Have you any idea what sort of bandwidth requirements whole countries in Africa have, compared to the average US neighbourhood of a few thousand?
No, not really. But I would guess that a typical African national requirements would be orders of magnitudes higher than a typical US neighbourhood.
You don't build a internet backbone to match the capacity for internet usage today, but to match what you would want to do in the next couple (10?) of years.
If you have a multi-million population that you want to give telephony and a national TV network (besides internet access), you want a backbone that can handle more than a couple of 100 mbps.
Don't assume that just because you see pictures on TV of refugee camps with poor starving people sitting in the desert without shelter that this is how most normal African people live.
There is no real demand for this kind of technology in countries that are already well-cabled with more fibre-optic cable than they can ever use. Yes there is. The fibre-optic cable is great for the internet backbone, but you don't have fibre to every house in the suburbs and rural areas. This wireless tech would be truly excellent here!
With 50km point-to-point range it becomes very possible for operators to build a national IP network with local distribution via WiFi or cable.
Not really. While you could build a wireless backbone using this technology, the bandwidth would suck. And using this tech for the backbone and using cable for local distribution would be insane. This new tech is great for the last mile distribution of internet access. The backbone is better built by using fiber.
Distributing others copyrighted works is illegal. And has been for a long time. The internet does not make this legal just because it is simple to do it, or beacuse you can do it more anonymously.
When people cry that we need new laws to regulate the internet, such as DMCA, I say bullshit! Use the good old copyright laws and go after the offenders (uploaders). Don't attack the technology (napster, P2P). Don't attack the infrastructure (ISPs, censorship). Forget about DRM and all such crap. Go after the real offenders, the ones that actually distribute others copyrighted work.
This is what they should have done in the first place, years ago.
Please tell me if I understand you correctly. You are implying that if Microsoft DIDN'T attack Mike with their lawyerdogs, there would be a significant chance they might lose the right to the Microsoft trademark, right?
Not because of a single TM violation, but if you have a trademark you are supposed to police it yourself. See here for what a lawyer has to say about it. (found it on google)
So why hasn't Microsoft gone after support.mycrowsoft.com?
Are you sure they haven't? Maybe they don't know about it (yet). But once that site gets wide-spread enough, I expect M$ to act, and will probably win.
From the article: He registered the domain in August because he thought it would be cool to have a site that sounded like the famous company to show his Web designing skills.
Well, that's exactly what a trademark is supposed to protect against; someone else using your brand-name for their own purposes. And because the way the trademark law works, Microsoft has to defend their trademarks; writing letters, suing; or else they risk the trademark being generic; free for anyone to use.
Microsoft may be an evil corporation, but I can't blame them for protecting their main trademark.
That the defendants name is Mike Rowe is interesting, but I personally think it is clear that mikerowesoft is intended to look alike and benefit from the name recognition of "microsoft". Mike Rowe can easily invent another domain name that includes his name and build his own brand name without leeching on Microsoft.
How can they call the notebook M6805? What a strange misleading name! Are everyone too young to remember the Motorola 6805 microprocessor? Are they sure the notebook uses a 64-bit microprocessor?
One core runs the phone-stack, the other core runs the OS
I don't know if the Chinese thought of this, but if you are selling this in the US or Europe, this is quite clever.
It means that one chip can be running a closed-source prorietary phone app. Since it is not hackable it can pass any radio/telephone regulations. The other CPU can run a fully open-source hackable Free Linux OS where users can download new kernels all they want. And be fully GPL compliant.
So if they ever start selling Lindows in Sweden they can call it the Swedish name for windows
No, fonster (Swedish for "Windows") would be generic in Sweden. But I guess I could trademark fonster in the US.
And how did Microsoft get a trademark when X Windows was already being sold in Sweden by a number of UNIX vendors?
I don't know. Maybe X Windows wasn't trademarked in Sweden/Europe. Or the trademark holders failed to protect their trademark.
Also when did Microsoft get a trademark in Sweden? 1992 I guess.
You can check the web page for patent och registreringsverket which handles trademarks. Search here (javascript required). The search page is in Swedish. "Lydelse" = Trademark text. "Sok" = Search "Aterstall" = Clear
Also note that a trademark is registered in classes. I couldn't find a list over what the class numbers mean though.
So, now when copyright/trademark a name for product, you also copyright/trademark every word that 'sounds like' the name or is a 'synonym' of the name?
Don't mix copyright with trademark, they are two different things.
