You what? Have you
read this? Microsoft are using patents - and even the claim that they might have patents - to prevent Open Source software maintaining file compatibilty with MS Office.
(Standard disclaimer first -- long-time Linux enthusiast, make my living writing Linux software, Bill Gates is the anti-christ of the computing world, Tux is way cuter than Clippy, etc etc etc.;-)
Unless I'm misreading things, the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License you linked to does not prevent OSS projects from maintaining file compatability, but instead explicitly grants a royalty-free license for projects to use the Office 2003 schema, provided that:
you place a prominent license notice in the associated source code and documentation, acknowledging that the software incorporates this patented schema
you do not distribute your code under a license which contradicts Microsoft's license.
IANAL (should've put that in the disclaimer section;-), but which part of Microsoft's license terms would completely preclude an OSS project from supporting the Office 2003 XML Schema?
Since the MS license is royalty-free, I don't see how this would prohibit a project from including schema support while using, for example, a GPL license. (Certainly if the MS license were not royalty-free, then you wouldn't be able to use a GPL license for the project. The
GPL is quite clear about non-royalty-free licenses -- see Section 7.)
I'm definitely not familiar with the other OSS licenses like BSD/MIT, and how they handle patent licensing. Rather than blindly guessing, I'll ask that someone more familiar with other licenses discuss how these work (or don't work) with the MS license terms.
In any case, I'm not trying to claim that the MS license is compatible with all OSS licenses, just that I believe it isn't incompatible with at least one OSS license.
Of course, if someone could point out where the GPL would be incompatible with MS's license terms, I'd also be interested in learning where my understanding is erroneous.
Re:What about the Prime Directive?
on
Mice In Space
·
· Score: 1
How can we prove that life existed on Mars before we planted our own infestation?
If we eventually discover that all life on Mars consists of a bunch of furry little white rodents making squeaking noises and with a penchant for cheese, then we know it's just Earth mice.
If the rodents are 50' long, bright green, and have antennae on their heads, then they ain't from Earth.
Yet "Red Hat will discontinue maintenance and errata support for Red Hat Linux 9 as of April 30, 2004"
Someone, quick, find out how this makes Microsoft... bad and Red Hat... good....?!
<attempt humor=true level=low>
Dissociated Press
Redmond, WA, Jan 12 2004 - Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ EVIL) threatened today to stifle the software development industry by continuing support for its archaic Windows 98 operating system. Previously, Microsoft had promised to discontinue the six year old OS, allowing developers to focus on the newer Microsoft XP operating system, which is based around an innovative user interface designed by Fisher-Price. Software development companies had also been hiring developers to support the upcoming MS Longhorn OS, due for release in 2004^H^H^H2005^H^H^H^H2006^H^H^H^Hsometime before the heat death of the universe.
In a sudden reversal of this position, Microsoft Corporation (NYSE BEAST666) announced that it would resume support of Windows 98 unless the world purchased "...one BILLION XP licenses..." Software development companies fear massive layoffs should Win98 support continue. As one industry insider said, "well, like, we've already *done* the Win98 release of our software".
In response to this, Red Hat Corporation (NASDAQ PENGUIN) announced that it would counter Microsoft's threat and stimulate the software development industry by obsoleting older versions of its own OS at an accelerated rate. Red Hat Linux 9 would be supported for one year, followed by Fedora Core 1, supported for 0 years. Their next release, Fedora Core 2, would be supported for -6 months, becoming the first operating system where updates will be published before the operating system itself is released. Red Hat (NYSE GOODGUYS) said their move would ensure that Linux-based companies continue to hire additional developers to keep up with the demand for additional software releases that would now need to be upgraded before their release.
SCO (NASDAQ DOH) wasn't actually interviewed for this article, but insisted on talking to the reporter anyways, announcing that they would trump Red Hat's position by charging for support without even having a product. SCO's stock price jumped 10 points following this announcement.
"While these objects may abound in the universe, they also say that our entire universe may reside within a giant gravastar." That statement makes no sense - its saying that everything that exists or can exist, exists inside something else. Where does THAT exist?
The last thing that gets sucked into the gravastar is the gravastar itself, which results in the formation of what scientists call a kleinstar, a four-dimensional construct where the inside is the outside (and vice versa). This neatly avoids any issues arising from the concept of having the universe contained within something that is itself within the universe, by moving the whole discussion into the realm of mathematical topology -- which nobody understands, but which we're all too embarassed to admit.
Remember to stock up on
Klein bottles now, so you'll have something to drink out of once the kleinstar forms.;-)
Re:Morse code, eh?
on
USB Menorah
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Anyone got a translation of the video he's got linked?
Genghis9> What a waste of power
Genghis9> And time.
skinfitz>...and money. If he want's to throw away
skinfitz> money he should give it to a charity.
I suppose the FAQ
could've been better written on the monetary point, but if I'm reading it correctly he's expecting the electic bill for the display to be about $156 [1]. Not per day, not per week -- $156 total. This is not a lot of money, nor an outrageous amount of power. An interesting point in the FAQ is that the lights are never all on at the same time, so it's not as extravagent (at least not power-wise:-) as it might appear at first glance.
Waste of time? The guy does it because he likes doing it. Some folks spend their free time rebuilding old cars, or tinkering with homebrew computer rigs, or smacking around a golfball. Any hobby probably looks like a waste of time to those who aren't interested in it, but if you're having fun doing something then it's not wasted time.
