You won't notice 50ms in anything but the most demanding applications. For Voice Over IP, its basically OK. A Quake III ping time of 50ms is basically not noticeable, and few things are more demanding than that.
To put this into context. In a fiber, light goes about 150km per millisecond- it can go from the UK to Canada and back again in ~40 ms; although ping times are often closer to 100ms due to delays in routers and suchlike (there's probably no reason that those extra delays can't be made arbitrarily small).
>Some applications can be distributed, sure, but there will always be a need for interactive
>applications to run locally, on local data.
Yeah, sure. Where local means anywhere within a thousand klicks or so.
As I understand it this bill will outlaw almost every 'legacy':
- PC
- digital watch
- pocket calculator
- operating system
- floppy disk
- printer
- mouse
- video display
- telephone exchange
- router
- modem
Where legacy means almost anything built before the bill was passed!
I mean what does 'computer equipment' mean? What doesn't 'interactive digital device' cover?
Still, if I understand correctly you don't become a criminal from writing, distributing OSS unless you sell it.
Basically these guys just write a law that covers the entire universe, expect to lose all major cases for a long while and then they apply it to anything that isn't obviously totally stupid. That's how the DMCA is being run. Looks like they're doing it again.
Still, once the rest of the world stops laughing at the US perhaps China, Russia or Singapore will be able to show them the meaning of words like 'freedom'. So there's hope.;-)
I don't know... There have been some very nasty bugs in, for example, TCP-IP protocol stacks. They have been traced back to the same implementation across Windows, Linux, BSD etc.
The one I was thinking of was capable of nuking most operating systems by injecting odd length packets (close to 64K in size).
There's more commonality than you might think in places.
Yeah, if you have the hardware to do that; and even then only if your data is necessary.
People that go around trashing, writing worms, trojans or viruses, or cracking are dirt. It's like stealing peoples lives- often hundreds of dollars worth of time per system. Even with backups.
>If there is a fire and they?re not blamed, it?s not the end
>of the world for them since other people do most of the clearing up.
Oh right, so the architects of the WTC were to blaim for the building falling down? [In that case I think they should be admired that the building stood for an hour after such a brutal attack; and the failure mode was the best you could really have- almost straight down.]
Some or even many attacks cannot be realistically avoided; but can only be dealt as best anyone can when they occur. We don't know the holes until somebody finds them, and the bad guys sometimes find them first.
>They have an incentive take less than the optimum level of fire
>precautions and to make sure arsonists get all the blame for fires.
Not so much; if they are being significantly reckless they will carry some small part of the blame in all likelyhood, same as if you leave the door open; and that can be career affecting. But still, 90+% of the blame rests on the attacker.
In the company I work for Red Code attacked a handful of servers out of hundreds or even thousands- the rest had been patched; in that case perhaps there was some recklessness involved, they should have patched them. But 95% of the blaim lies at the doors of the authors.
Huh? If you leave your keys in the ignition of your car, and someone jumps in takes it for a ride and torches it, you're not allowed to sue him for the loss of your car because you left your keys there?
And that's a lot more lacsidasical than we are talking here- it's closer to a manufacturing a car that's easy to hotwire.
In my view you're an ass. There are very real costs with setting a system up right. How long does it take you to reinstall your operating system? My personal system takes a couple of evenings for the basics and won't be right for weeks.
>If companies really are losing much as they claim, why don't they just hire someone to install
>security patches when they become available, it's not exactly rocket science.
They do. These networks can be vast though, and getting to all of the machines in time can be difficult. Also, many patches or fixes involve switching off services or features. Companies cannot blindly install patches, they need to test them first. It ain't easy.
They still own the copyright on their code. If you distribute their code then you are violating their copyright, and they can rightly sue you for that. The fact that they are breaking the law by violating someone elses copyright/license by distributing GPLd code does not make it OK for you to do that with their code.
I've got little sympathy with the guy. Whether his patent is valid or not- the licence he agreed to when he took (took as in stole) the GNU/Linux software and added his patented code to it is pretty clear; and there's descriptions of the GPL all over the net. He could have written his own OS, or distributed patches or closed source modules or device drivers. Or he could still go around and ask every single designer of every single patch to the Linux OS to relicense their code for him to use. Good luck with that.
Now, this version of his software is going to be GPLd. The GNU/Linux designers licensed him their code on that basis. He took it and used it, and he has to pay for what he took. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Unfair? Probably not. You work out the ratio of the code that he wrote to the code they wrote.