With trademarks, the answer is Yes. The judges go beyond doing strcmp(). When you apply for a trademark you do it in a specific category. Thats why we have both Apple (the computer company) and Apple (the british record company). And you probably can't get a computer trademark called "Appel". How far apart the names must be are for judges to judge. Also, when you get a trademark, you have to defend it; and sue infringers. Otherwise the trademark loses value and the term might become generic and free for all to use. So Microsoft has to protect its trademarks if they want to keep them.
I live in Sweden, and I'm not aware that Lindows is available for sale here. I don't think the general public (outside of Slashdot) knows anything about it. So if they would like to market it here, just give it a new name first. No big deal.
And seriously, I kind of agree with the judges. "Lindows" is a bit too close to "Windows". They should try to build their own name by themselves.
I think some of the opposition against cloning is because of the fear that dictators would misuse the tech to clone themselves. As in the film The boys from Brazil.
To understand why this notion is flawed, try to find the problem in:
My own personal opposition to cloning comes not from moral reasons, but because we have a population problem
That's a strange argument. Cloning is not about creating a large number of individuals. You have been watching too much Star Wars. Creating individuals is far more cheaper if done the old-fashioned way, and I don't think cloning will ever be able to compete with that.
It might be able to help parents get a child if they are otherwise infertile, but I don't think that is a threat against population control.
Unless your argument is that we can control the population by not curing people with Alzheimers, parkinsson, etc. But I don't think you ment that.
Why should I care if an application wants to install to 100MB or 150MB when I've got 50G free on the machine and another half a terabyte sitting on a fileserver ?
It isn't about disk space. It's about complexity and how it relates to security. If I'm not interested in using IM, why do I have to have it installed, with the extra security risks that comes with it?
It's about who is in control of your computer. You (the owner) or someone else.
"Bundling" an IM client (or a web browser) is logically no different to bundling a text editor, or ping, or ftp, or any number of "core applications" that have been being "bundled" with operating systems for decades.
I don't think the biggest problem is bundling. It's the unnecessary tight integration and nonmodularity that makes it impossible for the owner to remove or replace stuff on his own computer. I understand that most users can't or won't do that, but that's no excuse for removing the possibility to control the computer for those who want to.
Then there are the issues of a monopoly dictating all the bundling (the integrators like IBM or HP can't change it) and polluting and destroying open communication standards...
E.g. the software has to recognize when you start typing in a number and switch directions (The number five hundred thirty one still appears as 531 in hebrew, not 135).
Excuse me for displaying my ignorance, but surely there must be hebrew right-to-left mechanical typewriters? I assume that you could type digits on those. I doubt they could switch direction, so the typist would enter the number as 135 so that it would appear as 531, right?
So, for a hebrew touch-typist, would a word processor that changes directions always be a good thing? Should it be configurable?
"No your honour, I didn't sign that contract/made that online bank transfer/cast that online vote. A virus infected my computer and did that. And deleted itself afterwards."
And if you think about it, it could actually happen......which is why Microsoft, banks, governments, etc want to introduce "Trusted computing".
If you're waiting for the music companies to start saying that music swapping is just fine and they really don't mind, then you obviously don't understand the situation. There will be some form of DRM, period.
If you think that any kind of DRM is going to stop file sharing, then you obviously don't understand the situation. Any widespread DRM will be cracked, period. Once it is done, any teenager Joe can download the DRM-ripper program and start to share.
For the record (sorry!), I have ripped all my CDs. I store the content on-line on my personal music server. I don't (and won't) use legacy CDs anymore when I listen to music. I even have some "copy protected" CDs that Konqueror on Linux could rip just fine.
I refuse to be accused for stealing since I have bought all CDs that I have ripped. And I don't share them so I resent any piracy accusations.
God what a lying idiot he is! Apple, TRS-80, S100-systems, ABC80 (in Sweden), PET, C64, Amiga, Sinclair, etc. Plus many other that I haven't mentioned. All predates the PC. They didn't invent jack shit, they are just a bunch of shoddy cloners!
More modern GUI systems? Xerox! Mac! Microsoft don't invent. They clone, embrace, extend and extinguish, leaving the ground deserted and barren where they have passed by.
Excuse my ignorance (I'm not so familiar with Windows), but what is this IM everyone is talking about? What does it have that, say, IRC does not? Is IM important?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you any idea what sort of bandwidth requirements whole countries in Africa have, compared to the average US neighbourhood of a few thousand?
No, not really. But I would guess that a typical African national requirements would be orders of magnitudes higher than a typical US neighbourhood.
You don't build a internet backbone to match the capacity for internet usage today, but to match what you would want to do in the next couple (10?) of years.
If you have a multi-million population that you want to give telephony and a national TV network (besides internet access), you want a backbone that can handle more than a couple of 100 mbps.
Don't assume that just because you see pictures on TV of refugee camps with poor starving people sitting in the desert without shelter that this is how most normal African people live.