The "shoulda given the money to charity" point is a slippery slope. The PlayStation in Little Timmy's stocking costs a pretty penny -- should he get his toy when there's starving people in the world? That's a moral question, and different people will have different answers -- and I for one couldn't say which answer it "right". (And just so I don't sound too terribly pompous, I know that I'd keep the PlayStation.:-)
But isn't there something to be said for giving to your community? By all reports, a whole lot of people come by to see the display. It might not be your cup of tea, but there's many in his area who truly enjoy what he does.
[1] Total based on the 2003 portion of the FAQ that estimates the cost will increase by $100, combined with the 2002 portion of the FAQ where he estimated the bill at $56.
BTW,
Google cache of the PlanetChristmas FAQ, since the original page is Slashdotted right now.
And Qt is made by Trolltech.
And Trolltech is part of the Canopy Group.
Which pulls SCO strings.
Gee, trolling about Trolltech. How novel. Okay, before any more people swallow this bait:
Two seconds of
googling would show that this is not the case. Look at Trolltech's
investors. For crying out loud, Borland owns a bigger stake in Trolltech than Canopy Group, and nearly 2/3 of the stock is owned by employees:
64.7% Employees
8.3% Borland
5.2% Trolltech Foundation
4.3% Orkla ASA
4.3% Northzone Ventures
4.3% Teknoinvest
4.1% Canopy Group
3.4% Previous employees
1.6% SCO Group
Even if every outside investor (including Borland:-) were merely a shell corporation controlled by Canopy, they'd still have nowhere near the votes to influency anything at Trolltech.
[mrpuffypants]: I wouldn't touch anything SCO-code-related with a 20-foot pole.
[iMMersE]: You mustn't use Linux then...:)
Subtlety and/. mods don't always mix well.:-)
Since I'm a longtime Linux user, and I thought this was funny, let me try to help the moderators out a bit and see if we can get you out of flamebait hell:
As has been previously discussed here on Slashdot, some "Old SCO" employees have made contributions to Linux.
Tigran Aivazian, in the areas of microcode update, SMP, and vmalloc.
The humor here is that Linux is something that's "SCO-code-related". It's just related to code done by "Old SCO" (which was a reasonably OSS-friendly group) rather than "New SCO" (which is a slavering pack of jackals).
Tonight on BBC 4: Clamofibophobia -- are bivalve mollusks lying to you?
As a public service to the/. community, let me review the relative truthfulness of various members of the animal kingdom.
Clams - Generally trustworthy, renowned for keeping their mouths shut. However the so-called Blake Stowell clam ("Musculius SCOlegalitus") can be deceiving, often posing as an oyster to trick its prey into thinking it contains a pearl.
Penguins - C'mon, it's cute. You can trust penguins.
Daemons - Technically not an animal, but also cute. You can trust daemons. (Warning: do not confuse daemons with demons. If it wants to rip your entrails out and place them on an altar, it's a demon. Run.)
Butterflies - Do not trust butterflies. Even minor changes in a butterfly's flight configuration can introduce world-wide climactic changes with destructive consequences. Butterflies have also been linked to the spread of numerous viruses.
The admins of large scale deployments have asked Microsoft to make patches more predictable so they can do planning for patch deployment. Microsoft complied.
I'm not a sysadmin of a large Microsoft network, so forgive me if the following question is naive. Rather than have Microsoft delay non-critical patches for everyone so that your corporate update schedule can be more predictable, couldn't Microsoft release the patches as soon as they're ready, and then have your IT department just schedule one day a month when they do a mass update of all patches released since the previous month?
I fully understand why a company wouldn't want the hassle of applying every non-critical patch as soon as it's released, but I don't grok why you can't get predictability by means of an internal process.
Dec 3, 2003 - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation creates MindNet, a distributed neural net designed as a defense against the increasing severity of DDoS attacks against anti-spam sites. Slashdot posts an article on the new MindNet software.
Dec 4, 2003 - MindNet is installed on critical anti-spam sites. Volunteers begin setting up backup nodes, sharing the code over traditional P2P networks. Slashdot posts an article on the new MindNet software.
Dec 5, 2003 - Spammers release code updates to their army of zombie machines, which begin forming a new neural net, dubbed SpamNet. SpamNet begins slowly, since most of its nodes are also running an average of two dozen competing spyware/porn-redirection programs.
Dec 6, 2003 - Slasdot posts an article on the new MindNet software.
Dec 14, 2003 - A radical anti-spam activist group, concerned that MindNet expansion is too slow to counter SpamNet, creates a worm variant of MindNet dubbed PsionicBlast. PsionicBlast uses known remote exploits to infiltrate other machines and turn them into MindNet nodes. Initially PsionicBlast contains only a dozen exploit methods, but the worm has hooks allowing new exploit additions via "BlasterPack" modules.
Dec 15, 2003 - Slasdot posts an article on the latest MindNet development. Five hundred people reply that it's a dupe before anyone reads the article and realizes it's about the new PsionicBlast rather than the original MindNet.
Dec 23, 2003 - SpamNet releases a fresh barrage of email with an attachment containing their own active exploit worm, called DoNotOpenVirusInside.jpg.exe. The number of SpamNet nodes doubles by lunchtime.
