The problem with your analogy is that they didn't even use a lock and key. Their doors were open for business and now they are getting mad that someone came in before they could put up the big neon "OPEN" sign.
I would agree, going even further. They HAD the big 'open' sign. They had it on the shelf in the 'store'. They just hadn't put the label on the shelf yet.
I seem to recall something similar happened a few years ago with another firm in the US. They just up and admited they screwed up. This guy is, IMHO, trying to save his own butt, and not very sucessfully. To think.. that putting something on a public web server might make it public! (I seem to recall in the earlier days when browsers would screw up and like gopher, instead of the nice page you'd get the directory listing. I guess everyone was a 'hacker' then?) This guy needs a new job. Preferably sorting used IBM punched cards by hand. That should keep him suitably occupied and mentally challenged.
The letter should have been withdrawn. The 'language' of the addition was almost exact MS language. If they had no part, which IMHO, I don't believe, then Smith made himself look rather inept. He used 'code developed' example of TCP/IP and that, developed by DARPA, it 'made the internet'. It wasn't the code relased, it was the PROTOCOL that they developed that made the internet, and as long as that was an 'open standard' it could be used by any entity to produce product, be it gpl'd code or commercial code. Heck, even IF gov't funds were used for actual code, it could be used the same way. They aren't going to produce code for linux and windows and macs and solaris and Z/os that use the same CODE. If they DID develop the actual code, the linux code could go out under GPL, the windows code 'licensed' code, etc. The whole thing simply makes it look to me like they had no idea what they were talking about, IMHO, but just listening to their funding source and going for those last minute contributions before the mid term elections. Just my opinion, I could be wrong (TM Dennis Miller).
As to privacy, they're pretty much lying, or at the very least being intentionally oblivious.
I think, IMHO, you had it right on the first one..they're flat out lying. The question is to whom, the residents or the ad agencies. They say on the one hand that they never match a box with a individual user/address and on the other that they can send a car ad or not based on whether one just purchased a new car or is near the end of the lease on a car. That means they ARE matching specific users and addresses, period... if they have that capability. They mention census data, but census data is NOT that detailed and explicit.
The real question is whether or not cable companies are even going to be interested. Since it indicates the box can request from multiple commercials (remember nothing is sent to the head end, the box is making all the decisions?) and that commercials, depending on what channel someone is viewing, don't run at the same exact point on all channels.. just what cable company is going to be willing to give up the bandwith necessary for such as massive undertaking. Is a cable company going to be willing to give up that much bandwith? If not, it seems the box is going to have to actually stage the commercials in the set top box, meaning it has to do the insertion... what is the cost of that box now (especially with the deployment of high def)?? Passing that cost on won't fly... and won't make a difference. Aren't set top boxes to be 'standardized' allowing the user to purchase their own at some point? That seems to deflate the captive situation a cable company would have. IMHO, I think I'd be watching to see if this company is going for financing or an IPO shortly... something just seems adrift.
The phone number given is for a woman named Bonnie Hammer. Unfortunately her voicemailbox is full. Does anyone have the number of anyone it would be appropriate to call?
She sure seems appropriate, since it seems they've taken the ax to the better programming after her arrival. Granted, Vivendi Universal has had it's financial problems with Messier having been at the helm (since dumped) but cost cutting of original programming, if that's what's going on, makes no sense. Why take one's higher rated programs off. Does it lower some costs? Sure. But it also makes Sci-Fi into just another run-of-the-mill cable channel with reruns. It certainly lowers the value... something I'd think they wouldn't want to do since I'm guessing a lot of the subsidiaries (possibly the whole USA net group and Universal group) may be back on the block. Maybe they could save costs by eliminating her position. I think USA would be better back in the hands of Diller and Universal back in the hands of the Bronfman's. I'm guessing they could both get them back at a lot less than they sold them to Vivendi for in the first place. (After all, they've taken a beating on Vivendi stock, that's for sure!)
No I'd say they are definately targetted at home users, look at the timing - they're coming out in time for the holiday season. I still think they'll fail though...(rest deleted)
I think they'll fail as well. Did they do ANY type of survery before going production? They SAY they're targeting students and techie types who would want this. They also say that 'some' may not buy because of the inability to make any copy. Gee..I wonder what group that would be.. possibly the students and techie types??
There also better be one hell of a disclaimer.. and not on a shrink wrap but the outside of the box. They tie the anti-copying to the drive? And in a box, what's the most likely to fail.. the mechanical parts... like a moving hard drive. Can you see the happy individual that has recorded some unbelievable event or other once-in-a-lifetime item. If the drive fails, it's gone. Even if they backed up, and replace the drive, it's gone. If they upgrade to the next 'new and improved' HP/MS model, it's gone. (so much for a product cycle/replacement time for this device). There are going to be some angry people, but the facts won't be discovered by (probably) most until possibly several years out. Talk about angry mobs (and all those lawyers that just love class action suits and say 'you never disclosed that before they bought the PC').
Minimally, they could allow it to make DVD's at the resolution for NTSC. It's not like they're recording HDTV, which is the premise that Hollywood has been supposedly using to get the anti-copying and protection saying 'we can't let those high def images get copied even once'. So much for the real true in wierdoland... i mean Hollywood. They're STILL trying to get the betamax case reversed their own way, since they've never really accepted it. It seems redmond is sucking up to them yet again. The spines at redmond seem to be non-existant.. unless they're supported by a $ sign, IMHO. (Besides, I've still yet to hear any drums beating for 'converged' systems. Just what HP needs to be tossing money at after their merger.)
The Mona Lisa blocks light on the wall behind it. You'd see a black patch on the wall, because there'd be no light. To get this to work, you'd have to mimic light going in both directions, so that the lights in the room would "pass through" the cloak and hit the wall behind it, then bounce off and "pass through" the cloak again.
