Canadians are reminded that September 15 is the deadline for
comments on the DCMA-equivalent
law proposed for Canada.
That is, if they are even aware of it: the request for comments went up
September 7, allowing a generous:( one-week window for comments from
the public.
From the article:
Lovley isn't encouraging....The gold particles excreted by the microbes are so tiny it would take
about a million microbes to produce a gram of solid gold.
There must be something wrong here. A glass of water could probably hold
billions of microbes. So it could produce thousands of grams of solid gold?
Seems like a good deal to me.
This seems very odd to me. You have a legal contract that Microsoft
didn't live up too so instead of suing them for breach of contract you
buy more software from them? It sounds very, very fictional to me.
I would have pity on anyone even *thinking* about suing MS.
They would keep you tied up in courts for years until your resources
were exhausted. I'd guess there was probably a loophole for MS in the
contract anyway. Buying more software was probably far
more cost effective if it solved the problem and the company would
be otherwise crippled without it. You just bite the bullet and
move forward.
Most importantly, are there any copies of these "trade secret" OEM license agreements on file somewhere?
I doubt you'll find an example of an OEM license. I imagine the NDA is
truly onerous. But there are little
hints
(http://news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1005-201-3233 68-0,00.html)
here and there:
"If you are willing to give Microsoft a clear written assurance that the
above will be implemented on all Compaq Presario machines within sixty
(60) days of the date of this letter, Microsoft will withdraw its Notice
of Intent to Terminate letter addressed to David Cabello and dated May
30, 1996 once such written assurance is received by Microsoft."
The nature of bugs (especially MS bugs) is that not everyone experiences
the same bugs. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean others
haven't. I've seen documents that crash Word on some computers and not
on others, even with the same version of Word. And if it wasn't an SQL
Server bug, why would changing from one version of SQL Server to another
affect it? Microsoft acknowledged the bug existed but said it didn't
appear at "other customer sites" (all other sites? the majority of
them?), downplaying its significance. As Bill Gates said, "There are no
significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of
users want fixed."
The Slashdot article says 'The editorial says "Microsoft software," but
it almost certainly isn't.'
The editorial says: "Russia reported both problems to Los Alamos, which
subsequently verified the defects, as did Microsoft."
So why was Microsoft involved in verifying the
problems, if it has nothing to do with Microsoft software?
The software seems to be a custom app using MS Access 97 and Visual
Basic running with Windows NT and Microsoft SQL Server. It may be a bug
in the app itself, or a bug in the underlying software, or both.
Nothing I saw really gives a clear indication.
An interesting technical summary is given in their
FAQ (500 kb pdf)
which includes sample photographs and reconstructions.
A face is compressed to between 100 and 300 bytes. Even with
100 bytes the reconstructed face looks remarkably similar to the
real one.
With a 500 MHz Pentium, up to 47,000,000 rough ("vector") matches
per minute can be made. A vector is an 88 byte representation of a face.
Then, a finer scan can pin down the top matches.
In other words the entire population of the US can be scanned
in a few minutes with a single PC. Is it just me, or is there
something scary about this?
Ironically, this might help to sell Linux to corporate types who don't
trust something that's free and want the perception
that they're buying a supported product. This would be a good thing for
the Linux community, if it means increased market share. The rest of us
will always be able to get other distributions Linux free and
unshackled.
I mean, would they really be using MS software if it was free?
Oops. Before someone calls me on this - if
they haven't already - of course the electricity
is already deductible and can't be deducted
twice. So the issue is whether the donated
computer usage, vs. depreciation, would be
allowable and economically advantageous. I'm not an
accountant or lawyer:)
I am absolutely amazed that employers do not use the power of their idle PCs THEMSELVES!
Could an employer deduct as a charitable donation the percent
computer usage donated to such causes? That would make it a LOT more
attractive. Of course, eventually the computer is deducted anyway
as it depreciates, but this might effectively accelerate the deduction.
Plus some of the electricity used might be deductible.
This reminds me of the
Dialectizer which was
shut down under a threat of a lawsuit for copyright violation
for changing page content, but apparently it's up again.
I think the issue there was that the user purposely chooses
to change the page content, which seems to be OK now, but
in Microsoft's case, adding links involuntarily to a page
may get them in some trouble.
BTW here is how the article looks in the Dialectizer:
Whar Does Microsof' Want Yo' t'Git Today?
Posted by michael on Thursday June 07, @07:49AM fum th'
subliminal-message-har depp. blennerkin' sent in this hyar Wall Street
Journal sto'y about Microsof''s noo "Smart Tags" - auty-linkin'
t'Microsof' websites in enny web page yo' visit. "Fum th' article: "In
effeck, Microsof' will be able, through th' browser, t're-edit
ennybody's site, wifout th' owny's smarts o' permisshun, in a way thet
tempps users t'leave an' hoof it to a Microsof'-chosen site -- whether
o' not thet site offers better info'mashun." Mah web site is about
margarita recipes....whut is Microsof' a-gonna does...offer a visito'
t'mah site a better recipe on their site?" T'other reader sent in a
CNET article on th' same subjeck.
