I think that the DoJ might not look favorably on such a merger. Plus the Transmeta investors stand to make a whole lot more with the IPO route even with current market shakiness or perhaps by waiting for a less shaky market sometime in the future.
Samba runs more than one daemon to handle different types of requests. Having multiple CPUs lets the daemons communicate more effectively than having them share one CPU. I think the slower dual-CPU setup is the way to go. Ideally, you'd like smbd to remain in cache on one CPU while the other pops around between nmdb and the kernel filesystem layer. Multiple CPU's let processes with multiple threads to work more effectively and that's exactly what you have with a fileserver.
Grrrrr. Is there no one left that calls C++ C sharp? (Imagine overstriking the two plusses to form a # sign.)
Re:They released code under GPL....
on
Hacking The Tivo
·
· Score: 2
The README file on that page says that the kernels were current as of version 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 of the TiVo software. My TiVo is currently running version 1.2.3.
That was a district court decision in Eldred v. Reno. It is scheduled for hearings in from of the circuit court of appeals in July. There is more information on the OpenLaw site.
I can't fault you for the decision that you made. It's very tough for an individual to face up to a corporation with extensive financial resources.
A look at the DCMA might be in order. Someone can preserve their ISP exemption by taking down copyrighted materials when they are notified that they are infringing. The only material you were hosting was a web page listing an item for sale. I presume that the web page itself was not a copyright infringement -- i.e. not lifted in violation of copyright from someother person. Since all you are hosting is the web page, I don't think that there's a DCMA issue here.
Now the item advertised for sale may not have been legit from a copyright stance, but since it was not in your posession you have no means to determine if it was a copyright violation for the copyright holder to offer it for sale.
There may be an implicit contract by virtue of the fact that you are being paid for the survey. For there to be a contract, there needs to be consideration, an agreement and indication of acceptance. You may already have implicitly agreed to abide whatever they have put in their documentation by your actions in filling out a survey, say. Ask yourself this, if they were to try to deny paying you, would you feel that they were obligated to based on what you've already done? If so, you are probably obligated not to disclose what you know.
A truly conscientious stand would be to refuse your pay. Are you willing to do that?
Re:Play Rock, Paper, Scissors over the phone
on
Rock-Paper-Scissors
·
· Score: 1
In order to view the source, etc. you need to get a free login of their "developer studio" - but if you don't want to do that, here's how to play:
In a futile attempt to maximize karma, eries perpetrated the first Slashdotting of a PBX.
Some of us have been trying for a HRFP (Highly Rated First Post) for quite a while. My best was only a three. But I have seen one or two 5s. It's just one way to take/. back from the trolls.
There can be no further doubt that shrinkwrap licenses are a big, fat, ugly problem, and must not under any circumstances be allowed to stand.
I understand that shrinkwrap licenses are not something that you are happy with, but they have been allowed to stand. In Pro CD v. Zeidenberg the Court of Appeals of the 7th Circuit has held that shrinkwrap licenses are enforcable.
I note that the appeals decision specifically states that "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un-conscionable)." Now I agree that many clauses of shrinkwrap agreements are un-conscionable as they take away rights granted by Federal Copyright law. I hope that we get a good case to test some of these clauses.
Is there any word as to what this will do to the expected release date?
Not a thing. This is an incomplete plug-in for an already established API sontributed by persons outside the core Mozilla development team. A link to the plan for the next few months was posted on/. in just the past week.
Two more milestones are planned: M13 is in feature freeze and should be out within a week after all the regressions are fixed. M14 feature freeze is 2/15, that should be alpha for Seamonkey. A Netscape branded beta should follow that (i.e. with all of the other pieces like SSL included). The last step is a final Mozilla followed by a final Netscape.
Your "freedom of speech" example is not a good one because there is no specific Federal law declaring unlimited free speech rights. Even if you do sign an NDA, you can be held accountable for your speech, but you can't be prevented from speaking. "Prior restraint" has been held to be unconstitutional.
Let's say that in the course of your work, you discover a situation which has implications for the physical safety of others (perhaps a bug in a medical device). You argue for complete and immediate disclosure of the bug, but the company with which you have contracted has you under NDA and refuses to ackoledge the bug. You chose to violate your NDA and make a public disclosure. There may be consequences of your speech, but you can't be locked up to prevent you from speaking.