I don't see it being patented, as the thought of an image being, essentially, transfered from what is behind something to in front of an object has been discussed for eon's (or at least years). The process, however, is a lot more difficult than at least mentioned in the small news clip. You're right about blocking light behind it, in relation to the Mona Lisa. But I believe there's a third item which comes into play. For us to see something, there are three variables involved. The source (and intensity) of the light, the object itself (and how it reflects the light) and our eyes, upon which the light falls, for us to see the image. The 'image' or the object we all see, varies to a degree based upon there we stand. To 'cloak' simply using the process mentioned cannot overcome the fact that we all observe the object differently if we're each standing in a different place, and that doesn't seem to be taken into consideration. The simpliest part of the viewers position (though there are many), is the part of depth perception. If we're three feet from the wall behind the object, and two feet from the Mona Lisa, then 'cloaking' the Mona Lisa has a 'wall', a portion which is displaced from the real one, 'appear' other than in the same plane as the real wall. Part will look further away then the part of the wall that is closer (the cloaked Mona Lisa), because the light will be generated/reflected from a different distance from the 'real' wall. One MIGHT be able to compensate that difference by altering the output and seemingly making the object, but hues/density, etc, seem elsewhere... exactly where the real wall is located. But that works one person standing in exactly the same spot for which the compensation is calculated. A person 10 degrees offset sees a different perception...I don't see how one compensates for that.
If the object is an extreme distance where depth perception is essentially nil or in a dim setting there depth is also less acute, then it is more 'believed' by the viewer. Otherwise, as long as one has two eyes, I see a problem.
Do you really think that these rather amateur (or so it seems) security consultants were the first to find these lapses in security? I highly doubt it. Perhaps it was beneficial that they were so public about it simply because it makes it a lot harder to ignore.
I'd disagree. The 'consultants' certainly did get the publicity, which it seems they wanted. (How beneficial it's going to be at this point though is probably questionable.) They didn't have to go 'public'. This was a case of someone intentionally mucking around inside their systems. I don't care if it's the military, a company, or an individual. Once the breach is made , if intentional, and they continue, it's illegal. Once can accidently end up at a site because of a screw up in routing tables, etc, and that's not intentional. In that case, if they are notified, they'll fix the problem... and I mean fast.. in the case of the military. (On that one I speak from experience.) But the bottom line... this wasn't accidental.. they had 'intent', it seems, from the beginning. I don't have a lot of sympathy from their resulting 'visit' from the FBI.
Depending on how big and solvent Sigma is and how straightforward the case then it should be possible to get a lawyer to work on it for a share of the award....stuff deleted... Lawyers are more than happy to work for a percentage on cases that have the potential for large damages.
They're a public company, so I'm guessing no matter how 'big' or 'solvent', they'll have sufficient insurance to make a lawyer at least interested, especially if it is fairly cut and dried. IANAL, but I would guess it'd get settled fairly quickly if filed. Again, being public, these days, there's a lot of scrutiny.. they'd either have to disclose quickly or the once yawning press might go heavy covering it. If so, their stock could drop faster than Martha can make an omelet.. or a judge might just permit an injunction against any distribution until the case goes to trial, again, if he thinks it's fairly cut and dried. Again, IANAL, but I'd like to see this one go forward. (Interestingly, it seems the only way to truly get them back to a closed product would be hire new folks and require it be developed in a clean room. Simply saying they'll take out the GPL code shouldn't suffice. That'd get REAL costly, possibly nudging them to open their source and follow GPL as it was intended.)
These two authors, no matter their prior credentials, are obviously naive or simply inept, IMHO. Why do they think a political exemption would be with a candidate alone? As soon as that exemption is granted, then every supposed 'grassroots organization' (including parties of one though more often funded by anonymous groups with political agenda's) would necessarily have to be provided the same exemption to present their view. And each would have their own 'opt out' requirement, meaning it'd never end. Each candidate, spam email and their opt-out. Each organization that has a poticital view, more spam and each with their own opt-out. After all, with the cost of email, as stated, being so low, it won't only be the highly funded 'special interest' groups that present contrarian view or those funded with 'soft money'. To stop policital email to candidates ONLY would obviously be frowned upon by the Supremes. These guys, IMHO, can't see the forest for the trees, are just too naive and midguided, OR, simply working for their political benefit and don't give a damn about the end result, as long as they get their little 'exemption'. (I won't give my opinion on that one, but I sure have one. I don't think they're rocket scientists.)
Transistors have been around since the days of Henry Ford, so I find it hard to believe that 1961 was the year of the first transistor-filled watch.
Maybe around since Henry Ford II, not the original. In the 50's the early computers still had tubes and I don't believe even a transistor radio was out until late 50's at the earliest. There may have been electric watches prior to the accurton (Hamilton, I recall had early ones), but not transistor filled. It wasn't much before that time that they were able to draw wire fine enough, for one thing, even for coils.
I'm not Donald Trump, but planning on moving in to a power vs. sail boat. The dockside power and gensets will certainly provide enough power, and the AC will be sufficient as far as temp and humidity. I plan on using a plain mid-tower, isolating it for vibration. Sailboats are going to be a little different though. They usually have less powerful gensets (if not only 12V) and possibly not the AC, and also more likely to get 'wet'. I think I'd stick with some type of laptop only on a sailboat.
As long as it applies to any "copyright holder" then it will pass muster.
I disagree. IANAL applies, and I'd sure hope one chimes in. This is a case of an exception to criminal not civil statues on hacking, such statutes being under the perview and prosecution by the state. I would think any court would be loath to permit a specific exception by a class to criminal statutes. To my knowledge, the only exceptions permitted are those written into the Constitution to insure the separation of the three branches of government. The MPAA/RIAA does not and should not qualify.
>>Like a government of 100% Democrats will be any better.
Actually, the Palm Beach folks are Democrats, who control the election board in the county. And this LaPore is the same one who was there during the 2000 elections.
But that company sure has a good one going, IMHO. You have a device, it decides elections, it is 'self auditing', and if you want someone to review and audit the system independantly, it voids the warranty, etc. I'd love to see Ms. LaPore tell a judge the first time an election is challenged 'we take the answers on faith Your Honor and no, we have no way of knowing if it's right or wrong as there's no way to audit the data and nobody can review the machines or code because there are trade secrets'.
IMHO, I have a strange feeling the 'competitive bidding' process and technically written RFP's weren't exactly the top priority in Palm Beach County in making this decision. It makes one wonder what was.
Isn't the head of TNT the jerk who said, when talking of Tivo or Replay said that people had a 'contract' and HAD to watch their commercial??
This article is in the Atlanta newspaper? Hmm..home of Turner 'empire'? It's not even good journalism, as everything is taken at face value with no opposing views... it's simply propaganda.