There is no real demand for this kind of technology in countries that are already well-cabled with more fibre-optic cable than they can ever use.
Yes there is. The fibre-optic cable is great for the internet backbone, but you don't have fibre to every house in the suburbs and rural areas. This wireless tech would be truly excellent here!
With 50km point-to-point range it becomes very possible for operators to build a national IP network with local distribution via WiFi or cable.
Not really. While you could build a wireless backbone using this technology, the bandwidth would suck. And using this tech for the backbone and using cable for local distribution would be insane. This new tech is great for the last mile distribution of internet access. The backbone is better built by using fiber.
I agree!
Distributing others copyrighted works is illegal. And has been for a long time. The internet does not make this legal just because it is simple to do it, or beacuse you can do it more anonymously.
When people cry that we need new laws to regulate the internet, such as DMCA, I say bullshit! Use the good old copyright laws and go after the offenders (uploaders). Don't attack the technology (napster, P2P). Don't attack the infrastructure (ISPs, censorship). Forget about DRM and all such crap. Go after the real offenders, the ones that actually distribute others copyrighted work.
This is what they should have done in the first place, years ago.
Does it run linux?
;-)
Actually, the Intrinsyc MicroPDA does. RTFA!
Interesting, eh?
Please tell me if I understand you correctly. You are implying that if Microsoft DIDN'T attack Mike with their lawyerdogs, there would be a significant chance they might lose the right to the Microsoft trademark, right?
Not because of a single TM violation, but if you have a trademark you are supposed to police it yourself. See here for what a lawyer has to say about it. (found it on google)
So why hasn't Microsoft gone after support.mycrowsoft.com?
Are you sure they haven't? Maybe they don't know about it (yet). But once that site gets wide-spread enough, I expect M$ to act, and will probably win.
From the article:
He registered the domain in August because he thought it would be cool to have a site that sounded like the famous company to show his Web designing skills.
Well, that's exactly what a trademark is supposed to protect against; someone else using your brand-name for their own purposes. And because the way the trademark law works, Microsoft has to defend their trademarks; writing letters, suing; or else they risk the trademark being generic; free for anyone to use.
Microsoft may be an evil corporation, but I can't blame them for protecting their main trademark.
That the defendants name is Mike Rowe is interesting, but I personally think it is clear that mikerowesoft is intended to look alike and benefit from the name recognition of "microsoft". Mike Rowe can easily invent another domain name that includes his name and build his own brand name without leeching on Microsoft.
How can they call the notebook M6805? What a strange misleading name! Are everyone too young to remember the Motorola 6805 microprocessor? Are they sure the notebook uses a 64-bit microprocessor?
How long until (1) someone makes a device to read others RFID chips (without them noticing), and (2) can create RFID tags with programmable IDs?
Really, how is the security / authentication implemented here?
One core runs the phone-stack, the other core runs the OS
I don't know if the Chinese thought of this, but if you are selling this in the US or Europe, this is quite clever.
It means that one chip can be running a closed-source prorietary phone app. Since it is not hackable it can pass any radio/telephone regulations. The other CPU can run a fully open-source hackable Free Linux OS where users can download new kernels all they want. And be fully GPL compliant.
So if they ever start selling Lindows in Sweden they can call it the Swedish name for windows
No, fonster (Swedish for "Windows") would be generic in Sweden. But I guess I could trademark fonster in the US.
And how did Microsoft get a trademark when X Windows was already being sold in Sweden by a number of UNIX vendors?
I don't know. Maybe X Windows wasn't trademarked in Sweden/Europe. Or the trademark holders failed to protect their trademark.
Also when did Microsoft get a trademark in Sweden?
1992 I guess.
You can check the web page for patent och registreringsverket which handles trademarks. Search here (javascript required). The search page is in Swedish.
"Lydelse" = Trademark text.
"Sok" = Search
"Aterstall" = Clear
Also note that a trademark is registered in classes. I couldn't find a list over what the class numbers mean though.
Lindows point is, that "Windows" is a generic term anyway
No, in Sweden (Swedish) it is not.
So, now when copyright/trademark a name for product, you also copyright/trademark every word that 'sounds like' the name or is a 'synonym' of the name?
Don't mix copyright with trademark, they are two different things.
With trademarks, the answer is Yes. The judges go beyond doing strcmp(). When you apply for a trademark you do it in a specific category. Thats why we have both Apple (the computer company) and Apple (the british record company). And you probably can't get a computer trademark called "Appel". How far apart the names must be are for judges to judge. Also, when you get a trademark, you have to defend it; and sue infringers. Otherwise the trademark loses value and the term might become generic and free for all to use. So Microsoft has to protect its trademarks if they want to keep them.