There is a case (ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) ) which ruled that "shrinkwrap licenses" are valid contracts. What is necessary for a valid contract is a "meeting of the minds" i.e. the terms must be available and agreeded upon. One means of demonstrating a meeting of the minds is a signature, but it is not the only way. Behavior can constitute an acceptance of terms.
The ruling was that shrinkwrap licenses are valid on their face. It is not a ruling that all terms in shrinkwrap licenses are equally valid and enforcable. The important part of the ruling is that terms of a shrinkwrap license that are "objectionable ongrounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un-conscionable)" are unenforcable.
is that someone who has the power to read arbitrary memory or server binaries/configs on disk has the power to replace the server with a trojan that (a) stores the secret information and then (b) calls the original server or (c) just reads the credit cards right out of the database. There ain't no hardware encryption solution that is going to protect you in that case. The "security vulnerability" which this supposedly reveals in order to sell their hardware, actually hurts them too. But you didn't read that in the article.
The claim will be made when the US vs. MS trial reopens that the judge's "finding of fact" is already out of date and that Linux is now a serious competitor to Windows. This column is one of the things that MS will point to in making that point.
Mr. Livingston is still firmly in MS' pocket. That he has conformed nicely to the party line is just further evidence of that.
My point is the these provisions of UCITA conflict with Federal Law. They should be struck down as such.
I agree that most people would think that they are enforcable because most beople think that all the provisions in current EULAs are enforcable. Whatcha gonna do?
Actually, one can't use a contract to get around a Federal Law. For example, Federal Law requires certain stafty standards in the workplace. A union can not negotiate those standards away in exchange for benefits or pay.
It is a well established matter of law that contract provisions "contrary to public policy" are unenforcable. I'm familiar with this in the context of insurance law. Insurance contracts, like EULAs, are "contracts of adhesion" -- you either accept the contract as offered or decline. You can not negotiate the terms. Insurance law requires that I offer a "nonforfeiture provision" (i.e cash value) on certain types of insurance contracts. It would be cheaper if I could offer you an insurance contract without the cash surrender benefit, but I can't legally do that. Even if I wrote a contract without such a benefit, you could claim it. The contract can not take away rights that you have under law.
Similarly (though the law has not been tested in a case that I could site for you) I think that a strong case could be made that Copyright gives you certain rights and that a contract (and especially a contract of adhesion like an EULA) can not take away rights that you have by virtue of a Federal Law.
Links? Michael Froomkin's page has information and links to a lot of current Internet legal issues.
There is no single test. This Copyright FAQ (though somewhat out of date) addresses most of the issues. Please note sections 2.8 and 3.7. There are several other links of interest on this page.
No, the defense made the entirely trythful statement the one does not need DeCSS to pirate DVDs. The real point is that DeCSS does not really lower the bar to DVD pirates. Bandwidth and storage constraints remain.
The California case is already dead. It was based on a trade secrets argument and the court laughed when they asked it to stop the dissemination of the trade secrets. The MPAA understands this which is why the new cases were filed in Federal courts.
In order to legally reverse engineer something a clean room approach has to be taken, otherwise you're plaguerising and not reverse engineering.
Actually, that's not the case. The big problem with the IBM BIOS was that IBM released commented assembler code listings to the BIOS. The clean room was necessary to have a defense against having copied IBMs source code. It provided a defense against copyright infringement.
Do you understand what bit-to-bit copy means? it simply means: dd if=/dev/hdd of=mydvd_backup This will be an ***exact*** (bit-to-bit) copy of the content of the disk.
You are wrong. You don't understand how a DVD drive reads a DVD disk and consequentially you don't understand that this method does not return all of the data on the disk. The keys to unencrypting the data will not be read with a dd and so your carefully preserved file is worthless.
I'd like to see someone make this argument in court. Federal Copyright law gives you "Fair Use" rights. No state law can take those rights away. You do have the right to use software that you have purchased consistant with Federal Copyright law. The software vendors would like it to be otherwise, but it just isn't so. The legal fiction that you aren't purchasing a copy is just that -- a legal fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the DoJ might not look favorably on such a merger. Plus the Transmeta investors stand to make a whole lot more with the IPO route even with current market shakiness or perhaps by waiting for a less shaky market sometime in the future.
Intel buying Transmeta just won't happen.