For example:
It says the news channels have shown people accept all the various junk on the screen. I'd say nobody has a choice. Once one went with the garbage, all of them went with it at the same time. There's not a cable news channel with an alternative to see if the lack of the trash would impact viewer rates.
It says young viewers will accept all kinds of things on their screens...(like spam...my words). I'd say it's the younger generation who've most decidely they didn't like things like spam and pop-ups and been the ones who first create and use the software to trash the spam and thwart the pop-up/pop-overs/pop-unders (And I thank them, since I'm not the younger generation.)
I don't think TNT is an example of a 'test' market as they already have so many commercial minutes / hour that anyone who watches entertainment on their network already have succomb to just about anything and probably would take the additional crap. (JMHO, I've watched TNT twice in about the last year..and never made it through a program.. as they don't run programs with commercials they run commercials with a little programming.)
If it starts hitting the mainstream, I think you will find the revolt. The broadcast channels are still 'in the public interest' as far as licensing and their airwaves free. If AOL/Time Warner wants to turn them totally into infomercials with a tad of content, I'd say they can step up and pay billions for the use of the public airways.. as some in Congress wanted when they doled out the HDTV channel space...as if AOL Time Warner can afford spending billions on anything at this point. They're just want to turn TV into something as lame as AOL.....just my opinion.
PS... the guy is right about one thing in that people have shown they can 'multi task'. The one nice thing, on occassion, that all those damn commercials do is..when they aren't in sync between a couple channels..is give one the ability to watch two complete programs at the same time on different channels simply by switching between the two during commercial breaks on the other. (Though, instead of putting up with some commercials, it pretty much insures that one doesn't see any commercials.)
If MS really was concerned, the first thing they would do is expend their resources to get IPV6 implemented around the world. That provides a basis for better authentication, identification, and then work on implementing solutions going forward. Obviously though, they won't. I agree it sounds more like the one thing MS does exceedingly well... marketing. (Of course the other reason MS wouldn't do it is that they don't own and can't 'buy' IPV6.)
There will be no restrictions on the use of TE by the Linux open source community Before a colo company, or anyone else uses the technology commercially, it will be necessary to negotiate a license with Secure Computing
Those two statements are incompatible.
I agree they are incompatible. It MAY just be a poor choice of words by the person responding. IF he meant that before the technology can be utilized in a commercial product FOR SALE (ie a non-linux type system, remeber we're talking patent/concept) THEN it may be required that a license be obtained. The confusion may be around what's meant by using the techonology 'commercially' in his response ie, whether it means someone using Linux in a commercial/business shop vs. personal use OR to incorporate the technology in a different COMMERCIAL product for sale other than Linux.
That does need to be cleared up immediately. If they go back on their initial statements about a GPL and source provided distribution, then it'd seem (though IANAL) that if they go back on their statements that some deception is involved. I wouldn't want to do that against the NSA, who was clear up front about the intent to distribute a product with the same licensing as the original code. Forget that the NSA is this mystic organization to some, it is part of the federal government. They DO have the 'deep pockets', unlike others, to pursue a case if an attempt is made to circumvent the original intent of the resulting code/product for which they were contracted, if they were indeed contracted as others have stipulated.
One thing that a judge has to set straight with Microsoft is that price fixing and monopolistic practices can not be dignified by saying, "but you did benifet from being forced to buy our operating system."
I agree.. just can't believe their statements. I don't care if it is improved to give me a shave and make my morning coffee when I sit down at the computer. I can't get over their comments that, IMHO, they're saying as long as they do something they feel is 'beneficial', they can violate the law and gouge due to lack of competition. Talk about arrogance, spin, and double talk. That's similar if Rockefeller said back in the old Standard Oil monopoly days 'but I'll put a service station on every corner as soon as I put all the other people out of business. I'll triple the price and gouge you, but you won't have as far to go to get gas. It's a public benefit, so you can't break up Standard Oil'. It wouldn't have floated then and shouldn't now.
I'll say that at least the true colors are showing through. (I hope some go back and check Congressional testimony too, and see if perhaps it wasn't exactly truthful.)
If I recall correctly, when industry folks testified they indicated they wanted to protect the digital formats because piracy would be permitted of exact pristine copies of the original digital format. They indicated they didn't want to interfere with VCR's, etc, but the digital originals and that people could get 'fair use' through those analog type devices; fair use didn't guarantee that copies had to be in the same resolution and quality as the original. I think they believed they could say that becuase they figured analog devices (VCR's etc) would disappear as the digital age devices replaced them.
But the truth shows through since they have decided they won't disapper fast enough. They want to now insure that these devices can't even make analog copies (so much for the 'protecting digital copies' testimony). It also means the comments that analog copies degrade as copy after copy is made so that's not a problem to them like digital copies would be. (That was lame anyway. I'm sure pirates don't make copies from copies from copies.)
They figure since digital TV will force the replacement of sets, they'll incorporate all of their controls in the sets to let them have control over all of the remaining devices, the VCR's, old PC's with tuners, etc., and that DVD audio or similar will replace CD's so they'll insert that in all the new DVD players.
The TRUTH??? It's ALL about CONTROL. They never accepted betamax and figure they can circumvent it this way. It also lets THEM decide the when, where, what you can see on their timetables and basis.
Two questions for the industry. For those of us who went the HDTV route early; If our sets don't work, are you going to replace them for us? If cell phones have these chip cops, what are YOU going to do the first time someone tries to call an ambulance and can't because the user is too close to an audio track or concert that has watermarked audio. Are you going to accept the liability? Of course not, you'll say the government made you do it. (Though it'll be interesting when a politician like a Hollings is slandered by an opponent in a speech but nobody will be able to record it so they can be exposed. ha ha ha. Maybe there IS a plus to this chip cop)
I've never pirated. I've never p2p copied music. If all this stuff comes out? I'll be the first in line looking for the black market devices. This makes 1984 look amateurish.
IF..and that's an if, Allchin was testifying accurately, then I'd say there's a real problem.