If I understand correctly,
full-color pixels are possible
with OLEDs rather than 3 separate RGB pixels.
Would this make Microsoft's eBook ClearType patent irrelevant?
Re:Commercial software: A drain on the world econo
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 3
Mundie say the software industry "employs 1.35 million people and
produces $175 billion in worldwide revenues". Microsoft produces $24.6
billion of revenues with 39,100 people, or $629K per person. So the
rest of the software industry makes $150 billion with 1.31 million
people or $114K per person.
The implicit argument, though, is that the software industry creates
jobs and keeps people employed. But look at it the other way: when you
or your company don't have to pay for software, it frees up money that
can be used for other things. Will this money just disappear? No, it
will probably be spent on something else that will create jobs and keep
people employed, incrementally across many industries, making for a
better balanced, healthier economy than one that has to constantly pay a
software "tax".
Among those incremental things are many which of course involve
software. So, much of the money will go towards developing new and
better things and solving new problems, rather than paying over and over
again for commodity software which has already been invented.
In terms of the variety of software applications that exist, Microsoft's
offerings are but a tiny speck. There are many, many other software
applications that are quite brilliant and just as necessary, but for
which the market is specialized and small.
...Fitts' law (the time it takes for you to hit a GUI button is a
function of the distance from the cursor and the size of the
button)...
This is the first I heard that this law had a name,
but one thing I've wondered about is why most GUI editors have scroll
bars on the right and not the left, where most work is done. E.g. for
cut-and-paste you have to go all the way to the left to select and all
the way to the right to move.
Also, from the article: If the database in question were the
Manhattan phone book, the search for a single phone number could take a
conventional computer several million searches, while a light-based device
could pinpoint the number in just one. Well, in theory I suppose there are
programmers who
*could* write an algorithm that would take several million searches... Reminds me of MS-DOS (in
W95 at least) where a single keystroke in the command window literally
ties up the CPU for in a loop for 1/10 sec (say 50 million
cycles) to limit the rate - if you type fast enough all
other processes will come to a halt.
Without shielding this thing might
radiate like crazy. Your radio, TV, your
neighbor's TV, etc. could go beserk.
They put computers in metal cases with
finger-stock seals for a reason.
Whatever they say, you should be suspicious of them.
For one thing, they will go after you if you try to publish
a benchmark comparing Oracle to say PostgreSQL:
So much for "openness", although if you look hard enough you and draw your own conclusion
about the name of a "leading proprietary database application" is
you can see PostgreSQL can perform impressively:
Whatever you do just make sure that your code isn't sitting anywhere on
their machines whether it's just for convenient backup or any other
reason. If it is, and especially if they have it on their backup tapes,
your case will probably be a lot more difficult.
As much as I like Google, it is vaguely bothersome that we are now
dependent on one commercial source for both the web and usenet. The
disappearance of pre-1999 postings on deja and our complete helplessness
to do anything about it is an example of things that can happen when you
are totally dependent on a commercial enterprise.
Perhaps it is time to start to explore alternatives, such as a
redundantly distributed database supported by thousands of individual
volunteer users such as myself. "Redundant" means that if one server
goes down, it has essentially no effect. We've accomplished that with
distributed computing; is a distributed database also possible?
The idea is to have something that would start slowly but eventually
compete with Google. At the very least it would keep Google on
its toes, which can be nothing but a Good Thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Canadians are reminded that September 15 is the deadline for comments on the DCMA-equivalent law proposed for Canada. That is, if they are even aware of it: the request for comments went up September 7, allowing a generous :( one-week window for comments from
the public.
There must be something wrong here. A glass of water could probably hold billions of microbes. So it could produce thousands of grams of solid gold? Seems like a good deal to me.
I would have pity on anyone even *thinking* about suing MS. They would keep you tied up in courts for years until your resources were exhausted. I'd guess there was probably a loophole for MS in the contract anyway. Buying more software was probably far more cost effective if it solved the problem and the company would be otherwise crippled without it. You just bite the bullet and move forward.
I doubt you'll find an example of an OEM license. I imagine the NDA is truly onerous. But there are little hints (http://news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1005-201-3233 68-0,00.html)
here and there:
"If you are willing to give Microsoft a clear written assurance that the above will be implemented on all Compaq Presario machines within sixty (60) days of the date of this letter, Microsoft will withdraw its Notice of Intent to Terminate letter addressed to David Cabello and dated May 30, 1996 once such written assurance is received by Microsoft."
The nature of bugs (especially MS bugs) is that not everyone experiences the same bugs. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean others haven't. I've seen documents that crash Word on some computers and not on others, even with the same version of Word. And if it wasn't an SQL Server bug, why would changing from one version of SQL Server to another affect it? Microsoft acknowledged the bug existed but said it didn't appear at "other customer sites" (all other sites? the majority of them?), downplaying its significance. As Bill Gates said, "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed."
