Without Gold, you can't use most of the video/audio offerings (which, after the recent Dashboard update, are in the 8 zillion range). You can't play online, and some DLC is restricted to Gold members only.
I'm game. I was pissed when I had to agree to that to use my Xbox, especially since a) half of the Xbox experience doesn't work if not on a XBL Gold account, and b) MS didn't offer a "mail a letter to opt out" like Sony did. So MS' clause is actually worse, though I was willing to agree to it anyway because I don't have experience getting boned by them other than the absurd failure rate of the 360 hardware. MS got away with restricting me, because they haven't screwed me over at every turn. A novel concept - you earn goodwill in the marketplace.
To this day I have not upgraded my PS3 to the latest firmware due to that clause (haven't gotten around to mailing my +1 Postcard of Go Screw Yourself yet), rendering my PS3 a $300 Blu-ray player. In the meantime, I've not really missed it for games; I've just bought 21 more games for my 360. The postcard mailing becomes less important, and Sony loses another person who could have bought stuff, used PSN, etc.
You can turn off the compatibility check in any version of Firefox. I did it at FF7, and it's saved me ever since. I forget where in the advanced config it is, but a google search for "turn off firefox compatibility check" will get you where you need to be.
I mentioned it because that can subvert prior art. If the university releases a thing, and MegaloCorp paints it black and releases it again, and MegaloCorp files for a patent, the USPTO -should- look at the prior art and say, no, you can't have a patent on this. But they won't, because they're dumb. And a year later, StartupCo will want to build on university's research, and MegaloCorp will sue. Will StartupCo be in the right? Sure. Will they be able to claim prior art, and get MegaloCorp's patent revoked? In theory.
But we live in a world where Apple can get whole countries to embargo sales of Galaxy Tabs on the suspicion of IP infringement. A startup couldn't last a week if that happened after they'd invested money in manufacturing. They wouldn't have the finances to fight the suit, and get the lawyer to call the USPTO and push the prior art claim.
Some have said, "Well, even if the university's design were patented/licensed, MegaloCorp could still sue and you'd have the same problem." I agree, this is definitely a possibility, and it's one of many problems we have with our IP law in the USA. Still, if you look at court cases, registered patents tend to trump unregistered prior art. There's a simple reason for this. The government needs to incentivize you to spend your money on patents. If prior art alone was enough to protect you, nobody would register. So, while the open-licensed patent isn't a perfect or foolproof solution, it's a much stronger defense than prior art alone.
Because when somebody sues you, even if there's prior art, you're still litigating. You're still paying your lawyers to prepare your claims, etc. That all takes time and money.
Just because you're right, doesn't mean there won't be a fight. More than half the lawsuits between corporations are settled because one company can't afford to keep up its legal defense.
Nor does it change the fact that patent inspectors are MORONS. I worked in a company that had a patent on a device. Patent issued 1991, device sold commercially beginning 1992. We had a patent on a specific device, that did a task. USPTO granted a patent, in 1995, on the whole IDEA of making a device that could do exactly what our device/patent did, to a patent troll. While we won the lawsuit the troll filed, it cost our small business over $750K to fight it. The CEO, on many occasions, thought to settle for a smaller fee, and finally, only after they demanded an outrageous settlement, did he decide to fight to the end. Had our company not had a pretty good couple of years during this fight, we'd have been out of business, over a bullshit patent that should never have been granted.
I agree, openness is the point and I applaud Intel for taking that stance. I just think that patenting and putting into an open consortium that anyone could use would be a safer way to do it. Before the 1980s and the era when universities had to fight for survival, things were much less cut-throat. Now, it's everybody for themselves, and I sense that anything you don't explicitly protect is open to attack from all corners. Complicating matters is that in most IP disputes, might (money) makes right.
Sure. You'd win a legal challenge. If you spent millions litigating it first. And you get a decent judge/jury. A small startup wouldn't stand a prayer, prior art or no. Look at the suits Rambus won with 2 patents that were later invalidated (think it was on/. today). You think those companies are getting their money back? Why take the risk?
... someone else will. We have a first to file situation here. This is RIDICULOUSLY dumb on Intel's part. A nice sentiment, better executed by stating, "All fruits of this research must be patented by this foundation we've set up, which allows open, free licensing to anybody and everybody." Defensive patents are the only security you have; non-patent clauses just guarantee somebody other than your allies will patent! Ask Google, specifically whomever wrote the $12.1 billion check to acquire defensive patents from Motorola.
TFA says the exploit described only affects unpatched systems from 2009. I trust non-USA companies (discounting TEPCO) to be smart enough to patch their stuff.