(1) If you have 'bugs' that he sites as 'national security' reasons for not disclosing API's, you FIX THE BUG. If he is testifying truthfully, has MS notified DOD and other agencies of this potential flaw? (2) If accurate, it's the best case yet disclosed for open source in government. (3) If he thinks not disclosing it on the stand protects national security, the idiot (IMHO), just told everyone where to look. Secondly, I'd guess more than just 2 people at MS know of the flaws. He thinks if he just doesn't say anything, it won't get out? I doubt that every MS employee has government security clearances and is provided with periodic lie dectector tests (4) MS, if they knew about this and didn't disclose to DOD, etc, should be forced to bear the brunt financially for getting ALL government systems OFF MS software. If they've sold a single piece of software to a government agency such as DOD or NSA since knowing about it and not disclosing it should bear a HUGE legal impact. IMHO, that'd go as far as banning purchase of their software by any government agency where national security is impacted. (5) If anyone is going to cite national security, it should be an agency deemed as such. If MS has these concerns, then it's THEIR responsibility to notify DOD, DOJ, NSA, etc. It's the responsibility of THOSE organizations to determine if such items impact national defense and, if so, make motions before the court to preclude disclosure of certain API's etc. MS, I would hope, has absolutely NO legal footing to use a 'national defense' posture in refusing to release API's. I certainly dont' remember the Constitution saying that the government AND MS are to provide for a common defense.
The ONLY 'one' (group) to come out smelling like a rose on this one.. the NSA. It seems the idea of a secure and hardened linux idea has been a very good move. This makes me furious. and it's not about MS and the antitrust.
I'd certainly agree the patents don't seem to apply.
As with the BT hyperlink, this specifically mentions telephone line connections (and the judge, IIRC, has already indicated this probably won't fly). It seems also that it's taken what was used for interactive learning in the 80's, the interactive / computer controlled laser disk, and using that to provide the imaging and audio, probably to save significantly on transmission through modems (which it also mentions). It also gets into the nitty-gritty, even mentioning IBM PS/2, and various other devices. This seems like a nice idea 15+ yrs ago in a travel office to maybe let the customer or agent provide nice sales pics to a consumer. It simply sounds like a glorified Sabre or System One travel reservations system expanded a bit. It seems prior art alone, taking out laser disks, etc, would be the reservation systems themselves (the airlines the 'company' the travel agency the 'customer'). If you don't take out the laser disk then it doesn't apply either, since obviously the web went a different direction. (At least I don't large silver platters next to me to view every image through the web). (I actually WILL give credit to the guy who originally filed. In the early/mid 80's these patents provide a pretty interesting scenerio. Though today, the concept presented is totally antiquated.)
Even though IANAL, I'd definitely hope that the case is fought, maybe being able to consolidate all the cases into one for the judge, since there's no geographic representation concentrated in any area. (I find it interesting they think there's a continued business presence in So. Ca. unless this plumbing company is pretty big, I'd hope they could get it dismissed simply with the judge finding no continued business presence.. makey them fly all over the country if they want to).
My one BIG wish??? The judge would not only dismiss but find it so outside any consideration that the suit would be considered frivilous and the lawyer filing it (and clogging up his courtroom with this and the other 6 or so suits) would be taken to task professionally, with fees awarded to the defendants.
Just an afterthought. I wonder how much equipment mentioned under these patents can even be purchased these days? I haven't seen computer controlled laser disk systems for AGES
This says it all. Have we learned nothing from the aviation industry? Studies showed that too much computerisation and increasingly complex HUDS were shown be be if anything, counter-productive for pilots - both in civil and military aviation. When a pilot is flying, he (or she - hello linux-loving Jane who flies Airbuses:) need as little distraction as possible.
This also applies to fly by wire. When you fly a manually controlled aircraft like a Tiger Moth, a hang glider or a Cessna, you can feel at all times what the aircraft is doing. As soon as that gets replaced with a computerised system, you're removing the pilot's senses from the equation - a Bad Thing.
I couldn't agree with you more. Instead of the pilot 'fly the plane' the driver needs to 'drive the car'. Even with HUDS, it's in the windshield retaining some continued visual contact with the outside. If someone has to go through menus just to tune a radio or change the fan on the A/C, they are distracted both visually and mentally when driving a car. After one has driven a car (other than this one) one knows very quickly how to change the radio station or volume or change the a/c without even looking, and it's done in a fraction of a second (And some innovation like volume and channel tuning on the steering wheel makes it even easier). This reminds me a bit of 'faulty' innovation/automation from Chrysler (or possibly Lincoln) who had power steering back in the 50's that was SO 'powered' that there was no feel left in the steering wheel. It didn't last long and people considered it dangerous... you need to 'feel' the car through the wheel just like you need the feedback in a plane through the yoke or rudder pedals. They think cell phone usage can be dangerous? This sounds 100 times worse. I'm a geek/tech oriented as most here, but give me a car with buttons, easy controls, hence a generally longer MTBF, but also easier to maintain and use.
How on Earth would they judge who is a professional or not? What about professional in a 3rd world country? Would they be willing to pay $300 Basically it sounds like this company wants to set up a kind of upper class boys club...
It sounds too strange or.pro folks seem to be setting themselves up for a big downfall. As for 3rd world countries, it indicated they'd be OK as long as credentials can be verified. But credentials in one country do not certify anybody in any other country, so that may be a flaw in their guarantee that these folks are, indeed, professionals. The 'upper class boys club' does sound accurate. But more importantly is the.pro group potentially setting themselves up for liability if they fail to accurately obtain data and some get on who do not fit their requiements or commit fraud under the guise of being a 'certified professional' in an area where they are not? It seems any registry should commit to some effort to insure, minimally, that people who register are who they say they are..pro is going much further, emphasing to a great extent the 'due dillegence' they are going to do on anyone who has a.pro domain; it's their big selling point and likely the 'excuse' for the large fees. It seems even if they totally disclaim liability (which defeats the credibility of their statements) they may still have some liability in the end; and if it's fraud, they're likely to have the deeper pockets than the one who perpetuated the fraud in the first place. It also seems if they 'exclude' others from other countries, ICAAN may be failing part of their mission be allowing that to prevail.
And lastely, just who IS a professional? It's not like they have.dr and can say everyone has to be a Doctor (which begs the question; medical or academic?), but accountants? (just public or CPA?), how about consultants? (anybody can be a consultant, I'm a good example) or 'professional' masseuse (that's legitimate, as there ARE professionals there) or just a 'professional' personal trainer (who can be 'certified' under a myriad number of 'groups' in the USA alone, some good some just 'paper'). This doesn't seem to be the business of any 'registrar'. And if they don't allow 'consultants', does that make them again liable for excluding from their list of 'professionals', since that doesn't seem to be well defined but global by distinction of.pro vs. a.dr or.cpa or.jd domain? which would provide some cover in restrictions to a specific profession?