The pitch of the props can be adjusted to have a minimum crossection, and can be made strong enough for any wind speed lower than that necessary to destroy the building.
Buildings focus the wind anyway- it's a major concern in many buildings. Careful design near the ground will obviate the problem. Arguably this building may be less problematical in this regard- the building will be slowing the air rather than just diverting it around the outside.
>First of all, most major companiess of the world sell products and have operations in the United States. This makes
>them subject to US law or makes them at the very least subject to wanting to be in the government's good graces.
You happen to know which company it was that bombed the World Trade Center?
The country I know that has gone down the path of basically banning encryption was France. They used it so they could spy on any foreign owned company that went there. Boeing lost a lot of money that way.
>Those who choose to use illegal forms of crypto will stand out against the background noise of thousands of legitimately
>encrypted messages. It will make them much easier to track down and given the illegality
>of using that cryptography, you can prosecute them at will (whether they did anything truely criminal or not).
Absolutely. Anyone involved in terrorism (i.e. bombing, killing and maiming) will be so worried!
And cryptography is soooo easy to spot. Not. "The rain in spain stays mainly on the plain." can be a code phrase, or a recital of a phrase from "My Fair Lady"; depending on context.
Some planes have phones built into the seats anyway.
Otherwise, there are 2 main reasons for these restrictions:
a) cell phones can interfere with the navigation (or very rarely other functions of the plane, like steering)
b) cell phones at altitude can be detected by many more zones cell normal, effectively taking up a slot in crowded bandwidth in all those cells at once- the phone company hate that
If you're in a hijack situation these reasons are less important. Noone is going to sue those that did it in this case;-( And in any hijack case the fact that you were alerting people to a lethal situation would certainly be taken into consideration; they may give you a medal.
However, it is theoretically possible that the PA plane crashed because of the cell phones... But I certainly doubt it.
>Nevertheless, the whole point is that you can't use a (current gen) 3D printer to build a complex electromechanical
>machine... such as another 3D printer. That would take many different materials applied in different ways. To do it, you'd
>need at least: a 3D printer, a programmable CNC machine,
Check.
>an MBE chip fab line,
You can make that I think.
>a programmable assembly robot that
>could also function as a supply materials reloader...
Check.
>and a hydroelectric plant, a couple different types of mines and refining
>facilities, some chemical factories, and attendant staff.
Nope. Do you grow all your own food? Purify your own water? You don't. Why would you expect a Von Neumann machine to do so? I think any machine that takes pure elements and power in any form and produces a copy of itself that is capable of doing the same thing, counts as a Von Neuman machine. And no I don't think its at all easy.
In the latter, the Russian winter beat back Napolean, in the first two terrorism was able to hang on for years in the face of an aggressor.
>This requires a huge, huge response. The aggressors set the rules. At the very least, invasion of the country that either
>sponsored, or allowed to happen, this terrorism must be made.
We don't know this was state sponsored. Clearly if it was, that country is in the deepest doo-doo imaginable. But it is most likely that this is done by a relatively small group of people; and may very well not be state related at all.
If you really believe that invasion of the country that allowed this to happen should be done, what happens if that country unknowably turns out to be Canada?
>This leads into a second critique. Globalization
>confers both interdependence and indepdendence.
>Right now, production facilities are dependent
>on parts from distant places.
I don't see this, you are just changing who you are dependent upon. You still need the raw materials to make the things out of- they still need to be shipped, and they may well turn out to be more expensive materials than getting someone to mass produce the item for you.
In fact, even if the 3D items were completely free, it wouldn't destroy the global economy- most businesses are a result of the ideas, and knowledge of the people in the company- the objects they make would still be protected by copyright, patents and licensing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even microsoft are dumb enough to suggest running everything off Redmond. Their idea is closer to 'your computer is my server'.
You won't notice 50ms in anything but the most demanding applications. For Voice Over IP, its basically OK. A Quake III ping time of 50ms is basically not noticeable, and few things are more demanding than that.
To put this into context. In a fiber, light goes about 150km per millisecond- it can go from the UK to Canada and back again in ~40 ms; although ping times are often closer to 100ms due to delays in routers and suchlike (there's probably no reason that those extra delays can't be made arbitrarily small).
>Some applications can be distributed, sure, but there will always be a need for interactive
>applications to run locally, on local data.
Yeah, sure. Where local means anywhere within a thousand klicks or so.
