You can make your own content, just not what they have on the page, I hacked together the "backdoors" for slashdot etc at landsberger.com/infolinks. True it's not instant - but it's still very cool:)
So, does the C++ builder tool only make it's "own" version of C++ code? Has Borland modified it in such a way to make it difficult, or otherwise impossible to enforce such a liscense? What if I write my code in vi and then compile using their compiler may I then redistribute my IP?! Ugh, it amazes me at the utter audicity of Borland to suggest such a thing. Since source code is intellectual property Borland has no juristiction to make such a wild claim, and it would seem that they are shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to development teams, CVS, and hell - how the product is even laid out.
Sounds like marketing didn't understand the product, or laws at all.
All people who are US Citizens should be *VERY* upset about such a thing. For one this breaks how we have been trying to conduct international affairs. We have been trying very hard to be diplomatic instead of war-torn. Wars happen because one people group pushes it's culture on another. The USA can't decide on a culture for 10 years at a time, much less the rest of the worlds. I strongly suggest that all US Citizens write the approperiate authorities and voice their opinions.
The internet has always been a medium of communication that is relatively unrestricted. France, England, India, China, Iraq, etc will *NOT* let this go through. Hell, in Canada it would be illegal to register godhatesfags.com!
We need to take a libetarian approach to the internet, leave it the hell alone.
#9 missed out on the 3d card 'revolution'. Always a step behind 3dfx, nVidia, and even Matrox. Who would have thought only a few years ago that those crappy S3 Virge cards could have financed the buyout of Diamond Multimedia and the eventual demise of S3? #9 was almost always good about customer support, and the hardware was decient to say the least. -- they will be missed.
As much of a Linux bigot as I am, now a "major" desktop player that conforms to the "major" - binary software developers (such as Adobe, Quark, etc.) will have to begin developing in Unix-like environments. This will mean that a step to PPC or x86 BSD/Linux or gads Solaris is really easy. MacOSX will redesign the ease of use for Unix and as terrifying as it may be to behold -- that is what sells. Because of this there may yet again be cross platform games, and a software store that you walk into and see not only Microsoft this and that but MacOSX games, productivity, and other software Linux games, and BSD games.
(I know the games are what we want the most;>)
MacOSX is standing up to the Wintel duelopoly, and saying "screw you - there is a better solution". Apple has been noted for "shaking up the market" before, and if they can pull it of if they suceed then software companies will be forced to develop for a wide diversity of platforms.
Apple is hoping that X will become legacy, perhaps that X will eventually integrate w/ quartz & aqua etc. As I'm certian that we all know, X11 desperately needs a new rendering engine - and if I am going to use a different UNIX it will need to have the ability to be everything that Linux or BSD is and isn't.
Can Apple pull it off? From what I have seen they are making a no-holds-barred valliant attempt to kick some Microsoft ass. I have long time been a Linux bigot -- but we shall soon see.
Please note: This comment is the opinion, and expression of Brian Landsberger, any misuse, reproduction, or otherwise doing something that I don't want you to with it will result in me suing your ass. If you don't like it - read the DMCA.
With laws where they currently are, anyone MSFT included has every right to infringe on our first amendment. MSFT also knows full well that most/.ers don't use MSFT products in every day life & nor will they ever, therefore they are attacking those who are not apart of their little world.
The fact of the matter is that/. will need to comply with this, or face suit. Personally I would face suit with the face of the first amendment. The DMCA must be amendmed, and the true crimes must go punished.
Study history, investment has hardly been fueled by what is the most sane, easy, or otherwise intelligent risks. Ever thought of the railroad? Damn, that was one expensive as hell thing to build and maintain. But gee, sure did change the world. The difference now is that we do not have just a Rockafellers, there are thousands and thousands of small investors. From day traders to people who invest in a 401k or simple stock plan. This book probably points out the obvious bullshit that has, and always *WILL* be the difference is now anyone can invest. More people = more emotion.