I strongly suspect "being forced to act as a tax-collector on behalf of a foreign country" would fall in the same boat. Heck, given the state of.US tax law, it wouldn't surprise me if it was considered seditious behavior.;-)
It would seem to lead the company to be officially an 'agent or acting on behalf of a foreign government'. I don't see how it's enforced if the company has no presence in the other country. It also seems the collection plays havoc with US tax laws. If I'm a company and collect sales tax, obviously that is not ultimately taxed on federal returns. However, if I collect VAT for some foreign country, I don't see anyplace that'd legally be deductible... does anyone else??
I agree, branding viewers as 'thieves' doesn't endear them to the network. But that's no different than Eisner branding everyone with a PC as well as the manufacturers as being pirates. I don't 'have' to watch the commercials, and I don't. Turner Broadcasting has so many commercials that on the very rare occiassion I watch anything on their network, I undoubtedly switch to another channel during commercials as they have SOOO many, I can actually watch two programs. There guy, IMHO, truly sounds almost like chicken little running around 'the sky is falling the sky is falling'. BTW, they also all called the VCR users 'thieves' until they lost the Betmax case and then found that the VCR video sales made more money for the studios than the theater releases. (I notice he fails to say anyone with a VCR with commercial advance is 'stealing', of which there are quite a few these days, but only names those with PVR's.) The guy sounds like he has a screw loose. Let's get him to testify before Congress. I think he'd do us a world of good as there's no way this guy is going to check his ego at the door. IMHO, he'd probably come across about as well as the Enron exec.
This guy, IMHO, has only shown he isn't capable of logical thought let along running a cable network. I, as a cable subscriber, have absolutely no contractual agreement with him, or his network, in any way, manner, shape, or form. I have an agreement to pay my cable service for a package of channels. The cable provider selects the items in the package, pay the provider, be it Turner or others, and it is THEY who have the a contract to provide that for their customers. I am under no contractual obligation to watch this @#$@#$@#$'s programs for 1 second, 1 minute, be it content or commercial. Who IS this turkey? other than, in my opinion and I'm guessing others at this point, a complete laughing stock.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree, going even further. They HAD the big 'open' sign. They had it on the shelf in the 'store'. They just hadn't put the label on the shelf yet.
I seem to recall something similar happened a few years ago with another firm in the US. They just up and admited they screwed up. This guy is, IMHO, trying to save his own butt, and not very sucessfully. To think.. that putting something on a public web server might make it public! (I seem to recall in the earlier days when browsers would screw up and like gopher, instead of the nice page you'd get the directory listing. I guess everyone was a 'hacker' then?) This guy needs a new job. Preferably sorting used IBM punched cards by hand. That should keep him suitably occupied and mentally challenged.
The letter should have been withdrawn. The 'language' of the addition was almost exact MS language. If they had no part, which IMHO, I don't believe, then Smith made himself look rather inept. He used 'code developed' example of TCP/IP and that, developed by DARPA, it 'made the internet'. It wasn't the code relased, it was the PROTOCOL that they developed that made the internet, and as long as that was an 'open standard' it could be used by any entity to produce product, be it gpl'd code or commercial code. Heck, even IF gov't funds were used for actual code, it could be used the same way. They aren't going to produce code for linux and windows and macs and solaris and Z/os that use the same CODE. If they DID develop the actual code, the linux code could go out under GPL, the windows code 'licensed' code, etc. The whole thing simply makes it look to me like they had no idea what they were talking about, IMHO, but just listening to their funding source and going for those last minute contributions before the mid term elections. Just my opinion, I could be wrong (TM Dennis Miller).
I think, IMHO, you had it right on the first one..they're flat out lying. The question is to whom, the residents or the ad agencies. They say on the one hand that they never match a box with a individual user/address and on the other that they can send a car ad or not based on whether one just purchased a new car or is near the end of the lease on a car. That means they ARE matching specific users and addresses, period... if they have that capability. They mention census data, but census data is NOT that detailed and explicit.
The real question is whether or not cable companies are even going to be interested. Since it indicates the box can request from multiple commercials (remember nothing is sent to the head end, the box is making all the decisions?) and that commercials, depending on what channel someone is viewing, don't run at the same exact point on all channels.. just what cable company is going to be willing to give up the bandwith necessary for such as massive undertaking. Is a cable company going to be willing to give up that much bandwith? If not, it seems the box is going to have to actually stage the commercials in the set top box, meaning it has to do the insertion... what is the cost of that box now (especially with the deployment of high def)?? Passing that cost on won't fly... and won't make a difference. Aren't set top boxes to be 'standardized' allowing the user to purchase their own at some point? That seems to deflate the captive situation a cable company would have. IMHO, I think I'd be watching to see if this company is going for financing or an IPO shortly... something just seems adrift.
She sure seems appropriate, since it seems they've taken the ax to the better programming after her arrival. Granted, Vivendi Universal has had it's financial problems with Messier having been at the helm (since dumped) but cost cutting of original programming, if that's what's going on, makes no sense. Why take one's higher rated programs off. Does it lower some costs? Sure. But it also makes Sci-Fi into just another run-of-the-mill cable channel with reruns. It certainly lowers the value... something I'd think they wouldn't want to do since I'm guessing a lot of the subsidiaries (possibly the whole USA net group and Universal group) may be back on the block. Maybe they could save costs by eliminating her position. I think USA would be better back in the hands of Diller and Universal back in the hands of the Bronfman's. I'm guessing they could both get them back at a lot less than they sold them to Vivendi for in the first place. (After all, they've taken a beating on Vivendi stock, that's for sure!)
I think they'll fail as well. Did they do ANY type of survery before going production? They SAY they're targeting students and techie types who would want this. They also say that 'some' may not buy because of the inability to make any copy. Gee..I wonder what group that would be.. possibly the students and techie types??