Samba runs more than one daemon to handle different types of requests. Having multiple CPUs lets the daemons communicate more effectively than having them share one CPU. I think the slower dual-CPU setup is the way to go. Ideally, you'd like smbd to remain in cache on one CPU while the other pops around between nmdb and the kernel filesystem layer. Multiple CPU's let processes with multiple threads to work more effectively and that's exactly what you have with a fileserver.
So D- is flatter than C#? Weird.
Singers do microtones, they just don't realize it when they're doing it.
Grrrrr. Is there no one left that calls C++ C sharp? (Imagine overstriking the two plusses to form a # sign.)
The README file on that page says that the kernels were current as of version 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 of the TiVo software. My TiVo is currently running version 1.2.3.
That was a district court decision in Eldred v. Reno. It is scheduled for hearings in from of the circuit court of appeals in July. There is more information on the OpenLaw site.
I can't fault you for the decision that you made. It's very tough for an individual to face up to a corporation with extensive financial resources.
A look at the DCMA might be in order. Someone can preserve their ISP exemption by taking down copyrighted materials when they are notified that they are infringing. The only material you were hosting was a web page listing an item for sale. I presume that the web page itself was not a copyright infringement -- i.e. not lifted in violation of copyright from someother person. Since all you are hosting is the web page, I don't think that there's a DCMA issue here.
Now the item advertised for sale may not have been legit from a copyright stance, but since it was not in your posession you have no means to determine if it was a copyright violation for the copyright holder to offer it for sale.
There may be an implicit contract by virtue of the fact that you are being paid for the survey. For there to be a contract, there needs to be consideration, an agreement and indication of acceptance. You may already have implicitly agreed to abide whatever they have put in their documentation by your actions in filling out a survey, say. Ask yourself this, if they were to try to deny paying you, would you feel that they were obligated to based on what you've already done? If so, you are probably obligated not to disclose what you know.
A truly conscientious stand would be to refuse your pay. Are you willing to do that?
In order to view the source, etc. you need to get a free login of their "developer studio" - but if you don't want to do that, here's how to play:
In a futile attempt to maximize karma, eries perpetrated the first Slashdotting of a PBX.
Some of us have been trying for a HRFP (Highly Rated First Post) for quite a while. My best was only a three. But I have seen one or two 5s. It's just one way to take /. back from the trolls.
These posts sicken me. It is a deep seated hatred of women that represents them as immobile sexual objects. They are openly hostile to women.
Just read Telsa Cox's diary page (and here)to see what she thinks about Slashdot.
Naked and Petrified posts are ruining Slashdot.
There can be no further doubt that shrinkwrap licenses are a big, fat, ugly problem, and must not under any circumstances be allowed to stand.
I understand that shrinkwrap licenses are not something that you are happy with, but they have been allowed to stand. In Pro CD v. Zeidenberg the Court of Appeals of the 7th Circuit has held that shrinkwrap licenses are enforcable.
I note that the appeals decision specifically states that "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on
grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un-conscionable)." Now I agree that many clauses of shrinkwrap agreements are un-conscionable as they take away rights granted by Federal Copyright law. I hope that we get a good case to test some of these clauses.
Is there any word as to what this will do to the expected release date?
/. in just the past week.
Not a thing. This is an incomplete plug-in for an already established API sontributed by persons outside the core Mozilla development team. A link to the plan for the next few months was posted on
Two more milestones are planned: M13 is in feature freeze and should be out within a week after all the regressions are fixed. M14 feature freeze is 2/15, that should be alpha for Seamonkey. A Netscape branded beta should follow that (i.e. with all of the other pieces like SSL included). The last step is a final Mozilla followed by a final Netscape.
Whoever nominated them should look up "unsung", sometime. It does -not- mean "most popular", "best known", or "all-time celebrity".
Maybe the one with the least nunmber of votes should win.
Alan Cox
David Dawes
Donald Becker
Jordan K. Hubbard
Brian Paul
Of course, I know who AC is, but who are the others?
Your "freedom of speech" example is not a good one because there is no specific Federal law declaring unlimited free speech rights. Even if you do sign an NDA, you can be held accountable for your speech, but you can't be prevented from speaking. "Prior restraint" has been held to be unconstitutional.