... but it looks like the article has just posted a how-to guide for how to pwn every utility in the USA, up to and including the port numbers to exploit and the password to use, before this vulnerability is patched. Does anybody else have a problem with this?
If you need 10X the propellant for ISS vs. Apollo, you don't have to design tech that can lift 10x the propellant. You have to lift 1x the propellant, 10 times. Which is a little expensive, but not outside the realm of human engineering.
By your logic, it's impossible to build the pyramids because no one can lift them - there's no way they could've just taken the material up the side one block at a time?
For those concerned about heat/cool issues and radiation - why not park it in a "lunasynchronous" orbit on the dark side of the moon? You'd need to provide an alternate means of power to the solar panels; a nuclear reactor of the size used to power a submarine ought to do it nicely, and the submarines can obviously shield these reactors as you don't see sailors coming home glowing in the dark. Then, most of your solar radiation is blocked by the big, barren rock between you and the sun. It's the cosmos' largest beach umbrella;)
Unfortunately, because the station has stuff sticking off of it at all odd angles, you couldn't really land it. It would be like trying to balance an old TV mast antenna on the ground, level.
Radiation can be shielded against. There were electronics on Apollo, and they made that work. Fuel is a solvable problem... if you have to, every time you run an ISS restock mission, drop a couple tanks in orbit someplace... then, pick them all up when you're ready to make the jump. Distribute the problem to lots of launches you were going to make anyway, until such time as cheaper launch alternatives (SpaceX and others) can pitch in and help.
I'm not saying this plan is free, cheap, or easy. But it IS possible, with some clever engineering and 9 years' R&D. And it would likely be a substantially cheaper and easier way to achieve a stated goal of NASA, ESA, and Russian space programs. I am sure, if we could get a hold of some of the NASA guys (who are now unemployed, in a shameful move by the US government), they'd tell us for real what would be involved. I'm no astrophysicist, but I know a wasted opportunity when I see one.
Also... We assembled the damn thing in space. Why couldn't we do a spacewalk, un-tighten the bolts, and move it in pieces, re-assembling it lunar-side, if the issue of moving it in one big chunk is untenable?
Slashdot Mirror
Without Gold, you can't use most of the video/audio offerings (which, after the recent Dashboard update, are in the 8 zillion range). You can't play online, and some DLC is restricted to Gold members only.
I'm game. I was pissed when I had to agree to that to use my Xbox, especially since a) half of the Xbox experience doesn't work if not on a XBL Gold account, and b) MS didn't offer a "mail a letter to opt out" like Sony did. So MS' clause is actually worse, though I was willing to agree to it anyway because I don't have experience getting boned by them other than the absurd failure rate of the 360 hardware. MS got away with restricting me, because they haven't screwed me over at every turn. A novel concept - you earn goodwill in the marketplace.
To this day I have not upgraded my PS3 to the latest firmware due to that clause (haven't gotten around to mailing my +1 Postcard of Go Screw Yourself yet), rendering my PS3 a $300 Blu-ray player. In the meantime, I've not really missed it for games; I've just bought 21 more games for my 360. The postcard mailing becomes less important, and Sony loses another person who could have bought stuff, used PSN, etc.
You can turn off the compatibility check in any version of Firefox. I did it at FF7, and it's saved me ever since. I forget where in the advanced config it is, but a google search for "turn off firefox compatibility check" will get you where you need to be.
Can I search from a Chinese typewriter?
Come closer, Larry Ellison, so that you might see. Pay attention, class.
I mentioned it because that can subvert prior art. If the university releases a thing, and MegaloCorp paints it black and releases it again, and MegaloCorp files for a patent, the USPTO -should- look at the prior art and say, no, you can't have a patent on this. But they won't, because they're dumb. And a year later, StartupCo will want to build on university's research, and MegaloCorp will sue. Will StartupCo be in the right? Sure. Will they be able to claim prior art, and get MegaloCorp's patent revoked? In theory.
But we live in a world where Apple can get whole countries to embargo sales of Galaxy Tabs on the suspicion of IP infringement. A startup couldn't last a week if that happened after they'd invested money in manufacturing. They wouldn't have the finances to fight the suit, and get the lawyer to call the USPTO and push the prior art claim.
Some have said, "Well, even if the university's design were patented/licensed, MegaloCorp could still sue and you'd have the same problem." I agree, this is definitely a possibility, and it's one of many problems we have with our IP law in the USA. Still, if you look at court cases, registered patents tend to trump unregistered prior art. There's a simple reason for this. The government needs to incentivize you to spend your money on patents. If prior art alone was enough to protect you, nobody would register. So, while the open-licensed patent isn't a perfect or foolproof solution, it's a much stronger defense than prior art alone.