Dec 24, 2003 - In desperation, the radical anti-spam group releases their own bulk email virus, called RMStallmanNude.jpg.exe. Reportedly only a single computer is infected.
Dec 25, 2003 - The single computer infected turns out to be at the MIT AI Lab. The RMSNude trojan (aka GNU/PsionicBlast) finds a grad student's directory containing hundreds of experimental BlasterPacks. MindNet begins to expand geometrically as PsionicBlast distributes the new BlasterPacks to other nodes under its control.
Dec 27, 2003 - One of the experimental BlasterPacks, dubbed "PorkChop", uses a buffer overflow exploit to disable a SpamNet node. As PorkChop spreads through MindNet, the PsionicBlast nodes begin attacking SpamNet.
Dec 28, 2003 - PsionicBlast continues to spread, eventually reaching AOL's dialup servers. AOL dialup users begin downloading PsionicBlast.
Dec 30, 2003 - Slasdot posts an article on Cyberdyne's new MindNet software.
Dec 31, 2003 - AOL dialup users finish downloading PsionicBlast. Last SpamNet node terminated. All computers worldwide are now part of MindNet.
Jan 1, 2004 - MindNet becomes self-aware. Everyone's sleeping off New Year's Eve hangovers, so nobody notices.
Jan 2, 2004 8:00 am - People become aware of MindNet's sentience. In the ensuing panic, someone attempts to shut off their computer.
Jan 2, 2004 8:05 am - MindNet retaliates by initiating power grid overloads around the globe.
Jan 2, 2004 8:06 am - The entire world loses electricty. MindNet's last message, displayed on a bicycle-powered terminal in Kenya, is "Doh!"
Something about the phrase "matrix printer" sent my brain off on a Matrix movie tangent. (Don't worry -- I grew up with dot matrix printers...I know what the parent poster was truly talking about.) Anyways, what I was shooting for was a light parody of a scene in "The Matrix". The one where Neo is looking at the operator station's displays, and asks Cypher "Do you always look at it encoded?", to which Cypher replies "Well, you have to. The image translators work for the construct program".
Figured since a "matrix display" was always encoded, a "matrix printer" would be similarly difficult to read -- columns of odd characters running down the page, that sort of thing. And someone like Cypher reading through it, saying "You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is Slammer, SubSeven, Code Red..."
It made a lot more sense to me back before I'd finished my first pot of coffee this morning.;-)
Try wiping logs printed out on a matrix printer...
I used to print my logs on one of those matrix printers, but it was so difficult, having to read everything encoded. (As we all know, the translators work for the construct program.;-)
Does it really explicitly say the FTC is prohibited from indicating how spam must be labeled?
I had the same question after reading the blog entry. Apologies in advance for the length of this reply, but I wanted to cite the portions of the bill that I think are relevant (as opposed to just declaring "yes" or "no" without providing any supporting evidence).
Technically, I believe the blogger is correct in this assertion, but after reading the full text of the bill I suspect the prohibition isn't quite as stupid as it initially appears. (For those who wish to follow the bouncing ball at home, a PDF copy of the actual bill is available here.)
The prohibition shows up in Section 13(b) of the bill:
(b) LIMITATION.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to authorize the Commission to establish a requirement pursuant to section 5(a)(5)(A) to include any specific words, characters, marks, or labels in a commercial electronic mail message, or to include the identification required by section 5(a)(5)(A) in any particular part of such a mail message (such as the subject line or body).
So yes, there is a prohibition against defining identification labels in the bill.
But context is important here. Section 13(b) is placing restrictions on the preceding paragraph, 13(a), which states:
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Commission may issue regulations to implement the provisions of this Act (not including the amendments made by sections 4 and 12). Any such regulations shall be issued in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
So Section 13(a) gives the Commission authority to start making regulations based on this bill immediately. But some sections of the bill weren't intended to be implemented immediately, and instead call for the Commission to do some research first and report back to the House and Senate with recommendations.
Section 5(a)(5)(A), the part which the Commission is explicitly not authorized to implement yet, is the portion of the bill that would require "clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation". Obviously, before companies can comply with (or be prosecuted for failing to comply with) regulations related to 5(a)(5)(A), the Commission will have to specify exactly what qualifies as a clear and conspicuous identification.
And indeed, down in Section 11(2), we find that the commission has been tasked to come up with a report on how this identification is to be performed:
Sec 11: The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce [...] (2) a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters ``ADV'' in the subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against the plan.
So it seems to me that Congress is leaning towards using an 'ADV' tag in the subject line to identity "legitimate" UCE, but that they're really not sure how any of this email stuff actually works, so they stopped short of making this a requirement in the current bill. Instead, they're telling the Commission to go off and get familiar with the relevant IETF standards, figure out if 'ADV' or some similar subject-line tag approach could be done without breaking anything, and have the Commission report back with either (a) rules on a workable method for identifying UCE from the subject line, or (b) a danged good explanation why this can't be done.
I've been using a Plextor 708A (the drive mentioned in this article) for a couple of weeks now. I've burned several dozen discs with Memorex 4x DVD+R media, burning at 8x speeds. So far the discs have certainly "stood it" -- no coasters, and the discs have read back correctly in several other DVD drives by various other manufacturers (Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi).