Stuffy, pompous investors do not like the idea of the "average idiot" investing in the stock market. The only way that they can continue to make money is to influence the marketplace so that companies that they do not see having any intrinsic value will insta-fail, and ones that "produce value" will survive, grow, and end up making them money.
Don't buy into the lies and utter BS. Average investor joe schmow does not want to learn about every company that they invest 500 bucks in, so of course the market is more lead by feeling now than in the past. But is that so wrong? As John Katz is so overbearing to point out every time that he can, corporate America is destroying the world - perhaps companies fueled by what the consumer wants & needs are the wave of the future... perhaps not -- only time will tell.
Just think of it like this, how many people have actually saved money, and got useful information from companies such as Amazon, Yahoo!, etc. These companies will make what is due them (either more or less) as they change management strategies, and explore various methods for gaining a profit. We will see where the future leads on this.
(evil being subjective to my own libetarian views) Just because someone is evil doesn't mean that they can not make a good concept. Microsoft is one way of looking at it, but then again so is AT&T - anyone remember Bell? Microsoft did make Excel a standard... whooptie. To say that the entire gnome project will go the same way is quite extensive Microsoft may have good ideas, eg the libraries for IE and cross compatability makes it easier to deploy desktop shit on the win platform. Miguel de Icaza has made such a thing possible on the Linux/X11 platform. Unfortunately this never could happen under *nix because old proprietary sets of libs were just a pain, and expensive. Anyone remember motif? Microsoft has a good idea, shitty implementation (what else is new) - but this is not a new concept. Dynamically linked libraries have been around since *thinks* I can't even remember when. Don't worry, GNOME is still fighting for 'good' in the 'good vs. evil' battle.
Well, to back the media a bit, Yahoo! - as large of a site as they are should multihome off of different backbones... it would appear as though they don't.
Although I could be wrong I didn't tracert to the various www.yahoo.com's;)
I find this sort of troubling - being that I do not run a top level router I do not know if they run OSPF / RouteD or gated as their routing protocol. At either rate there should be some sanity checks built in...
As I do not see a link out to anywhere I will guess that this refers to a problem that started yesterday and propigated throughout many top level routers. The problem originated at Alter Net and it would appear as though they had a bad routing update - which propigated to glbx.net and effected many sites such as Yahoo!, CNN and a few others. This all depends on who your connected into - and where the routing packets are forced, but for many USWest !nterprise customers yesterday half or so of the internet was "down".
Is it just me or isn't this a "well duh"? I figured that most web hosts would be intelligent enough to have their shell server, file server, and web server seperated. Not to mention I would hope that people wouldn't keep their key files 777.
One piece disturbs me:
All a hacker would have to do, Hopcroft said, is set up an account with an Internet service provider hosting a company's Web site, "go into that server and root around looking for the keys of other companies. With [the key] there is no way for me to be distinguished from a legitimate business owner."
Is it just me, or isn't this another "well duh". If you have shotty administration and security you are going to have "hackers" breaking in and "root[ing] around". The only revelation that this article seems to make is that poor administration, poor implementation, and shotty security go hand in hand. Anyone who has been in the ISP or hosting business knows this for a fact.
It all comes down to 'buyer beware' - and if the consumer doesn't heed that then they are at fault.
To get to the point the results of this case are landmark - and we shall probably see the end of etoys.com because of it eventually anyways.
As a culture we see that lay people are upset when hearing this because it violates freedom of speech. Not someones oddball interpretation of the first amendment but people are starting to truly want to be informed not only because they can be but because they want to be.
People everywhere are seeing internet companies as (from time to time) just that - nothing more and nothing less. If company A sues company B about an issue of "morality" -- and questionable at that then they have no "morality" themselves. Corporations aren't evil - just some of them have evil people (tm).
Watching the etoys stock as a whole - it reflects that bad press because of a stupid issue also reflect what a public company is all about. The fact here is that they did not do what the public wanted, but what they wanted... so the public hammered them (badly).
