Actually, the RIAA will now buy all fluorescent lights and thereby control the distribution network instead of shutting it down. There is no upstream, which is perfect for them.
How many formulas for mapping a picture taken with a fisheye lens to a certain other view? Right, there's exactly one. It's a bijective projection from fisheye-image coordinates into yourview coordinates. The desired view is defined by the application (QTVR tools). The projection is defined by the physical characteristics of the fisheye lense. There isn't a single variable in the mathematics of this transformation. If anything about transforming fisheye images into "normal" images is patentable then it must be in interpolation or coding strategies. The mapping itself is straight forward math.
The "Hague Convention" aims to make this kind of situation the norm. Signing countries agree to enforce foreign judgements. This is law made for the benefit of lawyers and lawyers only.
Free speech? Let's hear what Afghanistan has to say about that. Better start shutting down those servers.
Reverse engineering allowed where you live? Not in the US. Prepare to go to jail.
Software patents are not threatening open source development in your country? Guess what, US patent law now reaches out to you, too.
The "Hague Convention", should we fail to stop it, will generally make it mandatory that countries enforce foreign judgements. Don't be too proud of your freedom. Many people wouldn't like your "DMCA" and the US view on software patents introduced into their countries' effective law through the backdoor. More information is here: http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html
DNS, you can't remember the name, but it works.
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 2
What does the DNS do anyway? First, it provides names that are easier to remember than IP addresses. Second, it puts a level of abstraction above IP addresses. That way, IP addresses can change, be aggregated under a single name or several functions can be aggregated on a single interface and split up later.
One thing it was not supposed to provide is the function of a directory. It is often suggested that domain names should be handed out according to a content-based hierarchy (where freshmeat would be known as freshmeat.software.archives.linux.software.comp) or according to a location based hierarchy (...ny.usa.earth.sol). It would not work. The world as we see it is not a hierarchy where everything has one or only a few correct classifications. Sites like Slashdot would fit in all sorts of subtrees ranging from humor to bizzare and who gets to decide which classifications are correct?
What is happening now is that the second function of DNS, the abstraction layer above IP addresses, is corrupted by the first function of DNS, the easy to remember names. I think that a stable abstraction layer is a really essential function. In my opinion DNS should concentrate on that and sacrifice the other function should that be necessary (and it looks like it is). This way competing or even conflicting namespaces would not be that big a problem. You could always fall back to the then somewhat uncomfortable but guaranteed-to-work DNS abstraction layer. This fallback does not exist today for several reasons, virtual webservers being only one of them.
Conflicting name spaces will not be avoided. Money is to be made. The draft documents want to make us believe that this can be solved on a technical level: "Your internet domain name system root zone is violating internet standard RFCblabla because someone is already offering that TLD. Go away." Like that's going to work. It's important that these kinds of clashes will not harm the general interoperability of the net. Because of that, I suggest to stop handing out names on request and start handing out random strings instead (preferably only consonants or something like that to make sure it is really incomprehensible). Just make sure there is one set of really non-ambiguous addresses on top of IP addresses, available to anyone in large quantities, meaningless to humans.
These cards can't be refilled. You use them, you throw them away. They are like prefilled withdraw-only anonymous accounts. Is marketing going to pay over and over again for the necessary reregistrations after the relatively small-valued cards are used up? On second thought...
Phone cards are something very different. First, they are not cards with a magnetic strip, but with an embedded chip. Also, phone cards store the remaining value on the card. They are not connected to some sort of account anywhere (not even an anonymous account). They are not suitable for online payment because the recipient has to be certain that he's interacting with a real phone card. The security is based on checking for compliance with a very tight timing specification and strict size limitations, so that you can't emulate a card inside a public phone. You can't check this online, so it's back to account based schemes for now. BTW, Deutsche Telekom's "MicroMoney" is not really "money": You can't give some of it to a friend for example (unless he is a merchant, of course). While this may be a good transitional product for online payment only, true electronic cash is still far away.
You heard about the information society and about how information would be valuable. All the time you thought they were talking about movies, songs, books, or news. You have since wondered why you were given so much information for free on the internet. Only to now recognize that it wasn't movies which they were calling valuable information. They were talking about you. The data that is the customer, the employee, the voter. Information is not entertainment, it is a control instrument.
Some electronics device triggers the gas cartridge in the airbag. You rely on that mechanism to work, why not rely on the other one as well? I suspect the number of false positives would be way to high if loss of signal were interpreted as an accident.
It's just one more lesson from history where being open is better than being closed.
Better for whom? We're not buying our PCs from IBM, are we? There may not be as many Macs as there are PCs, but Apple sold (almost) every single one of them. The lesson is not to be open but to know your business. When that business requires openness, be open. When it requires secrecy, choose carefully who gets to take a look. Microsoft is keeping that balance. Others aren't because they thought code first, business later.
NBD (Network Block Device) works fine for me. Any filesystem will run over that and remote filesystems are kept in "container-files" instead of being mounted into server filespace. Since the network block device is used just like a local block device, all normal caching applies. It was intended for mirroring to a failover server via RAID, but booting diskless is also a nice application.