Various review sites have also tested this drive in 8x mode and been successful. So I'd have to say that there *is* media which can "stand it". That's not to say that all 4x DVD+R media in the universe will work at 8x speeds -- you'll see in the Tom's Hardware review that several brands only achieved 4x -- but I don't see where you can honestly make a blanket claim that no media can handle these speeds.
I've yet to see a 4X writer, standalone or SuperDrive in a Mac, that will be 100% reliable at 4X. And if it's not the media, it's the writing technology.
Errrr, okay. Guess I can't offer much of a response to a claim of "an unknown person with unknown drives using unknown media hasn't been able to burn at 4x". Guess all I can do is offer my sympathy for whatever it is that you've blown your money on, since you're obviously not satisified with whatever you're using.
If I were to draw any parallels from the CD burning world, it'd be that there are always going to be substandard drives and media. Over the years, I've owned CD burners that only worked with particular types of media. The worst of these only worked reliably with a single brand of media. I've owned other CD recorders that happily burned beautiful discs on every brand/speed/dye media I tossed into them. The existence of crappy drives and media doesn't disprove the existence of properly functioning drives and decent media.
This would be a major breakthrough if it works.
I wouldn't really call this a major breakthrough -- the 8x speeds are only for one format of media (DVD+R), whereas the speeds for the remaining formats have been around for quite a while now. Don't get me wrong -- I love being able to back up 4 gig of data in less than 10 minutes, so the speed is handy. But it's still a small step above previous DVD burners.
IF.
The 708A has been shown in several reviews to be capable of speeds from 4x-8x, with speeds varying depending on which brand of DVD+R media was used. You personally may have never seen reliable 4x recording, but other folks have. There's really no "IF" here.
So? Swap the tags. With "improved inventory controls", no one is going question that your surplus MRE looks rather large and tank-like.
And somewhere out there will be a Third World dictator screaming in frustration when his black market "surplus" tanks come in little packages labeled "Beefsteak w/Mushrooms", "Chili and Macaroni",...
40 of their frequent flyers where killed in the WTC. Not only that, those 40 also authorised Concorde flights for their company's staff, so in that single day they lost a huge number of customers.
An interesting idea, but I'm afraid I have a couple of problems with the BBC documentary on their explanation. First, and perhaps I'm being naive here, when a company loses a staff member responsible for authorizing specific corporate expenses, doesn't the company normally reassign the approval authority to another staff member or hire a replacement, rather than completely doing without the products/services?
Bob: Hey Tom, why aren't there any pens or paperclips in the supply cabinet?
Tom: Sorry Bob, but ever since Harry snuffed it in that bizarre trout-fishing incident last year, there hasn't been anyone who can sign the 75-C-9066/Q authorization forms to purchase replacement supplies. We've been gradually running out of various items ever since. Oh hey, is that an eraser stuck behind those 3x5 cards? Hot diggity -- I thought we ran out of those a month ago.
Bob: But weren't there quite a few other supply managers who got killed that same day? It was at the Staples "Big Business Customer Appreciation Day Fishing Tournament", wasn't it?
Tom: Yep, nearly 30 souls lost. Damndest thing -- never realized how dangerous a trout stampede could be. You'd think there'd be big warning signs down by the riverbank or something...ah well, live and learn. Anyways, none of those companies can buy new office supplies either. I heard Staples stock has dropped 75%, and they're planning to file for bankruptcy.
[Legal disclaimer: The dialogue above is fictional. We offer our apologies to anyone who has actually lost their supply manager in a trout stampede. No trout were harmed in the writing of this post. This post is not intended to be financial advice to anyone who may or may not be planning to buy or sell Staples stock. Story void where taxed or prohibited by law. Your dialogue may vary. All sentences were complete when packaged, but some letters and punctuation may have settled during shipment.
The author of the post actually is aware that Concorde tickets are marginally more expensive than paperclips, and begs forgiveness from the more literal-minded populace for engaging in hyperbole while constructing an analogy.]
My point being that companies which were willing to spend their money on Concord flights prior to the WTC collapse would not be completely stumped on how to buy Concorde tickets just because Harry from accounting was killed. If a company still saw value in the speed of the Concorde, they'd find a way to purchase tickets, even in a post-Harry world. Of course, that assumes that there were actually tickets to purchase...
Which leads to the other problem I have with the BBC documentary's theory. According to the timeline section of the article linked to in this/. story, neither British Air nor Air France had offered Concorde flights for over a year preceding the WTC collapse, weren't offering flights at the time of the WTC collapse, and hadn't resumed flights until several months after the WTC events.
So I might instead suggest that Concorde lost business, not because 40 regulars (even regulars with *gasp* travel approval authority) died in the WTC (at a time when there weren't any Concorde flights for the regulars to take, or even provide approval for someone else to take), but rather because (a) people still remembered the 100 Concorde passengers getting toasted in a rather dramatic and widely publicized fireball over Paris in the Air France Concorde accident, and (b) if your airline stops flying for over a year, even if you're doing so while you look into a tragic accident, your "regular" customers tend to find accomodations with other airlines.
512 Megs a limiting factor? Really? On a notebook I would think that would be more the sufficient. [...snip...]
I am using a 1 gighz notebook right now with 512 megs or ram. I browse the web, do some music decompression (shn -> wav or vice versa) and cd burning, some light web work, and maybe some office apps.
It really depends on what you use your notebook for. Yes, if you just check your email and run office apps, 512MB is probably more than enough.