Etoy will end up countersuing them and possibly even the court that granted the injunction siting that there is no legislation that allows for this type of legal action to actually take place. Regardless this will be a big win for freedom of speech and also a big win for any artist...
If art is about making a stand for what you believe then these artists are being true martyrs - and nobody (except etoys) can possibly loose this battle.
Let's say that I lived in 1910, or 1953 - patent laws affected me differently. Now imagine I am an inventor from Maine. Now why would I patent a dumb idea, or common concept? It's a waste of money, time, and in the end it isn't going to mean a hill of beans. Let's say I want to release a prototype into a very viable market, am I going to patent every idea and concept around the main product. This is what I ment by "nullified" - it doesn't make the paper idea or however old patent go away. That's why it is a "sad fact" that "these type of patents" or not product related, but service related method patents are thrown out in court by a judge. The entire concept behind the service industry is to make it easier for the end consumer regardless of the industry. Let's be honest, do you think that Barnes and Noble outright STOLE (gasp) the idea of being able to click on a single link, button, or whatever they have from Amazon.com?
Now as to having a blaring error for the date I would note the preface of copyright law:
Act of August 5th 1977 (Amendment to section 203, title 17, U.S. Code, being the Act of 1909, as amended, and to section 708, Title 17, U.S. Code, being the Copyright Act of 1976, regarding the deposit of moneys by the Register of Copyrights in the Treasury of the United States), Pub. L. 95-94, 91 Stat. 653,682.
Perhaps it doesn't predate the Automobile but the common use of it. 1909 is when the initial act was revamped, or as far back as it goes. It would seem to me that patent law has never been rewritten and that there have only really been amendments to patent law since then. I say this after largely reading the publicly avaliable documents on the internet from the library of congress on Patent Law. I am not an expert, I'm a Network Admin/Analyst type, not a lawyer. I would however like to challange the validity of the laws and how they are handled, hopefully calling for a complete rewrite of the patent laws out there.
The sad fact of the matter is that patenting a concept or idea is terribly difficult to uphold in court through the entirety of a trial. A "Method For Implementing..." patent was initially granted to companies or small inventors before their product came out. In other words if I had an method for implementing a concept, for instance a computer I may implement "method for data transport via the ISA bus" etc. etc.. These patents are supposed to be nullified or pushed into the background when the product as a whole is released.
In the past if a product was released it was perceived as the only way to do the task that was performedby that product. After the automobile technology and patent laws should have changed -- well technology changed but patent laws never did.
The problem now is that technology is rapidly accelerating, gaining ground on and in every field. Naturally people will take advantage to "cash out" - as in any time period, or society. The problem is that the American Justice System helps and hurts at the same time. It helps break up the monopolys that it helps create. So now it's the governments fault -- which isn't entirely true. Again, we don't live in a Utopian Society but let's not be lazy -- let's change patent law to reflect the times, not the 1890's.
I think you are confusing the actual protest with the looters and rioters. Those who were protesting, were simply exercising their right to assembly and free speech. Those who were rioting and looting have no such rights, in my opinion.
As per the rest of the week, a state of civil emergency was called - due to the vast damage caused by one night. People still protested just fine - those who were disobeying the law by disrupting the peace however were thrown in jail.
>This (Protesters == Good) and (Anarchists == Bad) is a little annoying
As much as I agree that the ideal of Anarchy is a wonderful one, same with socialism, or communism - I do not see anytime in the near future where human nature will change to the point where it becomes probable. Corporations are actually (for the most part) the most democratic businesses in the world. Multiple ownership, often there are (worker forced) unions, etc allow for a diverse playing field. I see democracy as a whole an organized anarchy - the individual has more freedom then anything, except for what the many (or at least in theory) say is unacceptable.
Let's just say it would be the same way in an anarchy... if you were living in an anarchistic village and did something to piss off your neighbor really bad - there is no law to say he can't kill you on the spot... so human nature would rule.