Let's say that in the course of your work, you discover a situation which has implications for the physical safety of others (perhaps a bug in a medical device). You argue for complete and immediate disclosure of the bug, but the company with which you have contracted has you under NDA and refuses to ackoledge the bug. You chose to violate your NDA and make a public disclosure. There may be consequences of your speech, but you can't be locked up to prevent you from speaking.
There is a case (ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) ) which ruled that "shrinkwrap licenses" are valid contracts. What is necessary for a valid contract is a "meeting of the minds" i.e. the terms must be available and agreeded upon. One means of demonstrating a meeting of the minds is a signature, but it is not the only way. Behavior can constitute an acceptance of terms.
The ruling was that shrinkwrap licenses are valid on their face. It is not a ruling that all terms in shrinkwrap licenses are equally valid and enforcable. The important part of the ruling is that terms of a shrinkwrap license that are "objectionable ongrounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un-conscionable)" are unenforcable.
is that someone who has the power to read arbitrary memory or server binaries/configs on disk has the power to replace the server with a trojan that (a) stores the secret information and then (b) calls the original server or (c) just reads the credit cards right out of the database. There ain't no hardware encryption solution that is going to protect you in that case. The "security vulnerability" which this supposedly reveals in order to sell their hardware, actually hurts them too. But you didn't read that in the article.
The claim will be made when the US vs. MS trial reopens that the judge's "finding of fact" is already out of date and that Linux is now a serious competitor to Windows. This column is one of the things that MS will point to in making that point.
Mr. Livingston is still firmly in MS' pocket. That he has conformed nicely to the party line is just further evidence of that.
My point is the these provisions of UCITA conflict with Federal Law. They should be struck down as such.
I agree that most people would think that they are enforcable because most beople think that all the provisions in current EULAs are enforcable. Whatcha gonna do?
Actually, one can't use a contract to get around a Federal Law. For example, Federal Law requires certain stafty standards in the workplace. A union can not negotiate those standards away in exchange for benefits or pay.
It is a well established matter of law that contract provisions "contrary to public policy" are unenforcable. I'm familiar with this in the context of insurance law. Insurance contracts, like EULAs, are "contracts of adhesion" -- you either accept the contract as offered or decline. You can not negotiate the terms. Insurance law requires that I offer a "nonforfeiture provision" (i.e cash value) on certain types of insurance contracts. It would be cheaper if I could offer you an insurance contract without the cash surrender benefit, but I can't legally do that. Even if I wrote a contract without such a benefit, you could claim it. The contract can not take away rights that you have under law.
Similarly (though the law has not been tested in a case that I could site for you) I think that a strong case could be made that Copyright gives you certain rights and that a contract (and especially a contract of adhesion like an EULA) can not take away rights that you have by virtue of a Federal Law.
Links? Michael Froomkin's page has information and links to a lot of current Internet legal issues.
There is no single test. This Copyright FAQ (though somewhat out of date) addresses most of the issues. Please note sections 2.8 and 3.7. There are several other links of interest on this page.
No, the defense made the entirely trythful statement the one does not need DeCSS to pirate DVDs. The real point is that DeCSS does not really lower the bar to DVD pirates. Bandwidth and storage constraints remain.
The California case is already dead. It was based on a trade secrets argument and the court laughed when they asked it to stop the dissemination of the trade secrets. The MPAA understands this which is why the new cases were filed in Federal courts.
In order to legally reverse engineer something a clean room approach has to be taken, otherwise you're plaguerising and not reverse engineering.
Actually, that's not the case. The big problem with the IBM BIOS was that IBM released commented assembler code listings to the BIOS. The clean room was necessary to have a defense against having copied IBMs source code. It provided a defense against copyright infringement.
Do you understand what bit-to-bit copy means? it simply means: dd if=/dev/hdd of=mydvd_backup This will be an ***exact*** (bit-to-bit) copy of the content of the disk.
You are wrong. You don't understand how a DVD drive reads a DVD disk and consequentially you don't understand that this method does not return all of the data on the disk. The keys to unencrypting the data will not be read with a dd and so your carefully preserved file is worthless.
I'd like to see someone make this argument in court. Federal Copyright law gives you "Fair Use" rights. No state law can take those rights away. You do have the right to use software that you have purchased consistant with Federal Copyright law. The software vendors would like it to be otherwise, but it just isn't so. The legal fiction that you aren't purchasing a copy is just that -- a legal fiction.