As I understand it this bill will outlaw almost every 'legacy':
;-)
- PC
- digital watch
- pocket calculator
- operating system
- floppy disk
- printer
- mouse
- video display
- telephone exchange
- router
- modem
Where legacy means almost anything built before the bill was passed!
I mean what does 'computer equipment' mean? What doesn't 'interactive digital device' cover?
Still, if I understand correctly you don't become a criminal from writing, distributing OSS unless you sell it.
Basically these guys just write a law that covers the entire universe, expect to lose all major cases for a long while and then they apply it to anything that isn't obviously totally stupid. That's how the DMCA is being run. Looks like they're doing it again.
Still, once the rest of the world stops laughing at the US perhaps China, Russia or Singapore will be able to show them the meaning of words like 'freedom'. So there's hope.
I don't know... There have been some very nasty bugs in, for example, TCP-IP protocol stacks. They have been traced back to the same implementation across Windows, Linux, BSD etc.
The one I was thinking of was capable of nuking most operating systems by injecting odd length packets (close to 64K in size).
There's more commonality than you might think in places.
To be fair to MS; MS claims that a lot of these 'bugs' were lint warnings. Apparently MS's process raises a bug report against each new warning.
;-)
On second thoughts, why would I want to be fair to MS
Are you admitting to something? ;-)
IANAL; sounds like you would need one...
>I'm suggesting that if reasonable precautions haven't been taken,
>then blame should be shared.
How many hours of community service should the system admins have been given then? Get a clue dude, you've lost it.
>backing everything up is most important.
Yeah, if you have the hardware to do that; and even then only if your data is necessary.
People that go around trashing, writing worms, trojans or viruses, or cracking are dirt. It's like stealing peoples lives- often hundreds of dollars worth of time per system. Even with backups.
>If there is a fire and they?re not blamed, it?s not the end
>of the world for them since other people do most of the clearing up.
Oh right, so the architects of the WTC were to blaim for the building falling down? [In that case I think they should be admired that the building stood for an hour after such a brutal attack; and the failure mode was the best you could really have- almost straight down.]
Some or even many attacks cannot be realistically avoided; but can only be dealt as best anyone can when they occur. We don't know the holes until somebody finds them, and the bad guys sometimes find them first.
>They have an incentive take less than the optimum level of fire
>precautions and to make sure arsonists get all the blame for fires.
Not so much; if they are being significantly reckless they will carry some small part of the blame in all likelyhood, same as if you leave the door open; and that can be career affecting. But still, 90+% of the blame rests on the attacker.
In the company I work for Red Code attacked a handful of servers out of hundreds or even thousands- the rest had been patched; in that case perhaps there was some recklessness involved, they should have patched them. But 95% of the blaim lies at the doors of the authors.
Huh? If you leave your keys in the ignition of your car, and someone jumps in takes it for a ride and torches it, you're not allowed to sue him for the loss of your car because you left your keys there?
And that's a lot more lacsidasical than we are talking here- it's closer to a manufacturing a car that's easy to hotwire.
In my view you're an ass. There are very real costs with setting a system up right. How long does it take you to reinstall your operating system? My personal system takes a couple of evenings for the basics and won't be right for weeks.
>If companies really are losing much as they claim, why don't they just hire someone to install
>security patches when they become available, it's not exactly rocket science.
They do. These networks can be vast though, and getting to all of the machines in time can be difficult. Also, many patches or fixes involve switching off services or features. Companies cannot blindly install patches, they need to test them first. It ain't easy.
They still own the copyright on their code. If you distribute their code then you are violating their copyright, and they can rightly sue you for that. The fact that they are breaking the law by violating someone elses copyright/license by distributing GPLd code does not make it OK for you to do that with their code.
IANAL.
I've got little sympathy with the guy. Whether his patent is valid or not- the licence he agreed to when he took (took as in stole) the GNU/Linux software and added his patented code to it is pretty clear; and there's descriptions of the GPL all over the net. He could have written his own OS, or distributed patches or closed source modules or device drivers. Or he could still go around and ask every single designer of every single patch to the Linux OS to relicense their code for him to use. Good luck with that.
Now, this version of his software is going to be GPLd. The GNU/Linux designers licensed him their code on that basis. He took it and used it, and he has to pay for what he took. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Unfair? Probably not. You work out the ratio of the code that he wrote to the code they wrote.
Yes. It has always been successfully enforced. It has never come to court though.