There also better be one hell of a disclaimer
Minimally, they could allow it to make DVD's at the resolution for NTSC. It's not like they're recording HDTV, which is the premise that Hollywood has been supposedly using to get the anti-copying and protection saying 'we can't let those high def images get copied even once'. So much for the real true in wierdoland... i mean Hollywood. They're STILL trying to get the betamax case reversed their own way, since they've never really accepted it. It seems redmond is sucking up to them yet again. The spines at redmond seem to be non-existant.. unless they're supported by a $ sign, IMHO. (Besides, I've still yet to hear any drums beating for 'converged' systems. Just what HP needs to be tossing money at after their merger.)
I don't see it being patented, as the thought of an image being, essentially, transfered from what is behind something to in front of an object has been discussed for eon's (or at least years). The process, however, is a lot more difficult than at least mentioned in the small news clip. You're right about blocking light behind it, in relation to the Mona Lisa.
But I believe there's a third item which comes into play. For us to see something, there are three variables involved. The source (and intensity) of the light, the object itself (and how it reflects the light) and our eyes, upon which the light falls, for us to see the image. The 'image' or the object we all see, varies to a degree based upon there we stand. To 'cloak' simply using the process mentioned cannot overcome the fact that we all observe the object differently if we're each standing in a different place, and that doesn't seem to be taken into consideration. The simpliest part of the viewers position (though there are many), is the part of depth perception. If we're three feet from the wall behind the object, and two feet from the Mona Lisa, then 'cloaking' the Mona Lisa has a 'wall', a portion which is displaced from the real one, 'appear' other than in the same plane as the real wall. Part will look further away then the part of the wall that is closer (the cloaked Mona Lisa), because the light will be generated/reflected from a different distance from the 'real' wall. One MIGHT be able to compensate that difference by altering the output and seemingly making the object, but hues/density, etc, seem elsewhere... exactly where the real wall is located. But that works one person standing in exactly the same spot for which the compensation is calculated. A person 10 degrees offset sees a different perception...I don't see how one compensates for that.
If the object is an extreme distance where depth perception is essentially nil or in a dim setting there depth is also less acute, then it is more 'believed' by the viewer. Otherwise, as long as one has two eyes, I see a problem.
I'd disagree. The 'consultants' certainly did get the publicity, which it seems they wanted. (How beneficial it's going to be at this point though is probably questionable.) They didn't have to go 'public'. This was a case of someone intentionally mucking around inside their systems. I don't care if it's the military, a company, or an individual. Once the breach is made , if intentional, and they continue, it's illegal. Once can accidently end up at a site because of a screw up in routing tables, etc, and that's not intentional. In that case, if they are notified, they'll fix the problem... and I mean fast.. in the case of the military. (On that one I speak from experience.) But the bottom line... this wasn't accidental
They're a public company, so I'm guessing no matter how 'big' or 'solvent', they'll have sufficient insurance to make a lawyer at least interested, especially if it is fairly cut and dried. IANAL, but I would guess it'd get settled fairly quickly if filed. Again, being public, these days, there's a lot of scrutiny.. they'd either have to disclose quickly or the once yawning press might go heavy covering it. If so, their stock could drop faster than Martha can make an omelet.. or a judge might just permit an injunction against any distribution until the case goes to trial, again, if he thinks it's fairly cut and dried. Again, IANAL, but I'd like to see this one go forward. (Interestingly, it seems the only way to truly get them back to a closed product would be hire new folks and require it be developed in a clean room. Simply saying they'll take out the GPL code shouldn't suffice. That'd get REAL costly, possibly nudging them to open their source and follow GPL as it was intended.)
These two authors, no matter their prior credentials, are obviously naive or simply inept, IMHO. Why do they think a political exemption would be with a candidate alone? As soon as that exemption is granted, then every supposed 'grassroots organization' (including parties of one though more often funded by anonymous groups with political agenda's) would necessarily have to be provided the same exemption to present their view. And each would have their own 'opt out' requirement, meaning it'd never end. Each candidate, spam email and their opt-out. Each organization that has a poticital view, more spam and each with their own opt-out. After all, with the cost of email, as stated, being so low, it won't only be the highly funded 'special interest' groups that present contrarian view or those funded with 'soft money'. To stop policital email to candidates ONLY would obviously be frowned upon by the Supremes. These guys, IMHO, can't see the forest for the trees, are just too naive and midguided, OR, simply working for their political benefit and don't give a damn about the end result, as long as they get their little 'exemption'. (I won't give my opinion on that one, but I sure have one. I don't think they're rocket scientists.)
Maybe around since Henry Ford II, not the original. In the 50's the early computers still had tubes and I don't believe even a transistor radio was out until late 50's at the earliest.
There may have been electric watches prior to the accurton (Hamilton, I recall had early ones), but not transistor filled. It wasn't much before that time that they were able to draw wire fine enough, for one thing, even for coils.
I'm not Donald Trump, but planning on moving in to a power vs. sail boat. The dockside power and gensets will certainly provide enough power, and the AC will be sufficient as far as temp and humidity. I plan on using a plain mid-tower, isolating it for vibration. Sailboats are going to be a little different though. They usually have less powerful gensets (if not only 12V) and possibly not the AC, and also more likely to get 'wet'. I think I'd stick with some type of laptop only on a sailboat.
I disagree. IANAL applies, and I'd sure hope one chimes in. This is a case of an exception to criminal not civil statues on hacking, such statutes being under the perview and prosecution by the state. I would think any court would be loath to permit a specific exception by a class to criminal statutes. To my knowledge, the only exceptions permitted are those written into the Constitution to insure the separation of the three branches of government. The MPAA/RIAA does not and should not qualify.
>>Like a government of 100% Democrats will be any better.
Actually, the Palm Beach folks are Democrats, who control the election board in the county. And this LaPore is the same one who was there during the 2000 elections.
But that company sure has a good one going, IMHO. You have a device, it decides elections, it is 'self auditing', and if you want someone to review and audit the system independantly, it voids the warranty, etc. I'd love to see Ms. LaPore tell a judge the first time an election is challenged 'we take the answers on faith Your Honor and no, we have no way of knowing if it's right or wrong as there's no way to audit the data and nobody can review the machines or code because there are trade secrets'.
IMHO, I have a strange feeling the 'competitive bidding' process and technically written RFP's weren't exactly the top priority in Palm Beach County in making this decision. It makes one wonder what was.
I'm not surprised a lot of this came from TNT....
....just my opinion.