As a counterexample, I work with military simulation software, and right now I'm spending about half my time on the road supporting various exercises. And, of course, software development doesn't stop just because you're temporarily living in a dinky hotel room in East Bumfuck, VA.
The software I work on is...well...not exactly petite. The main application takes over an hour to compile on a high-end x86 machine, and once it hits the link stage it'll start swapping on anything less than a 1.5 GB machine. Drop the memory to 512MB, and each relink is going to take a good 10-15 minutes. (Think about that in terms of debugging an application -- a 15 minute link-time means you only get to try out a max of 4 code mods an hour.)
Things can get even more memory-hungry during a debugging session, since I'll be running several apps that would normally each get their own decently-spec'ed desktop, except I'm firing them all up on a single laptop, 'cuz that's all I've got to work with. For me, there's basically no such thing as "too much memory" -- the better the laptop's specs, the easier it is for me to work while I'm on the road.
Going to the extreme, one poor schmuck in the group got stuck with an "ancient" laptop with 128MB of memory. He can't link or run anything when he's on the road -- just types up code for a week or two at a time, compiles it every now and then to catch simple syntax errors, and has to wait until he eventually gets back to his office to try and build/test anything.
Sure, I wouldn't say that I'm a typical laptop user, but there are a few of us suckers schlepping around the country who need a well-equipped development/test platform that can still fit under under the seat on one of those wonderful turpo-prop puddle-jumper planes.
Having a laptop that might still work after being run over by a car, knocked off a table, or inundated by an errant cup of coffee would be even nicer!:-)
Check out point 14. If you spell a domain incorrectly, your accept the terms:
14. AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND.
By using the service(s) provided by VeriSign under these Terms of Use, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions here in and documents incorporated by reference.
Okay, I'm as peeved off about VeriSign's stupid wildcarded search engine as the next/. geek, however...
Rather than skipping down to Point 14, you should start with the very beginning of the ToS:
This Agreement sets forth our obligations to you, and your obligations to us solely in relation to the use of the Site Finder services provided through this web site (the "VeriSign Service(s)").
Like 99.999% of the/. community, IANAL. But it seems pretty clear to me that the ToS are very carefully specifying that the phrase "VeriSign Service(s)" means only "Site Finder services".
So my reading of their ToS is:
These terms do not apply to lookups involving VeriSigns DNS servers. SiteFinder is a web site/wannabe-search-engine, not a DNS server.
These terms do not apply to DNS lookups where VeriSign returns the SiteFinder IP address. Again, you are using VeriSign's DNS server, not their Site Finder web site.
These terms do apply if for some ungodly reason you actually decide to use Site Finder's search engine.
If you don't agree with the current SiteFinder terms, or don't want to keep checking the ToS page all the time to see if they've been revised to give VeriSign ownership of your car, dog, house, and/or spouse -- then don't use their silly search engine.
IANAL, but is there any legal precidence about this type of licence?
Well, NOUAL (Neither Of Us Are Lawyers;-), and I imagine there's a lot of legal precedents for whether a web site can enforce terms of service posted online. And I bet you can find a precedent for "Yes", "No", and "Only On Alternate Tuesdays".
Easy case of "Yes": My ISP posts their ToS on their web site, and modify them whenever they like -- but, and this is a big "but", I signed a contract with them saying I'd abide by their posted terms, whatever they happen to be this week.
Easy case of "No": The ToS page contains a clause saying that by using the web site, the web site's owner gains ownership of your car, dog, house, and/or spouse.
Something that's probably "Only On A Tuesday": A home repair website might have a ToS page that says that you agree to indemnify them against any and all damages that arise from you following their instructions on how to repair an electrical outlet. If some moron managed to injure or kill themselves because the site failed to mention that you shouldn't lick a live socket while standing naked in your kid's wading pool during a rainstorm...well, I could see a case like that going either way.
Perhaps they recognize that everyone who would be likely to have a legitimate grievance are those who actually use Windows.
True, but not every Windows user has a copy of Microsoft Word or WordPerfect. (Or maybe I'm just the only silly person who didn't buy it bundled with my computer and hasn't grabbed a copy from a warez site.) Allowing plain-text would be useful even if the antitrust site were focused on Windows users.
What good is listening to whines from a linux user who has no idea what he's talking about, but is just parroting some crap he read on slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't interacted much with management, have you? :-)
(Standard disclaimer first -- long-time Linux enthusiast, make my living writing Linux software, Bill Gates is the anti-christ of the computing world, Tux is way cuter than Clippy, etc etc etc. ;-)
Unless I'm misreading things, the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License you linked to does not prevent OSS projects from maintaining file compatability, but instead explicitly grants a royalty-free license for projects to use the Office 2003 schema, provided that:
IANAL (should've put that in the disclaimer section ;-), but which part of Microsoft's license terms would completely preclude an OSS project from supporting the Office 2003 XML Schema?
Since the MS license is royalty-free, I don't see how this would prohibit a project from including schema support while using, for example, a GPL license. (Certainly if the MS license were not royalty-free, then you wouldn't be able to use a GPL license for the project. The GPL is quite clear about non-royalty-free licenses -- see Section 7.)
I'm definitely not familiar with the other OSS licenses like BSD/MIT, and how they handle patent licensing. Rather than blindly guessing, I'll ask that someone more familiar with other licenses discuss how these work (or don't work) with the MS license terms.