I live in Sweden, and I'm not aware that Lindows is available for sale here. I don't think the general public (outside of Slashdot) knows anything about it. So if they would like to market it here, just give it a new name first. No big deal.
And seriously, I kind of agree with the judges. "Lindows" is a bit too close to "Windows". They should try to build their own name by themselves.
I think some of the opposition against cloning is because of the fear that dictators would misuse the tech to clone themselves. As in the film The boys from Brazil .
To understand why this notion is flawed, try to find the problem in:
Ein Volk
Ein Reich
321 Fuhrers
My own personal opposition to cloning comes not from moral reasons, but because we have a population problem
That's a strange argument. Cloning is not about creating a large number of individuals. You have been watching too much Star Wars. Creating individuals is far more cheaper if done the old-fashioned way, and I don't think cloning will ever be able to compete with that.
It might be able to help parents get a child if they are otherwise infertile, but I don't think that is a threat against population control.
Unless your argument is that we can control the population by not curing people with Alzheimers, parkinsson, etc. But I don't think you ment that.
BT describes the future as looking "ever more exciting each year"
In other news, scientists have discovered that the future is nearer now than ever before.
Why should I care if an application wants to install to 100MB or 150MB when I've got 50G free on the machine and another half a terabyte sitting on a fileserver ?
It isn't about disk space. It's about complexity and how it relates to security. If I'm not interested in using IM, why do I have to have it installed, with the extra security risks that comes with it?
It's about who is in control of your computer. You (the owner) or someone else.
"Bundling" an IM client (or a web browser) is logically no different to bundling a text editor, or ping, or ftp, or any number of "core applications" that have been being "bundled" with operating systems for decades.
I don't think the biggest problem is bundling. It's the unnecessary tight integration and nonmodularity that makes it impossible for the owner to remove or replace stuff on his own computer. I understand that most users can't or won't do that, but that's no excuse for removing the possibility to control the computer for those who want to.
Then there are the issues of a monopoly dictating all the bundling (the integrators like IBM or HP can't change it) and polluting and destroying open communication standards...
E.g. the software has to recognize when you start typing in a number and switch directions (The number five hundred thirty one still appears as 531 in hebrew, not 135).
Excuse me for displaying my ignorance, but surely there must be hebrew right-to-left mechanical typewriters? I assume that you could type digits on those. I doubt they could switch direction, so the typist would enter the number as 135 so that it would appear as 531, right?
So, for a hebrew touch-typist, would a word processor that changes directions always be a good thing? Should it be configurable?
Well, the passive cooled Via mini-ITX and nano-ITX mother boards are there but the power supplies for them aren't there yet.
Yes it is!
If you buy a Mini-ITX case, most have a silent power supply included.
This is why soft digital signatures don't work.
...which is why Microsoft, banks, governments, etc want to introduce "Trusted computing".
"No your honour, I didn't sign that contract/made that online bank transfer/cast that online vote. A virus infected my computer and did that. And deleted itself afterwards."
And if you think about it, it could actually happen...
If you're waiting for the music companies to start saying that music swapping is just fine and they really don't mind, then you obviously don't understand the situation. There will be some form of DRM, period.
If you think that any kind of DRM is going to stop file sharing, then you obviously don't understand the situation. Any widespread DRM will be cracked, period. Once it is done, any teenager Joe can download the DRM-ripper program and start to share.
For the record (sorry!), I have ripped all my CDs. I store the content on-line on my personal music server. I don't (and won't) use legacy CDs anymore when I listen to music. I even have some "copy protected" CDs that Konqueror on Linux could rip just fine.
I refuse to be accused for stealing since I have bought all CDs that I have ripped. And I don't share them so I resent any piracy accusations.
I tried to go to the Forbes site, but I got some strange cyclical redirection. Sort of auto-slashdotting.
It turned out that you have to enable Javascript in your browser, otherwise you will just follow the cyclical redirections.
It's a shame that some sites are so clueless about coding so they don't work without javascript being turned on.
Gates: We invented personal computing
God what a lying idiot he is! Apple, TRS-80, S100-systems, ABC80 (in Sweden), PET, C64, Amiga, Sinclair, etc. Plus many other that I haven't mentioned. All predates the PC. They didn't invent jack shit, they are just a bunch of shoddy cloners!
More modern GUI systems? Xerox! Mac! Microsoft don't invent. They clone, embrace, extend and extinguish, leaving the ground deserted and barren where they have passed by.
Excuse my ignorance (I'm not so familiar with Windows), but what is this IM everyone is talking about? What does it have that, say, IRC does not? Is IM important?