At anyrate, Anarchy is not a bad thing and that's not what I'm saying. It's just that these children, protestors, or otherwise revolutionaries must try to grab our (the peoples) fancy first - not just start busting up everything in the name of anarchy. Why? Because Anarchy lives off of strength in numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
[disclaimer: I, also work at XYPoint - home of webwirelessnow]
You want slashdot via wwn? I threw together a few infolinks at landsberger.com/infolinks
No no no, it's like "olah" or "absotoutely"...
;-)
I can see that my wacky sense of humor interests you not.
You can make your own content, just not what they have on the page, I hacked together the "backdoors" for slashdot etc at landsberger.com/infolinks. True it's not instant - but it's still very cool :)
I'm pretty certian that it would still come under IP of the coder :)
Brian
So, does the C++ builder tool only make it's "own" version of C++ code? Has Borland modified it in such a way to make it difficult, or otherwise impossible to enforce such a liscense? What if I write my code in vi and then compile using their compiler may I then redistribute my IP?! Ugh, it amazes me at the utter audicity of Borland to suggest such a thing. Since source code is intellectual property Borland has no juristiction to make such a wild claim, and it would seem that they are shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to development teams, CVS, and hell - how the product is even laid out.
Sounds like marketing didn't understand the product, or laws at all.
All people who are US Citizens should be *VERY* upset about such a thing. For one this breaks how we have been trying to conduct international affairs. We have been trying very hard to be diplomatic instead of war-torn. Wars happen because one people group pushes it's culture on another. The USA can't decide on a culture for 10 years at a time, much less the rest of the worlds. I strongly suggest that all US Citizens write the approperiate authorities and voice their opinions.
The internet has always been a medium of communication that is relatively unrestricted. France, England, India, China, Iraq, etc will *NOT* let this go through. Hell, in Canada it would be illegal to register godhatesfags.com!
We need to take a libetarian approach to the internet, leave it the hell alone.
#9 missed out on the 3d card 'revolution'. Always a step behind 3dfx, nVidia, and even Matrox. Who would have thought only a few years ago that those crappy S3 Virge cards could have financed the buyout of Diamond Multimedia and the eventual demise of S3? #9 was almost always good about customer support, and the hardware was decient to say the least. -- they will be missed.
As much of a Linux bigot as I am, now a "major" desktop player that conforms to the "major" - binary software developers (such as Adobe, Quark, etc.) will have to begin developing in Unix-like environments. This will mean that a step to PPC or x86 BSD/Linux or gads Solaris is really easy. MacOSX will redesign the ease of use for Unix and as terrifying as it may be to behold -- that is what sells. Because of this there may yet again be cross platform games, and a software store that you walk into and see not only Microsoft this and that but MacOSX games, productivity, and other software Linux games, and BSD games.
;>)
;-)
(I know the games are what we want the most
MacOSX is standing up to the Wintel duelopoly, and saying "screw you - there is a better solution". Apple has been noted for "shaking up the market" before, and if they can pull it of if they suceed then software companies will be forced to develop for a wide diversity of platforms.
Sound like a good reason?
Apple is hoping that X will become legacy, perhaps that X will eventually integrate w/ quartz & aqua etc. As I'm certian that we all know, X11 desperately needs a new rendering engine - and if I am going to use a different UNIX it will need to have the ability to be everything that Linux or BSD is and isn't.
Can Apple pull it off? From what I have seen they are making a no-holds-barred valliant attempt to kick some Microsoft ass. I have long time been a Linux bigot -- but we shall soon see.
Please note: This comment is the opinion, and expression of Brian Landsberger, any misuse, reproduction, or otherwise doing something that I don't want you to with it will result in me suing your ass. If you don't like it - read the DMCA.
/.ers don't use MSFT products in every day life & nor will they ever, therefore they are attacking those who are not apart of their little world.
/. will need to comply with this, or face suit. Personally I would face suit with the face of the first amendment. The DMCA must be amendmed, and the true crimes must go punished.