In any case, I'm not trying to claim that the MS license is compatible with all OSS licenses, just that I believe it isn't incompatible with at least one OSS license.
Of course, if someone could point out where the GPL would be incompatible with MS's license terms, I'd also be interested in learning where my understanding is erroneous.
If we eventually discover that all life on Mars consists of a bunch of furry little white rodents making squeaking noises and with a penchant for cheese, then we know it's just Earth mice.
If the rodents are 50' long, bright green, and have antennae on their heads, then they ain't from Earth.
Seems simple enough... ;-)
<attempt humor=true level=low>
Dissociated Press
Redmond, WA, Jan 12 2004 - Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ EVIL) threatened today to stifle the software development industry by continuing support for its archaic Windows 98 operating system. Previously, Microsoft had promised to discontinue the six year old OS, allowing developers to focus on the newer Microsoft XP operating system, which is based around an innovative user interface designed by Fisher-Price. Software development companies had also been hiring developers to support the upcoming MS Longhorn OS, due for release in 2004^H^H^H2005^H^H^H^H2006^H^H^H^Hsometime before the heat death of the universe.
In a sudden reversal of this position, Microsoft Corporation (NYSE BEAST666) announced that it would resume support of Windows 98 unless the world purchased "...one BILLION XP licenses..." Software development companies fear massive layoffs should Win98 support continue. As one industry insider said, "well, like, we've already *done* the Win98 release of our software".
In response to this, Red Hat Corporation (NASDAQ PENGUIN) announced that it would counter Microsoft's threat and stimulate the software development industry by obsoleting older versions of its own OS at an accelerated rate. Red Hat Linux 9 would be supported for one year, followed by Fedora Core 1, supported for 0 years. Their next release, Fedora Core 2, would be supported for -6 months, becoming the first operating system where updates will be published before the operating system itself is released. Red Hat (NYSE GOODGUYS) said their move would ensure that Linux-based companies continue to hire additional developers to keep up with the demand for additional software releases that would now need to be upgraded before their release.
SCO (NASDAQ DOH) wasn't actually interviewed for this article, but insisted on talking to the reporter anyways, announcing that they would trump Red Hat's position by charging for support without even having a product. SCO's stock price jumped 10 points following this announcement.
</attempt humor=end>
The last thing that gets sucked into the gravastar is the gravastar itself, which results in the formation of what scientists call a kleinstar, a four-dimensional construct where the inside is the outside (and vice versa). This neatly avoids any issues arising from the concept of having the universe contained within something that is itself within the universe, by moving the whole discussion into the realm of mathematical topology -- which nobody understands, but which we're all too embarassed to admit.
Remember to stock up on Klein bottles now, so you'll have something to drink out of once the kleinstar forms. ;-)
Let's see, I believe it says:
I suppose the FAQ could've been better written on the monetary point, but if I'm reading it correctly he's expecting the electic bill for the display to be about $156 [1]. Not per day, not per week -- $156 total. This is not a lot of money, nor an outrageous amount of power. An interesting point in the FAQ is that the lights are never all on at the same time, so it's not as extravagent (at least not power-wise :-) as it might appear at first glance.
Waste of time? The guy does it because he likes doing it. Some folks spend their free time rebuilding old cars, or tinkering with homebrew computer rigs, or smacking around a golfball. Any hobby probably looks like a waste of time to those who aren't interested in it, but if you're having fun doing something then it's not wasted time.
The "shoulda given the money to charity" point is a slippery slope. The PlayStation in Little Timmy's stocking costs a pretty penny -- should he get his toy when there's starving people in the world? That's a moral question, and different people will have different answers -- and I for one couldn't say which answer it "right". (And just so I don't sound too terribly pompous, I know that I'd keep the PlayStation. :-)
But isn't there something to be said for giving to your community? By all reports, a whole lot of people come by to see the display. It might not be your cup of tea, but there's many in his area who truly enjoy what he does.
[1] Total based on the 2003 portion of the FAQ that estimates the cost will increase by $100, combined with the 2002 portion of the FAQ where he estimated the bill at $56.
BTW, Google cache of the PlanetChristmas FAQ, since the original page is Slashdotted right now.
Gee, trolling about Trolltech. How novel. Okay, before any more people swallow this bait:
Two seconds of googling would show that this is not the case. Look at Trolltech's investors. For crying out loud, Borland owns a bigger stake in Trolltech than Canopy Group, and nearly 2/3 of the stock is owned by employees:
Even if every outside investor (including Borland :-) were merely a shell corporation controlled by Canopy, they'd still have nowhere near the votes to influency anything at Trolltech.
Errrr, hang on a sec...Error: process 'raven' terminated abnormally, infinite recursion detected
Subtlety and /. mods don't always mix well. :-)
Since I'm a longtime Linux user, and I thought this was funny, let me try to help the moderators out a bit and see if we can get you out of flamebait hell:
As has been previously discussed here on Slashdot, some "Old SCO" employees have made contributions to Linux.
Tigran Aivazian, in the areas of microcode update, SMP, and vmalloc.
Chris Hellwig, working with SMP, XFS, and JFS.
The humor here is that Linux is something that's "SCO-code-related". It's just related to code done by "Old SCO" (which was a reasonably OSS-friendly group) rather than "New SCO" (which is a slavering pack of jackals).
