Close enough - which of course isn't close to accurate since the Intenet evolved from Arpanet which has been around since 69.
But, what did happen in the early 90s was that the Internet was expanded from a research entity to the publically available Internet. It required an act of Congress to open the closed, research network to commercial entities which sold access to the public. This allowed the Internet as we know it today with access available to all (who can pay) to develop.
But classless addressing allows any of these to be properly subnetted. There's nothing special about the private blocks that dosn't allow them to be cut up into lots of smaller private networks.
The concern is that patches that a developer might write (and thus holds a copyright interest in) and submit to LKML from a Hotmail account might be seen as being licensed to Microsoft/Hotmail. The license allows MS to use this code. It does not assign the copyright in the code to Hotmail which is what would be required if MS were to use it to restrict distribution (which they couldn't do anyway because of the GPL.) Assignments of copyright *must* be made in writing to be legal.
Just anyone mailing pieces of source code around would have no effect if they have no copyright in the code.
This adds fuel to the first of the Microsoft Antitrust appeal doesn't it?
No. The facts of the case are those presented at trial. It's very difficult to get an appeals court to consider new facts that didn't come out at trial. That is sometimes grounds for a new trial, but often it is not.
The appeal will be decided based on the facts in the court record.
The pertinant part being:
Hotmail will not monitor, edit, or disclose the contents of a user's private communications unless required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:... (2) protect and defend the rights or property of Hotmail
If they think your patch is their property or a right they posess, they will defend that right as they see fit.
Now let us move on to the NYT. They buy a piece of work from a free lance writer for use in their publication. They publish it according to the contract and pay the writer for the right to do so, the have in fact purchased certain distribution rights from the original writer. Now, the NYT wants to take this article that they have purchased and move it to another format for distribution that they will again make a profit on.
No one is making money on web content these days. Web publishing, in most cases, is a great big black hole sucking in cash.
Since they purchased these rights, I would assume that it would again come down to which distribution rights were purchased. If the NYT purchased the right to distribute the works in this digital format, then they are OK. However, if they didn't, then they owe the writers some money... as they made money off of selling their work again in a differnt format than originally agreed upon.
The legal issue here is whether the web version of the Times is a revision of the dead tree edition. SCOTUS is also concerned with the Lexis clipping service which lawyers and judges use frequently in their work. If these web publishing rights are not included when the Times purchases free-lance work, then this source of information dries up as well.
The cryptography has been done to brute force all of the keys. I have no doubt that Frank Stevenson, for example, knows all of the keys as do many other people.
In fact, you don't even need a player key to get the title key. The player key unlocks the title key area so that you can use an IOCTL to read the title key. But the title key itself can be found by analysing the encrypted portions of the VOBs. The player keys aren't even needed anymore.
The keys are not the issue. The New York case isn't about distributing a key, it's about distributing the software that unencrypts a VOB so that it can be played on an Open Source player.
But because of the broad definition of "DeCSS" being used by the court, it includes the Open Source DVD player from LiViD as well as various perl implemetations and oprime numbers flaoting around the net these days.
DeCSS, even as a Windows program, is important because it is a proof of concept. It tells the reader how to read encrypted DVDs.
This sounds like a serious fraud charge might be hanging over his head. I wonder if the FBI is on the case. And can they trust that the perp hasn't modified Carnivore using his MS Cert?
The sad thing is, the law actually goes the other way and protects THEM from YOUR possible DECRYPTING of the information.
Don't misstate the DCMA which is bad enough as it is. If a Technical Protection Measure is an effective access control (where "effective" dosn't mean that it works well or is hard to crack) protects a copyrighted work, then you may not circumvent it without authorization.
Earthlink would have a very hard time demonstrating that the information they send is copyrightable because it is just a set of facts about your machine. Therefore, the encryption is not a section 1201 TPM. Furthermore, Fair Use is an affirmative defence.
In their briefs filed with the court in question, B&N uses the example of a Compuserve stock quote system which allowed a subscriber to order (with payment charged to their CIS account) a stock chart with a single command. This example seems to posess all of the claims of the Amazon patent and was influential in getting the preliminary injunction quashed.
I read the documentation for the distribution on the Transmeta Web Site. It is a development environment to easily make an appliance-type device from a Linux kernel. While it has direct support for the features of the Transmeta chip it looks like it will build for a variety of embedded devices. This is a useful tool for anyone looking at a custom embedded device for an end user.
How difficult would it be for Slashdot/Parent corporation to mirror a page and cache it's images before posting a story. Then they could publish the link to the original site AND provide the alternates (behind a relay on distributed servers) in the event that the slashdot effect caved the originating server.
Back in the 40s or 50s, some mathmatician guy (not J'VonN', although he was somewhat involved?) proved that NNs/digital logic is isomorphic to some sort of logical calculus stuff. (Sorry for the lack of details.) People got excited because, philosophically, they thought that Formal Logic = Thought. Nowadays, most of us would be kinda skeptical of that assumption.
That sounds like Alan Turing. He utilized an idealized, finite-state machine called a Turing Machine to prove a bunch of interesting theorems about logic. He conceived of the Turing Test by which a machine would prove that it thought by sucessfully convincing a remote human that it was a real person. Today, we probably wouldn't consider that as sufficient evidence of thought.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't even be as unobtrusive in pants pocket.
"I hear you've got an Itsy in your pocket."
Close enough - which of course isn't close to accurate since the Intenet evolved from Arpanet which has been around since 69.
But, what did happen in the early 90s was that the Internet was expanded from a research entity to the publically available Internet. It required an act of Congress to open the closed, research network to commercial entities which sold access to the public. This allowed the Internet as we know it today with access available to all (who can pay) to develop.