Isn't the head of TNT the jerk who said, when talking of Tivo or Replay said that people had a 'contract' and HAD to watch their commercial??
This article is in the Atlanta newspaper? Hmm..home of Turner 'empire'? It's not even good journalism, as everything is taken at face value with no opposing views... it's simply propaganda.
For example:
It says the news channels have shown people accept all the various junk on the screen. I'd say nobody has a choice. Once one went with the garbage, all of them went with it at the same time. There's not a cable news channel with an alternative to see if the lack of the trash would impact viewer rates.
It says young viewers will accept all kinds of things on their screens...(like spam...my words). I'd say it's the younger generation who've most decidely they didn't like things like spam and pop-ups and been the ones who first create and use the software to trash the spam and thwart the pop-up/pop-overs/pop-unders (And I thank them, since I'm not the younger generation.)
I don't think TNT is an example of a 'test' market as they already have so many commercial minutes / hour that anyone who watches entertainment on their network already have succomb to just about anything and probably would take the additional crap. (JMHO, I've watched TNT twice in about the last year..and never made it through a program.. as they don't run programs with commercials they run commercials with a little programming.)
If it starts hitting the mainstream, I think you will find the revolt. The broadcast channels are still 'in the public interest' as far as licensing and their airwaves free. If AOL/Time Warner wants to turn them totally into infomercials with a tad of content, I'd say they can step up and pay billions for the use of the public airways.. as some in Congress wanted when they doled out the HDTV channel space...as if AOL Time Warner can afford spending billions on anything at this point. They're just want to turn TV into something as lame as AOL.
PS... the guy is right about one thing in that people have shown they can 'multi task'. The one nice thing, on occassion, that all those damn commercials do is..when they aren't in sync between a couple channels..is give one the ability to watch two complete programs at the same time on different channels simply by switching between the two during commercial breaks on the other. (Though, instead of putting up with some commercials, it pretty much insures that one doesn't see any commercials.)
If MS really was concerned, the first thing they would do is expend their resources to get IPV6 implemented around the world. That provides a basis for better authentication, identification, and then work on implementing solutions going forward. Obviously though, they won't. I agree it sounds more like the one thing MS does exceedingly well... marketing. (Of course the other reason MS wouldn't do it is that they don't own and can't 'buy' IPV6.)
Those two statements are incompatible.
I agree they are incompatible. It MAY just be a poor choice of words by the person responding. IF he meant that before the technology can be utilized in a commercial product FOR SALE (ie a non-linux type system, remeber we're talking patent/concept) THEN it may be required that a license be obtained. The confusion may be around what's meant by using the techonology 'commercially' in his response ie, whether it means someone using Linux in a commercial/business shop vs. personal use OR to incorporate the technology in a different COMMERCIAL product for sale other than Linux.
That does need to be cleared up immediately. If they go back on their initial statements about a GPL and source provided distribution, then it'd seem (though IANAL) that if they go back on their statements that some deception is involved. I wouldn't want to do that against the NSA, who was clear up front about the intent to distribute a product with the same licensing as the original code. Forget that the NSA is this mystic organization to some, it is part of the federal government. They DO have the 'deep pockets', unlike others, to pursue a case if an attempt is made to circumvent the original intent of the resulting code/product for which they were contracted, if they were indeed contracted as others have stipulated.
I agree.. just can't believe their statements. I don't care if it is improved to give me a shave and make my morning coffee when I sit down at the computer. I can't get over their comments that, IMHO, they're saying as long as they do something they feel is 'beneficial', they can violate the law and gouge due to lack of competition. Talk about arrogance, spin, and double talk. That's similar if Rockefeller said back in the old Standard Oil monopoly days 'but I'll put a service station on every corner as soon as I put all the other people out of business. I'll triple the price and gouge you, but you won't have as far to go to get gas. It's a public benefit, so you can't break up Standard Oil'. It wouldn't have floated then and shouldn't now.
I'll say that at least the true colors are showing through. (I hope some go back and check Congressional testimony too, and see if perhaps it wasn't exactly truthful.)
If I recall correctly, when industry folks testified they indicated they wanted to protect the digital formats because piracy would be permitted of exact pristine copies of the original digital format. They indicated they didn't want to interfere with VCR's, etc, but the digital originals and that people could get 'fair use' through those analog type devices; fair use didn't guarantee that copies had to be in the same resolution and quality as the original. I think they believed they could say that becuase they figured analog devices (VCR's etc) would disappear as the digital age devices replaced them.
But the truth shows through since they have decided they won't disapper fast enough. They want to now insure that these devices can't even make analog copies (so much for the 'protecting digital copies' testimony). It also means the comments that analog copies degrade as copy after copy is made so that's not a problem to them like digital copies would be. (That was lame anyway. I'm sure pirates don't make copies from copies from copies.)
They figure since digital TV will force the replacement of sets, they'll incorporate all of their controls in the sets to let them have control over all of the remaining devices, the VCR's, old PC's with tuners, etc., and that DVD audio or similar will replace CD's so they'll insert that in all the new DVD players.
The TRUTH??? It's ALL about CONTROL. They never accepted betamax and figure they can circumvent it this way. It also lets THEM decide the when, where, what you can see on their timetables and basis.
Two questions for the industry. For those of us who went the HDTV route early; If our sets don't work, are you going to replace them for us? If cell phones have these chip cops, what are YOU going to do the first time someone tries to call an ambulance and can't because the user is too close to an audio track or concert that has watermarked audio. Are you going to accept the liability? Of course not, you'll say the government made you do it. (Though it'll be interesting when a politician like a Hollings is slandered by an opponent in a speech but nobody will be able to record it so they can be exposed. ha ha ha. Maybe there IS a plus to this chip cop)
I've never pirated. I've never p2p copied music. If all this stuff comes out? I'll be the first in line looking for the black market devices. This makes 1984 look amateurish.
IF..and that's an if, Allchin was testifying accurately, then I'd say there's a real problem.
(1) If you have 'bugs' that he sites as 'national security' reasons for not disclosing API's, you FIX THE BUG. If he is testifying truthfully, has MS notified DOD and other agencies of this potential flaw?
(2) If accurate, it's the best case yet disclosed for open source in government.
