotus 1-2-3 menu structure (as an option) and macro compatibility.
It was this compatibility that enabled a lot of people to leave Lotus for other spreadsheets. I was pretty impressed when Quattro Pro 1, out of the box, was able to run my microwave path calculation tool, for 1-2-3, without ANY modification.
I don't remember early Excel days, by the time I started using Excel, I had been using Quattro Pro for a while. Excel worked in Windows similar to Quattro Pro on DOS, and that was nice at the time.
The point is, it took the compatibility and similarity with the "top dog" in order for new players to get into the game. Once they were in the game, they were able to provide features unique to their product, above and beyond the compatibility with the original. Eventually, the original began to lose its place as the leader.
I'm talking pre-Windows 95 timeframe.
This, and the Xandros Desktop in the previous story, may provide just the similarity necessary to get real people to switch and try it out. Once they find that they CAN make the switch and still do what they need to, they will be more inclined to try more new and different things. When that happens, then Linux on the desktop will be viable, and the Microsoft desktop penetration levels should begin to erode.
This is old news. I remember hearing about this back in 89 or so. The problem is worse if CDs are left out in open air, and in light. If memory serves, for longer lasting CDs, they need to be stored in the dark (not just in its case, but in a dark place like a drawer or safe).
I also think the newer CDs are more prone to this problem than the older ones. I don't know if the materials are much different, or thinner, in order to increase writing speed, but I have noticed that my newer CDs appear to show these signs fairly quickly, sometimes as early as just a few months -- especially if I don't keep them properly stored.
I would normally side against Rambus based on their track record. However, if the email message with the quote saying they were going to try and drive Rambus from the market is true, and the context around that quote is just as damaging, then Rambus may actually win. All because of a poor choice of words. I still think the end result would have been the same.
I know of several that intentionally bought alternative chipsets that supported anything BUT RDRAM because of Rambus. It was just natural that Intel finally caved to MARKET pressure to provide alternatives as well. Once that was done, the market really spoke and just about no one bought RDRAM.
The royalties made it more expensive. Forcing it to be installed in pairs made it more expensive. It was a "high end" solution, so it was also more expensive. In the end, it wasn't the solution people wanted.
That said, they will probably win because of the poor choice of words said in an email.
Welcome to world-wide business of litigation. Where it doesn't matter what your product is, how good or bad it works, or if it even does what advertisements claim, you can still get rich using the courts. Call now for your free kit on how to get rich using the courts. [Please remember to spell your name, and provide the address where you'd like subpoenas sent.]
Sounds like they are trying to make yet more arguments against disclosure of problems. Either that, or an indirect comment on why proprietary systems could be better, if disclosure of problems were not allowed.
"The Sasser worm attacks confirm our prediction that mass worm attacks against the multiple vulnerabilities disclosed by Microsoft on April 13 were likely,"...
We all knew these attacks were likely. Did their timing have something to do with the disclosure? Possibly. Would they have happened without the disclosure? Yes, I think they would have.
The root of the problem, in this case, lies squarely with Microsoft, and the various design decisions they made implementing their OS and other products.
Nice reply as well. Your right, good comments do seem to be a rarity here.
The development target is never standing still. Microsoft and the Samba team both have put a fair amount of effort towards performance enhancements. I wish I could remember the source, but I remember reading where a new record for file sharing was established, using Samba for the server and a bunch of Windows 2000 (or NT?) workstations.
I do have to disagree with the point you made about interoperability. Microsoft has used interoperability as a sword multiple times, going back to their DOS days. I don't see that practice changing here. Their practice of "embrace and extend" is a noted tactic to get into a market and then change things to make it difficult or impossible for other systems to work with it. Remember the old Windows beta on DR DOS error message? Or the "It is not done until Lotus won't run" mantra from way way back? Or more recently, their Kerberos implementation that caused problems. [Admittedly, I don't know too many details behind that one, so it may not be a good example.]
I agree that companies with large investments would not be happy, and are unlikely to make massive changes over night. However, it isn't the overnight changes that concern me. Microsoft can deploy, starting now, if they haven't already, updated code that will recognize to "new" methods in Longhorn. Assuming they do this, when Longhorn is released, those with large Windows deployments will view Longhorn as a seamless integration, as it should be. The real question will be the ones with large deployments of mixed networks. Time will tell the outcome of this.
As for this eweek article, is it reactionary? Probably. Is it FUD? Perhaps because of the "sky is falling" tone, it could be classified that way. Though, I don't believe the message itself is FUD. I don't know too much about eweek, though based on your observation, I'd agree their credibility is suspect.