Because when somebody sues you, even if there's prior art, you're still litigating. You're still paying your lawyers to prepare your claims, etc. That all takes time and money.
Just because you're right, doesn't mean there won't be a fight. More than half the lawsuits between corporations are settled because one company can't afford to keep up its legal defense.
Sure, but why not take all the defensive steps available to you?
Nor does it change the fact that patent inspectors are MORONS. I worked in a company that had a patent on a device. Patent issued 1991, device sold commercially beginning 1992. We had a patent on a specific device, that did a task. USPTO granted a patent, in 1995, on the whole IDEA of making a device that could do exactly what our device/patent did, to a patent troll. While we won the lawsuit the troll filed, it cost our small business over $750K to fight it. The CEO, on many occasions, thought to settle for a smaller fee, and finally, only after they demanded an outrageous settlement, did he decide to fight to the end. Had our company not had a pretty good couple of years during this fight, we'd have been out of business, over a bullshit patent that should never have been granted.
I agree, openness is the point and I applaud Intel for taking that stance. I just think that patenting and putting into an open consortium that anyone could use would be a safer way to do it. Before the 1980s and the era when universities had to fight for survival, things were much less cut-throat. Now, it's everybody for themselves, and I sense that anything you don't explicitly protect is open to attack from all corners. Complicating matters is that in most IP disputes, might (money) makes right.
Sure. You'd win a legal challenge. If you spent millions litigating it first. And you get a decent judge/jury. A small startup wouldn't stand a prayer, prior art or no. Look at the suits Rambus won with 2 patents that were later invalidated (think it was on /. today). You think those companies are getting their money back? Why take the risk?
They just changed to a first to file a few weeks ago.
... someone else will. We have a first to file situation here. This is RIDICULOUSLY dumb on Intel's part. A nice sentiment, better executed by stating, "All fruits of this research must be patented by this foundation we've set up, which allows open, free licensing to anybody and everybody." Defensive patents are the only security you have; non-patent clauses just guarantee somebody other than your allies will patent! Ask Google, specifically whomever wrote the $12.1 billion check to acquire defensive patents from Motorola.
There are 41 devices connected to my TV ;)
I saw where a bootloader was NOT, and I said, no, this will not do.
"The princess is a lie!"
Interview with the Googler driving the Amazon River View boat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0cCRRFi1aA
IT'S A TRAP!
I got the Palpatine coin! And it's got R2-D2 on the other side! Wait... that's not Palpatine... *mulph*
TFA says the exploit described only affects unpatched systems from 2009. I trust non-USA companies (discounting TEPCO) to be smart enough to patch their stuff.
... but it looks like the article has just posted a how-to guide for how to pwn every utility in the USA, up to and including the port numbers to exploit and the password to use, before this vulnerability is patched. Does anybody else have a problem with this?
If you need 10X the propellant for ISS vs. Apollo, you don't have to design tech that can lift 10x the propellant. You have to lift 1x the propellant, 10 times. Which is a little expensive, but not outside the realm of human engineering.
By your logic, it's impossible to build the pyramids because no one can lift them - there's no way they could've just taken the material up the side one block at a time?
For those concerned about heat/cool issues and radiation - why not park it in a "lunasynchronous" orbit on the dark side of the moon? You'd need to provide an alternate means of power to the solar panels; a nuclear reactor of the size used to power a submarine ought to do it nicely, and the submarines can obviously shield these reactors as you don't see sailors coming home glowing in the dark. Then, most of your solar radiation is blocked by the big, barren rock between you and the sun. It's the cosmos' largest beach umbrella ;)
Unfortunately, because the station has stuff sticking off of it at all odd angles, you couldn't really land it. It would be like trying to balance an old TV mast antenna on the ground, level.
Radiation can be shielded against. There were electronics on Apollo, and they made that work. Fuel is a solvable problem... if you have to, every time you run an ISS restock mission, drop a couple tanks in orbit someplace... then, pick them all up when you're ready to make the jump. Distribute the problem to lots of launches you were going to make anyway, until such time as cheaper launch alternatives (SpaceX and others) can pitch in and help.
I'm not saying this plan is free, cheap, or easy. But it IS possible, with some clever engineering and 9 years' R&D. And it would likely be a substantially cheaper and easier way to achieve a stated goal of NASA, ESA, and Russian space programs. I am sure, if we could get a hold of some of the NASA guys (who are now unemployed, in a shameful move by the US government), they'd tell us for real what would be involved. I'm no astrophysicist, but I know a wasted opportunity when I see one.
Also... We assembled the damn thing in space. Why couldn't we do a spacewalk, un-tighten the bolts, and move it in pieces, re-assembling it lunar-side, if the issue of moving it in one big chunk is untenable?