(3) If he thinks not disclosing it on the stand protects national security, the idiot (IMHO), just told everyone where to look. Secondly, I'd guess more than just 2 people at MS know of the flaws. He thinks if he just doesn't say anything, it won't get out? I doubt that every MS employee has government security clearances and is provided with periodic lie dectector tests
(4) MS, if they knew about this and didn't disclose to DOD, etc, should be forced to bear the brunt financially for getting ALL government systems OFF MS software. If they've sold a single piece of software to a government agency such as DOD or NSA since knowing about it and not disclosing it should bear a HUGE legal impact. IMHO, that'd go as far as banning purchase of their software by any government agency where national security is impacted.
(5) If anyone is going to cite national security, it should be an agency deemed as such. If MS has these concerns, then it's THEIR responsibility to notify DOD, DOJ, NSA, etc. It's the responsibility of THOSE organizations to determine if such items impact national defense and, if so, make motions before the court to preclude disclosure of certain API's etc. MS, I would hope, has absolutely NO legal footing to use a 'national defense' posture in refusing to release API's. I certainly dont' remember the Constitution saying that the government AND MS are to provide for a common defense.
The ONLY 'one' (group) to come out smelling like a rose on this one.. the NSA. It seems the idea of a secure and hardened linux idea has been a very good move.
This makes me furious. and it's not about MS and the antitrust.
I'd certainly agree the patents don't seem to apply.
As with the BT hyperlink, this specifically mentions telephone line connections (and the judge, IIRC, has already indicated this probably won't fly). It seems also that it's taken what was used for interactive learning in the 80's, the interactive / computer controlled laser disk, and using that to provide the imaging and audio, probably to save significantly on transmission through modems (which it also mentions). It also gets into the nitty-gritty, even mentioning IBM PS/2, and various other devices. This seems like a nice idea 15+ yrs ago in a travel office to maybe let the customer or agent provide nice sales pics to a consumer. It simply sounds like a glorified Sabre or System One travel reservations system expanded a bit. It seems prior art alone, taking out laser disks, etc, would be the reservation systems themselves (the airlines the 'company' the travel agency the 'customer'). If you don't take out the laser disk then it doesn't apply either, since obviously the web went a different direction. (At least I don't large silver platters next to me to view every image through the web). (I actually WILL give credit to the guy who originally filed. In the early/mid 80's these patents provide a pretty interesting scenerio. Though today, the concept presented is totally antiquated.)
Even though IANAL, I'd definitely hope that the case is fought, maybe being able to consolidate all the cases into one for the judge, since there's no geographic representation concentrated in any area. (I find it interesting they think there's a continued business presence in So. Ca. unless this plumbing company is pretty big, I'd hope they could get it dismissed simply with the judge finding no continued business presence.. makey them fly all over the country if they want to).
My one BIG wish??? The judge would not only dismiss but find it so outside any consideration that the suit would be considered frivilous and the lawyer filing it (and clogging up his courtroom with this and the other 6 or so suits) would be taken to task professionally, with fees awarded to the defendants.
Just an afterthought. I wonder how much equipment mentioned under these patents can even be purchased these days? I haven't seen computer controlled laser disk systems for AGES
This also applies to fly by wire. When you fly a manually controlled aircraft like a Tiger Moth, a hang glider or a Cessna, you can feel at all times what the aircraft is doing. As soon as that gets replaced with a computerised system, you're removing the pilot's senses from the equation - a Bad Thing.
I couldn't agree with you more. Instead of the pilot 'fly the plane' the driver needs to 'drive the car'. Even with HUDS, it's in the windshield retaining some continued visual contact with the outside. If someone has to go through menus just to tune a radio or change the fan on the A/C, they are distracted both visually and mentally when driving a car. After one has driven a car (other than this one) one knows very quickly how to change the radio station or volume or change the a/c without even looking, and it's done in a fraction of a second (And some innovation like volume and channel tuning on the steering wheel makes it even easier). This reminds me a bit of 'faulty' innovation/automation from Chrysler (or possibly Lincoln) who had power steering back in the 50's that was SO 'powered' that there was no feel left in the steering wheel. It didn't last long and people considered it dangerous... you need to 'feel' the car through the wheel just like you need the feedback in a plane through the yoke or rudder pedals. They think cell phone usage can be dangerous? This sounds 100 times worse. I'm a geek/tech oriented as most here, but give me a car with buttons, easy controls, hence a generally longer MTBF, but also easier to maintain and use.
It sounds too strange or
And lastely, just who IS a professional? It's not like they have
It would seem to lead the company to be officially an 'agent or acting on behalf of a foreign government'. I don't see how it's enforced if the company has no presence in the other country. It also seems the collection plays havoc with US tax laws. If I'm a company and collect sales tax, obviously that is not ultimately taxed on federal returns. However, if I collect VAT for some foreign country, I don't see anyplace that'd legally be deductible... does anyone else??
I agree, branding viewers as 'thieves' doesn't endear them to the network. But that's no different than Eisner branding everyone with a PC as well as the manufacturers as being pirates. I don't 'have' to watch the commercials, and I don't. Turner Broadcasting has so many commercials that on the very rare occiassion I watch anything on their network, I undoubtedly switch to another channel during commercials as they have SOOO many, I can actually watch two programs. There guy, IMHO, truly sounds almost like chicken little running around 'the sky is falling the sky is falling'. BTW, they also all called the VCR users 'thieves' until they lost the Betmax case and then found that the VCR video sales made more money for the studios than the theater releases. (I notice he fails to say anyone with a VCR with commercial advance is 'stealing', of which there are quite a few these days, but only names those with PVR's.) The guy sounds like he has a screw loose. Let's get him to testify before Congress. I think he'd do us a world of good as there's no way this guy is going to check his ego at the door. IMHO, he'd probably come across about as well as the Enron exec.
This guy, IMHO, has only shown he isn't capable of logical thought let along running a cable network. I, as a cable subscriber, have absolutely no contractual agreement with him, or his network, in any way, manner, shape, or form. I have an agreement to pay my cable service for a package of channels. The cable provider selects the items in the package, pay the provider, be it Turner or others, and it is THEY who have the a contract to provide that for their customers. I am under no contractual obligation to watch this @#$@#$@#$'s programs for 1 second, 1 minute, be it content or commercial. Who IS this turkey? other than, in my opinion and I'm guessing others at this point, a complete laughing stock.