Our approach, which we refer to as bundling, builds a store-and-forward overlay network above the transport layers of underlying networks. Bundling uses many of the techniques of electronic mail, but is directed toward
interprocess communication, and is designed to operate in
environments that have very long speed-of-light delays.
Just when you think someone has figured out how to make interplanetary Quake matches possible, they tell me about store and forward...
That's the conflict between IPs seen as routing tools (non-portable) and IPs seen as abstract addresses (portable). Both multihoming and portability (as well as DNS-related downtime) are non-issues for almost all users who are now in the situation that they can't get a static IP address. "Static, until routing changes" is a good tradeoff between routing table size and user experience. Skapare implied that most people would get portable addresses and in that case, the price increase will go to them, for causing routing table bloat.
Just how static do IP addresses have to be? Why would anyone want an IP address space which is not a subspace of the provider's address space? When the finer routing decisions are kept at provider level, the routing tables for the big pipes can be made lean and fast.
IPv6 is not the tool for giving us more NATed 10.x.x.x networks. Users will not benefit from IPv6 if it's only used as backbone technology and the endpoints of communication keep calling eachother 32bit names. What's the advantage of having bazillion addresses free for everyone if you can't enter them into your latest first person shooting game? Don't let people mislead you: The key for quick migration is not backbone providers making a start. It isn't some remote tunnel possibility either. It's IPv6 "Napster" which will do the trick.
The game developer can always make it harder for people who want to cheat, but unless the clients run in a 100% trusted environment (hard- and software), cheating can not be made impossible. The amount of data which is sent to the client is a tradeoff between security and performance. Just like hits are not calculated for every single polygon of a playermodel, the wall-player order is not tested for every single wall polygon. Accepting a serious performance penalty just to make cheating a little harder is not worth the trouble. It's important not to make cheating easy but it's foolish to try and make it impossible. ASUS is being spit in the face for intentionally making cheating a lot easier.
The cat's out of the bag. It has not stopped. ASUS now pleases everyone. The cheater has up-to-date drivers with cheating ability. The rest kisses ASUS' butt for removing the see-through part from the drivers. ASUS should be treated just as if they had not removed the cheat, because effectively they haven't.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the RIAA will now buy all fluorescent lights and thereby control the distribution network instead of shutting it down. There is no upstream, which is perfect for them.
Kid? Are you still online? Don't lie! I can see the light's still on!
How many formulas for mapping a picture taken with a fisheye lens to a certain other view? Right, there's exactly one. It's a bijective projection from fisheye-image coordinates into yourview coordinates. The desired view is defined by the application (QTVR tools). The projection is defined by the physical characteristics of the fisheye lense. There isn't a single variable in the mathematics of this transformation. If anything about transforming fisheye images into "normal" images is patentable then it must be in interpolation or coding strategies. The mapping itself is straight forward math.
What I don't understand is how they want to force their patents in Europe
Check out the "Hague Convention". This is stuff to be afraid of. Signing countries will enforce foreign judgements!l
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.htm
Why is it that all companies have to become Portals after they give up their main product and before they die?
The "Hague Convention" aims to make this kind of situation the norm. Signing countries agree to enforce foreign judgements. This is law made for the benefit of lawyers and lawyers only.
Free speech? Let's hear what Afghanistan has to say about that. Better start shutting down those servers.
Reverse engineering allowed where you live? Not in the US. Prepare to go to jail.
Software patents are not threatening open source development in your country? Guess what, US patent law now reaches out to you, too.
This is serious. More information is here:l
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.htm
The "Hague Convention", should we fail to stop it, will generally make it mandatory that countries enforce foreign judgements. Don't be too proud of your freedom. Many people wouldn't like your "DMCA" and the US view on software patents introduced into their countries' effective law through the backdoor. More information is here:l
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.htm
What does the DNS do anyway? First, it provides names that are easier to remember than IP addresses. Second, it puts a level of abstraction above IP addresses. That way, IP addresses can change, be aggregated under a single name or several functions can be aggregated on a single interface and split up later.
One thing it was not supposed to provide is the function of a directory. It is often suggested that domain names should be handed out according to a content-based hierarchy (where freshmeat would be known as freshmeat.software.archives.linux.software.comp) or according to a location based hierarchy (...ny.usa.earth.sol). It would not work. The world as we see it is not a hierarchy where everything has one or only a few correct classifications. Sites like Slashdot would fit in all sorts of subtrees ranging from humor to bizzare and who gets to decide which classifications are correct?
What is happening now is that the second function of DNS, the abstraction layer above IP addresses, is corrupted by the first function of DNS, the easy to remember names. I think that a stable abstraction layer is a really essential function. In my opinion DNS should concentrate on that and sacrifice the other function should that be necessary (and it looks like it is). This way competing or even conflicting namespaces would not be that big a problem. You could always fall back to the then somewhat uncomfortable but guaranteed-to-work DNS abstraction layer. This fallback does not exist today for several reasons, virtual webservers being only one of them.