But classless addressing allows any of these to be properly subnetted. There's nothing special about the private blocks that dosn't allow them to be cut up into lots of smaller private networks.
The concern is that patches that a developer might write (and thus holds a copyright interest in) and submit to LKML from a Hotmail account might be seen as being licensed to Microsoft/Hotmail. The license allows MS to use this code. It does not assign the copyright in the code to Hotmail which is what would be required if MS were to use it to restrict distribution (which they couldn't do anyway because of the GPL.) Assignments of copyright *must* be made in writing to be legal.
Just anyone mailing pieces of source code around would have no effect if they have no copyright in the code.
This adds fuel to the first of the Microsoft Antitrust appeal doesn't it?
No. The facts of the case are those presented at trial. It's very difficult to get an appeals court to consider new facts that didn't come out at trial. That is sometimes grounds for a new trial, but often it is not.
The appeal will be decided based on the facts in the court record.
The pertinant part being: ... (2) protect and defend the rights or property of Hotmail
Hotmail will not monitor, edit, or disclose the contents of a user's private communications unless required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:
If they think your patch is their property or a right they posess, they will defend that right as they see fit.
Someone posted a message to the Linux Kernel Mailing List telling people not to use Hotmail for patches to the kernel.
It may be an overreaction, but it's probably still a good idea. It would be a messy court fight if it ever came to that.
And the Japanese who also put the year first.
Now let us move on to the NYT. They buy a piece of work from a free lance writer for use in their publication. They publish it according to the contract and pay the writer for the right to do so, the have in fact purchased certain distribution rights from the original writer. Now, the NYT wants to take this article that they have purchased and move it to another format for distribution that they will again make a profit on.
No one is making money on web content these days. Web publishing, in most cases, is a great big black hole sucking in cash.
Since they purchased these rights, I would assume that it would again come down to which distribution rights were purchased. If the NYT purchased the right to distribute the works in this digital format, then they are OK. However, if they didn't, then they owe the writers some money... as they made money off of selling their work again in a differnt format than originally agreed upon.
The legal issue here is whether the web version of the Times is a revision of the dead tree edition. SCOTUS is also concerned with the Lexis clipping service which lawyers and judges use frequently in their work. If these web publishing rights are not included when the Times purchases free-lance work, then this source of information dries up as well.
Well, that got mangled beyond all recognition.
Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day
Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day?
Also, it looks as if the adult flavor is Chocolate Raspberry. Words cannot express my utter revulsion at the concept. Maybe I'm not adult enough.
Try a high quality hot chocolate mixed with 2 oz. Chambord (raspberry liquor). That might change your mind.
And just how much is a soul going for these days? ;^)
The cryptography has been done to brute force all of the keys. I have no doubt that Frank Stevenson, for example, knows all of the keys as do many other people.
In fact, you don't even need a player key to get the title key. The player key unlocks the title key area so that you can use an IOCTL to read the title key. But the title key itself can be found by analysing the encrypted portions of the VOBs. The player keys aren't even needed anymore.
The keys are not the issue. The New York case isn't about distributing a key, it's about distributing the software that unencrypts a VOB so that it can be played on an Open Source player.
But because of the broad definition of "DeCSS" being used by the court, it includes the Open Source DVD player from LiViD as well as various perl implemetations and oprime numbers flaoting around the net these days.
DeCSS, even as a Windows program, is important because it is a proof of concept. It tells the reader how to read encrypted DVDs.
This sounds like a serious fraud charge might be hanging over his head. I wonder if the FBI is on the case. And can they trust that the perp hasn't modified Carnivore using his MS Cert?
He says that it is not an affirmative defense to a Section 1201(b) trafficing violation.
The sad thing is, the law actually goes the other way and protects THEM from YOUR possible DECRYPTING of the information.
Don't misstate the DCMA which is bad enough as it is. If a Technical Protection Measure is an effective access control (where "effective" dosn't mean that it works well or is hard to crack) protects a copyrighted work, then you may not circumvent it without authorization.
Earthlink would have a very hard time demonstrating that the information they send is copyrightable because it is just a set of facts about your machine. Therefore, the encryption is not a section 1201 TPM. Furthermore, Fair Use is an affirmative defence.
In their briefs filed with the court in question, B&N uses the example of a Compuserve stock quote system which allowed a subscriber to order (with payment charged to their CIS account) a stock chart with a single command. This example seems to posess all of the claims of the Amazon patent and was influential in getting the preliminary injunction quashed.
I read the documentation for the distribution on the Transmeta Web Site. It is a development environment to easily make an appliance-type device from a Linux kernel. While it has direct support for the features of the Transmeta chip it looks like it will build for a variety of embedded devices. This is a useful tool for anyone looking at a custom embedded device for an end user.
How difficult would it be for Slashdot/Parent corporation to mirror a page and cache it's images before posting a story. Then they could publish the link to the original site AND provide the alternates (behind a relay on distributed servers) in the event that the slashdot effect caved the originating server.
It's a FAQ.
Sorry, it's a panix.com in joke.
Back in the 40s or 50s, some mathmatician guy (not J'VonN', although he was somewhat involved?) proved that NNs/digital logic is isomorphic to some sort of logical calculus stuff. (Sorry for the lack of details.) People got excited because, philosophically, they thought that Formal Logic = Thought. Nowadays, most of us would be kinda skeptical of that assumption.
That sounds like Alan Turing. He utilized an idealized, finite-state machine called a Turing Machine to prove a bunch of interesting theorems about logic. He conceived of the Turing Test by which a machine would prove that it thought by sucessfully convincing a remote human that it was a real person. Today, we probably wouldn't consider that as sufficient evidence of thought.
The article is in the March '01 issue of Scientific American.