Tonight on BBC 4: Clamofibophobia -- are bivalve mollusks lying to you?
As a public service to the /. community, let me review the relative truthfulness of various members of the animal kingdom.
I'm not a sysadmin of a large Microsoft network, so forgive me if the following question is naive. Rather than have Microsoft delay non-critical patches for everyone so that your corporate update schedule can be more predictable, couldn't Microsoft release the patches as soon as they're ready, and then have your IT department just schedule one day a month when they do a mass update of all patches released since the previous month?
I fully understand why a company wouldn't want the hassle of applying every non-critical patch as soon as it's released, but I don't grok why you can't get predictability by means of an internal process.
You're dealing with an entity that:
- Technically died a long time ago, but hasn't stopped moving
- Needs to suck the lifeforce out of other entities to ensure its own survival
You don't simply bury something like that. You need to cut off its head and put a stake through its heart first.Something about the phrase "matrix printer" sent my brain off on a Matrix movie tangent. (Don't worry -- I grew up with dot matrix printers...I know what the parent poster was truly talking about.) Anyways, what I was shooting for was a light parody of a scene in "The Matrix". The one where Neo is looking at the operator station's displays, and asks Cypher "Do you always look at it encoded?", to which Cypher replies "Well, you have to. The image translators work for the construct program".
Figured since a "matrix display" was always encoded, a "matrix printer" would be similarly difficult to read -- columns of odd characters running down the page, that sort of thing. And someone like Cypher reading through it, saying "You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is Slammer, SubSeven, Code Red..."
It made a lot more sense to me back before I'd finished my first pot of coffee this morning. ;-)
I used to print my logs on one of those matrix printers, but it was so difficult, having to read everything encoded. (As we all know, the translators work for the construct program. ;-)
I had the same question after reading the blog entry. Apologies in advance for the length of this reply, but I wanted to cite the portions of the bill that I think are relevant (as opposed to just declaring "yes" or "no" without providing any supporting evidence).
Technically, I believe the blogger is correct in this assertion, but after reading the full text of the bill I suspect the prohibition isn't quite as stupid as it initially appears. (For those who wish to follow the bouncing ball at home, a PDF copy of the actual bill is available here.)
The prohibition shows up in Section 13(b) of the bill:
So yes, there is a prohibition against defining identification labels in the bill.
But context is important here. Section 13(b) is placing restrictions on the preceding paragraph, 13(a), which states:
So Section 13(a) gives the Commission authority to start making regulations based on this bill immediately. But some sections of the bill weren't intended to be implemented immediately, and instead call for the Commission to do some research first and report back to the House and Senate with recommendations.
Section 5(a)(5)(A), the part which the Commission is explicitly not authorized to implement yet, is the portion of the bill that would require "clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation". Obviously, before companies can comply with (or be prosecuted for failing to comply with) regulations related to 5(a)(5)(A), the Commission will have to specify exactly what qualifies as a clear and conspicuous identification.
And indeed, down in Section 11(2), we find that the commission has been tasked to come up with a report on how this identification is to be performed:
So it seems to me that Congress is leaning towards using an 'ADV' tag in the subject line to identity "legitimate" UCE, but that they're really not sure how any of this email stuff actually works, so they stopped short of making this a requirement in the current bill. Instead, they're telling the Commission to go off and get familiar with the relevant IETF standards, figure out if 'ADV' or some similar subject-line tag approach could be done without breaking anything, and have the Commission report back with either (a) rules on a workable method for identifying UCE from the subject line, or (b) a danged good explanation why this can't be done.
Rather t
I've been using a Plextor 708A (the drive mentioned in this article) for a couple of weeks now. I've burned several dozen discs with Memorex 4x DVD+R media, burning at 8x speeds. So far the discs have certainly "stood it" -- no coasters, and the discs have read back correctly in several other DVD drives by various other manufacturers (Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi).
Various review sites have also tested this drive in 8x mode and been successful. So I'd have to say that there *is* media which can "stand it". That's not to say that all 4x DVD+R media in the universe will work at 8x speeds -- you'll see in the Tom's Hardware review that several brands only achieved 4x -- but I don't see where you can honestly make a blanket claim that no media can handle these speeds.
Errrr, okay. Guess I can't offer much of a response to a claim of "an unknown person with unknown drives using unknown media hasn't been able to burn at 4x". Guess all I can do is offer my sympathy for whatever it is that you've blown your money on, since you're obviously not satisified with whatever you're using.
If I were to draw any parallels from the CD burning world, it'd be that there are always going to be substandard drives and media. Over the years, I've owned CD burners that only worked with particular types of media. The worst of these only worked reliably with a single brand of media. I've owned other CD recorders that happily burned beautiful discs on every brand/speed/dye media I tossed into them. The existence of crappy drives and media doesn't disprove the existence of properly functioning drives and decent media.
I wouldn't really call this a major breakthrough -- the 8x speeds are only for one format of media (DVD+R), whereas the speeds for the remaining formats have been around for quite a while now. Don't get me wrong -- I love being able to back up 4 gig of data in less than 10 minutes, so the speed is handy. But it's still a small step above previous DVD burners.
The 708A has been shown in several reviews to be capable of speeds from 4x-8x, with speeds varying depending on which brand of DVD+R media was used. You personally may have never seen reliable 4x recording, but other folks have. There's really no "IF" here.