Conflicting name spaces will not be avoided. Money is to be made. The draft documents want to make us believe that this can be solved on a technical level: "Your internet domain name system root zone is violating internet standard RFCblabla because someone is already offering that TLD. Go away." Like that's going to work. It's important that these kinds of clashes will not harm the general interoperability of the net. Because of that, I suggest to stop handing out names on request and start handing out random strings instead (preferably only consonants or something like that to make sure it is really incomprehensible). Just make sure there is one set of really non-ambiguous addresses on top of IP addresses, available to anyone in large quantities, meaningless to humans.
These cards can't be refilled. You use them, you throw them away. They are like prefilled withdraw-only anonymous accounts. Is marketing going to pay over and over again for the necessary reregistrations after the relatively small-valued cards are used up? On second thought...
Phone cards are something very different. First, they are not cards with a magnetic strip, but with an embedded chip. Also, phone cards store the remaining value on the card. They are not connected to some sort of account anywhere (not even an anonymous account). They are not suitable for online payment because the recipient has to be certain that he's interacting with a real phone card. The security is based on checking for compliance with a very tight timing specification and strict size limitations, so that you can't emulate a card inside a public phone. You can't check this online, so it's back to account based schemes for now. BTW, Deutsche Telekom's "MicroMoney" is not really "money": You can't give some of it to a friend for example (unless he is a merchant, of course). While this may be a good transitional product for online payment only, true electronic cash is still far away.
At the gas station:
- What do you need all these for? You bought a dozen just yesterday...
- Uhmmm... I read a lot of news online?
Why would you register or encourage anyone to register a 10$ bill?
You heard about the information society and about how information would be valuable. All the time you thought they were talking about movies, songs, books, or news. You have since wondered why you were given so much information for free on the internet. Only to now recognize that it wasn't movies which they were calling valuable information. They were talking about you. The data that is the customer, the employee, the voter. Information is not entertainment, it is a control instrument.
Some electronics device triggers the gas cartridge in the airbag. You rely on that mechanism to work, why not rely on the other one as well? I suspect the number of false positives would be way to high if loss of signal were interpreted as an accident.
It's just one more lesson from history where being open is better than being closed.
Better for whom? We're not buying our PCs from IBM, are we? There may not be as many Macs as there are PCs, but Apple sold (almost) every single one of them. The lesson is not to be open but to know your business. When that business requires openness, be open. When it requires secrecy, choose carefully who gets to take a look. Microsoft is keeping that balance. Others aren't because they thought code first, business later.
If true, the arms would have been rearanged instead of the keyboard.
How?g .jpegj peg
http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/IMAGES/upstrdia
http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/IMAGES/Q.78pat.
NBD (Network Block Device) works fine for me. Any filesystem will run over that and remote filesystems are kept in "container-files" instead of being mounted into server filespace. Since the network block device is used just like a local block device, all normal caching applies. It was intended for mirroring to a failover server via RAID, but booting diskless is also a nice application.
He said "blow". Uh-huh-huh-huh.
Our approach, which we refer to as bundling, builds a store-and-forward overlay network above the transport layers of underlying networks. Bundling uses many of the techniques of electronic mail, but is directed toward interprocess communication, and is designed to operate in environments that have very long speed-of-light delays.
Just when you think someone has figured out how to make interplanetary Quake matches possible, they tell me about store and forward...
That's the conflict between IPs seen as routing tools (non-portable) and IPs seen as abstract addresses (portable). Both multihoming and portability (as well as DNS-related downtime) are non-issues for almost all users who are now in the situation that they can't get a static IP address. "Static, until routing changes" is a good tradeoff between routing table size and user experience. Skapare implied that most people would get portable addresses and in that case, the price increase will go to them, for causing routing table bloat.
Just how static do IP addresses have to be? Why would anyone want an IP address space which is not a subspace of the provider's address space? When the finer routing decisions are kept at provider level, the routing tables for the big pipes can be made lean and fast.
IPv6 is not the tool for giving us more NATed 10.x.x.x networks. Users will not benefit from IPv6 if it's only used as backbone technology and the endpoints of communication keep calling eachother 32bit names. What's the advantage of having bazillion addresses free for everyone if you can't enter them into your latest first person shooting game? Don't let people mislead you: The key for quick migration is not backbone providers making a start. It isn't some remote tunnel possibility either. It's IPv6 "Napster" which will do the trick.
The game developer can always make it harder for people who want to cheat, but unless the clients run in a 100% trusted environment (hard- and software), cheating can not be made impossible. The amount of data which is sent to the client is a tradeoff between security and performance. Just like hits are not calculated for every single polygon of a playermodel, the wall-player order is not tested for every single wall polygon. Accepting a serious performance penalty just to make cheating a little harder is not worth the trouble. It's important not to make cheating easy but it's foolish to try and make it impossible. ASUS is being spit in the face for intentionally making cheating a lot easier.
This driver could have had some cool uses besides cheating, though.
Name one.
The cat's out of the bag. It has not stopped. ASUS now pleases everyone. The cheater has up-to-date drivers with cheating ability. The rest kisses ASUS' butt for removing the see-through part from the drivers. ASUS should be treated just as if they had not removed the cheat, because effectively they haven't.