The pitch of the props can be adjusted to have a minimum crossection, and can be made strong enough for any wind speed lower than that necessary to destroy the building.
Buildings focus the wind anyway- it's a major concern in many buildings. Careful design near the ground will obviate the problem. Arguably this building may be less problematical in this regard- the building will be slowing the air rather than just diverting it around the outside.
>First of all, most major companiess of the world sell products and have operations in the United States. This makes
>them subject to US law or makes them at the very least subject to wanting to be in the government's good graces.
You happen to know which company it was that bombed the World Trade Center?
The country I know that has gone down the path of basically banning encryption was France. They used it so they could spy on any foreign owned company that went there. Boeing lost a lot of money that way.
>Those who choose to use illegal forms of crypto will stand out against the background noise of thousands of legitimately
>encrypted messages. It will make them much easier to track down and given the illegality
>of using that cryptography, you can prosecute them at will (whether they did anything truely criminal or not).
Absolutely. Anyone involved in terrorism (i.e. bombing, killing and maiming) will be so worried!
And cryptography is soooo easy to spot. Not. "The rain in spain stays mainly on the plain." can be a code phrase, or a recital of a phrase from "My Fair Lady"; depending on context.
Some planes have phones built into the seats anyway.
;-( And in any hijack case the fact that you were alerting people to a lethal situation would certainly be taken into consideration; they may give you a medal.
Otherwise, there are 2 main reasons for these restrictions:
a) cell phones can interfere with the navigation (or very rarely other functions of the plane, like steering)
b) cell phones at altitude can be detected by many more zones cell normal, effectively taking up a slot in crowded bandwidth in all those cells at once- the phone company hate that
If you're in a hijack situation these reasons are less important. Noone is going to sue those that did it in this case
However, it is theoretically possible that the PA plane crashed because of the cell phones... But I certainly doubt it.
That's a no op...
I don't live in the U.S.; you see?
You don't want a hole, but a plane then becomes an unguided weapon at worst. In this case, the plane was very much a guided weapon.
America just got a dose of reality.
The kind of reality that many of the countries overseas have frequently have had to face, in some cases U.S. sponsored; in many cases not.
>Nevertheless, the whole point is that you can't use a (current gen) 3D printer to build a complex electromechanical
>machine... such as another 3D printer. That would take many different materials applied in different ways. To do it, you'd
>need at least: a 3D printer, a programmable CNC machine,
Check.
>an MBE chip fab line,
You can make that I think.
>a programmable assembly robot that
>could also function as a supply materials reloader...
Check.
>and a hydroelectric plant, a couple different types of mines and refining
>facilities, some chemical factories, and attendant staff.
Nope. Do you grow all your own food? Purify your own water? You don't. Why would you expect a Von Neumann machine to do so? I think any machine that takes pure elements and power in any form and produces a copy of itself that is capable of doing the same thing, counts as a Von Neuman machine. And no I don't think its at all easy.
Untrue.
;-(
Technically, war only comes about after the leaders of the country have agreed that it is war.
No leader of any country have declared war on the US (or vice versa); and long may this situation remain.
It's just terrorism.
Aggressors don't always set the rules.
"Vietnam", "Afghanistan", "Retreat from Russia"
In the latter, the Russian winter beat back Napolean, in the first two terrorism was able to hang on for years in the face of an aggressor.
>This requires a huge, huge response. The aggressors set the rules. At the very least, invasion of the country that either
>sponsored, or allowed to happen, this terrorism must be made.
We don't know this was state sponsored. Clearly if it was, that country is in the deepest doo-doo imaginable. But it is most likely that this is done by a relatively small group of people; and may very well not be state related at all.
If you really believe that invasion of the country that allowed this to happen should be done, what happens if that country unknowably turns out to be Canada?
Oh dear. Having to wait 4-5 hours for a Ferrari what a drag.
;-)
Seriously. This is a problem why? And if you're worried about tying up the machine, 3D print another 3D printer...
>This leads into a second critique. Globalization
>confers both interdependence and indepdendence.
>Right now, production facilities are dependent
>on parts from distant places.
I don't see this, you are just changing who you are dependent upon. You still need the raw materials to make the things out of- they still need to be shipped, and they may well turn out to be more expensive materials than getting someone to mass produce the item for you.
In fact, even if the 3D items were completely free, it wouldn't destroy the global economy- most businesses are a result of the ideas, and knowledge of the people in the company- the objects they make would still be protected by copyright, patents and licensing.