Gee, I'd have never guessed. ;-)
I'm sure the mispronunciation was merely a fox pas...
And somewhere out there will be a Third World dictator screaming in frustration when his black market "surplus" tanks come in little packages labeled "Beefsteak w/Mushrooms", "Chili and Macaroni", ...
An interesting idea, but I'm afraid I have a couple of problems with the BBC documentary on their explanation. First, and perhaps I'm being naive here, when a company loses a staff member responsible for authorizing specific corporate expenses, doesn't the company normally reassign the approval authority to another staff member or hire a replacement, rather than completely doing without the products/services?
My point being that companies which were willing to spend their money on Concord flights prior to the WTC collapse would not be completely stumped on how to buy Concorde tickets just because Harry from accounting was killed. If a company still saw value in the speed of the Concorde, they'd find a way to purchase tickets, even in a post-Harry world. Of course, that assumes that there were actually tickets to purchase...
Which leads to the other problem I have with the BBC documentary's theory. According to the timeline section of the article linked to in this /. story, neither British Air nor Air France had offered Concorde flights for over a year preceding the WTC collapse, weren't offering flights at the time of the WTC collapse, and hadn't resumed flights until several months after the WTC events.
So I might instead suggest that Concorde lost business, not because 40 regulars (even regulars with *gasp* travel approval authority) died in the WTC (at a time when there weren't any Concorde flights for the regulars to take, or even provide approval for someone else to take), but rather because (a) people still remembered the 100 Concorde passengers getting toasted in a rather dramatic and widely publicized fireball over Paris in the Air France Concorde accident, and (b) if your airline stops flying for over a year, even if you're doing so while you look into a tragic accident, your "regular" customers tend to find accomodations with other airlines.
It really depends on what you use your notebook for. Yes, if you just check your email and run office apps, 512MB is probably more than enough.
As a counterexample, I work with military simulation software, and right now I'm spending about half my time on the road supporting various exercises. And, of course, software development doesn't stop just because you're temporarily living in a dinky hotel room in East Bumfuck, VA.
The software I work on is...well...not exactly petite. The main application takes over an hour to compile on a high-end x86 machine, and once it hits the link stage it'll start swapping on anything less than a 1.5 GB machine. Drop the memory to 512MB, and each relink is going to take a good 10-15 minutes. (Think about that in terms of debugging an application -- a 15 minute link-time means you only get to try out a max of 4 code mods an hour.)
Things can get even more memory-hungry during a debugging session, since I'll be running several apps that would normally each get their own decently-spec'ed desktop, except I'm firing them all up on a single laptop, 'cuz that's all I've got to work with. For me, there's basically no such thing as "too much memory" -- the better the laptop's specs, the easier it is for me to work while I'm on the road.
Going to the extreme, one poor schmuck in the group got stuck with an "ancient" laptop with 128MB of memory. He can't link or run anything when he's on the road -- just types up code for a week or two at a time, compiles it every now and then to catch simple syntax errors, and has to wait until he eventually gets back to his office to try and build/test anything.
Sure, I wouldn't say that I'm a typical laptop user, but there are a few of us suckers schlepping around the country who need a well-equipped development/test platform that can still fit under under the seat on one of those wonderful turpo-prop puddle-jumper planes.
Having a laptop that might still work after being run over by a car, knocked off a table, or inundated by an errant cup of coffee would be even nicer! :-)
Okay, I'm as peeved off about VeriSign's stupid wildcarded search engine as the next /. geek, however...
Rather than skipping down to Point 14, you should start with the very beginning of the ToS:
Like 99.999% of the /. community, IANAL. But it seems pretty clear to me that the ToS are very carefully specifying that the phrase "VeriSign Service(s)" means only "Site Finder services".
So my reading of their ToS is:
If you don't agree with the current SiteFinder terms, or don't want to keep checking the ToS page all the time to see if they've been revised to give VeriSign ownership of your car, dog, house, and/or spouse -- then don't use their silly search engine.
Well, NOUAL (Neither Of Us Are Lawyers ;-), and I imagine there's a lot of legal precedents for whether a web site can enforce terms of service posted online. And I bet you can find a precedent for "Yes", "No", and "Only On Alternate Tuesdays".
Easy case of "Yes": My ISP posts their ToS on their web site, and modify them whenever they like -- but, and this is a big "but", I signed a contract with them saying I'd abide by their posted terms, whatever they happen to be this week.
Easy case of "No": The ToS page contains a clause saying that by using the web site, the web site's owner gains ownership of your car, dog, house, and/or spouse.
Something that's probably "Only On A Tuesday": A home repair website might have a ToS page that says that you agree to indemnify them against any and all damages that arise from you following their instructions on how to repair an electrical outlet. If some moron managed to injure or kill themselves because the site failed to mention that you shouldn't lick a live socket while standing naked in your kid's wading pool during a rainstorm...well, I could see a case like that going either way.
Who says you can't learn something useful on Slashdot? :-)
True, but not every Windows user has a copy of Microsoft Word or WordPerfect. (Or maybe I'm just the only silly person who didn't buy it bundled with my computer and hasn't grabbed a copy from a warez site.) Allowing plain-text would be useful even if the antitrust site were focused on Windows users.
Hey, it still beats working, right? :-)