The editorial says: "Russia reported both problems to Los Alamos, which subsequently verified the defects, as did Microsoft."
So why was Microsoft involved in verifying the problems, if it has nothing to do with Microsoft software?
The software seems to be a custom app using MS Access 97 and Visual Basic running with Windows NT and Microsoft SQL Server. It may be a bug in the app itself, or a bug in the underlying software, or both. Nothing I saw really gives a clear indication.
(Writing from my Win98 laptop) You mean a 10 hour MTBF was considered *bad*?
A face is compressed to between 100 and 300 bytes. Even with 100 bytes the reconstructed face looks remarkably similar to the real one.
With a 500 MHz Pentium, up to 47,000,000 rough ("vector") matches per minute can be made. A vector is an 88 byte representation of a face. Then, a finer scan can pin down the top matches.
In other words the entire population of the US can be scanned in a few minutes with a single PC. Is it just me, or is there something scary about this?
I mean, would they really be using MS software if it was free?
Oops. Before someone calls me on this - if they haven't already - of course the electricity is already deductible and can't be deducted twice. So the issue is whether the donated computer usage, vs. depreciation, would be allowable and economically advantageous. I'm not an accountant or lawyer :)
Could an employer deduct as a charitable donation the percent computer usage donated to such causes? That would make it a LOT more attractive. Of course, eventually the computer is deducted anyway as it depreciates, but this might effectively accelerate the deduction. Plus some of the electricity used might be deductible.
BTW here is how the article looks in the Dialectizer:
Whar Does Microsof' Want Yo' t'Git Today?
Posted by michael on Thursday June 07, @07:49AM fum th' subliminal-message-har depp. blennerkin' sent in this hyar Wall Street Journal sto'y about Microsof''s noo "Smart Tags" - auty-linkin' t'Microsof' websites in enny web page yo' visit. "Fum th' article: "In effeck, Microsof' will be able, through th' browser, t're-edit ennybody's site, wifout th' owny's smarts o' permisshun, in a way thet tempps users t'leave an' hoof it to a Microsof'-chosen site -- whether o' not thet site offers better info'mashun." Mah web site is about margarita recipes....whut is Microsof' a-gonna does...offer a visito' t'mah site a better recipe on their site?" T'other reader sent in a CNET article on th' same subjeck.
If I understand correctly, full-color pixels are possible with OLEDs rather than 3 separate RGB pixels. Would this make Microsoft's eBook ClearType patent irrelevant?
The implicit argument, though, is that the software industry creates jobs and keeps people employed. But look at it the other way: when you or your company don't have to pay for software, it frees up money that can be used for other things. Will this money just disappear? No, it will probably be spent on something else that will create jobs and keep people employed, incrementally across many industries, making for a better balanced, healthier economy than one that has to constantly pay a software "tax".
Among those incremental things are many which of course involve software. So, much of the money will go towards developing new and better things and solving new problems, rather than paying over and over again for commodity software which has already been invented.
In terms of the variety of software applications that exist, Microsoft's offerings are but a tiny speck. There are many, many other software applications that are quite brilliant and just as necessary, but for which the market is specialized and small.
This is the first I heard that this law had a name, but one thing I've wondered about is why most GUI editors have scroll bars on the right and not the left, where most work is done. E.g. for cut-and-paste you have to go all the way to the left to select and all the way to the right to move.
Possibly off-topic, but what's the story on the Tux2 http://slashdot.org/features/00/10/13/2117258.shtm l
file system? It sounded like a great idea,
now it seems even the links are broken.
I like that (Freudian typo?). Sell your soul to get a "solution".
Without shielding this thing might radiate like crazy. Your radio, TV, your neighbor's TV, etc. could go beserk. They put computers in metal cases with finger-stock seals for a reason.
http://jamesthornton.com/acs/benchmarks-ora817-pg7 03.html
So much for "openness", although if you look hard enough you and draw your own conclusion about the name of a "leading proprietary database application" is you can see PostgreSQL can perform impressively:
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/aldev/pgsql/GreatBridg e.html
And they are known for dirty marketing tricks, where once they lock you in they jack up the price:
http://pub13.ezboard.com/fiwetheydatabases.showMes sage?topicID=76.topic&index=1
So, if this was your girlfriend, I guess you could finally figure out whether it's her body or her brains that you go for.
Regardless of what you think of the guy, he's now probably a few thousand richer with all the Slashdot hits to his site.
Whatever you do just make sure that your code isn't sitting anywhere on their machines whether it's just for convenient backup or any other reason. If it is, and especially if they have it on their backup tapes, your case will probably be a lot more difficult.
So after the labor is paid for, the IP should be free?
Perhaps it is time to start to explore alternatives, such as a redundantly distributed database supported by thousands of individual volunteer users such as myself. "Redundant" means that if one server goes down, it has essentially no effect. We've accomplished that with distributed computing; is a distributed database also possible?
The idea is to have something that would start slowly but eventually compete with Google. At the very least it would keep Google on its toes, which can be nothing but a Good Thing.