With laws where they currently are, anyone MSFT included has every right to infringe on our first amendment. MSFT also knows full well that most
The fact of the matter is that
Study history, investment has hardly been fueled by what is the most sane, easy, or otherwise intelligent risks. Ever thought of the railroad? Damn, that was one expensive as hell thing to build and maintain. But gee, sure did change the world. The difference now is that we do not have just a Rockafellers, there are thousands and thousands of small investors. From day traders to people who invest in a 401k or simple stock plan. This book probably points out the obvious bullshit that has, and always *WILL* be the difference is now anyone can invest. More people = more emotion.
Stuffy, pompous investors do not like the idea of the "average idiot" investing in the stock market. The only way that they can continue to make money is to influence the marketplace so that companies that they do not see having any intrinsic value will insta-fail, and ones that "produce value" will survive, grow, and end up making them money.
Don't buy into the lies and utter BS. Average investor joe schmow does not want to learn about every company that they invest 500 bucks in, so of course the market is more lead by feeling now than in the past. But is that so wrong? As John Katz is so overbearing to point out every time that he can, corporate America is destroying the world - perhaps companies fueled by what the consumer wants & needs are the wave of the future... perhaps not -- only time will tell.
Just think of it like this, how many people have actually saved money, and got useful information from companies such as Amazon, Yahoo!, etc. These companies will make what is due them (either more or less) as they change management strategies, and explore various methods for gaining a profit. We will see where the future leads on this.
So I guess that the real question would be "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?" --- come on sing it now
(evil being subjective to my own libetarian views) Just because someone is evil doesn't mean that they can not make a good concept. Microsoft is one way of looking at it, but then again so is AT&T - anyone remember Bell? Microsoft did make Excel a standard... whooptie. To say that the entire gnome project will go the same way is quite extensive Microsoft may have good ideas, eg the libraries for IE and cross compatability makes it easier to deploy desktop shit on the win platform. Miguel de Icaza has made such a thing possible on the Linux/X11 platform. Unfortunately this never could happen under *nix because old proprietary sets of libs were just a pain, and expensive. Anyone remember motif? Microsoft has a good idea, shitty implementation (what else is new) - but this is not a new concept. Dynamically linked libraries have been around since *thinks* I can't even remember when. Don't worry, GNOME is still fighting for 'good' in the 'good vs. evil' battle.
Well, to back the media a bit, Yahoo! - as large of a site as they are should multihome off of different backbones ... it would appear as though they don't.
;)
Although I could be wrong I didn't tracert to the various www.yahoo.com's
I find this sort of troubling - being that I do not run a top level router I do not know if they run OSPF / RouteD or gated as their routing protocol. At either rate there should be some sanity checks built in...
Moo? --
As I do not see a link out to anywhere I will guess that this refers to a problem that started yesterday and propigated throughout many top level routers. The problem originated at Alter Net and it would appear as though they had a bad routing update - which propigated to glbx.net and effected many sites such as Yahoo!, CNN and a few others. This all depends on who your connected into - and where the routing packets are forced, but for many USWest !nterprise customers yesterday half or so of the internet was "down".
Is it just me or isn't this a "well duh"? I figured that most web hosts would be intelligent enough to have their shell server, file server, and web server seperated. Not to mention I would hope that people wouldn't keep their key files 777.
One piece disturbs me:
All a hacker would have to do, Hopcroft said,
is set up an account with an Internet service
provider hosting a company's Web site, "go into
that server and root around looking for the keys
of other companies. With [the key] there is no
way for me to be distinguished from a legitimate
business owner."
Is it just me, or isn't this another "well duh". If you have shotty administration and security you are going to have "hackers" breaking in and "root[ing] around". The only revelation that this article seems to make is that poor administration, poor implementation, and shotty security go hand in hand. Anyone who has been in the ISP or hosting business knows this for a fact.
It all comes down to 'buyer beware' - and if the consumer doesn't heed that then they are at fault.
To get to the point the results of this case are landmark - and we shall probably see the end of etoys.com because of it eventually anyways.
As a culture we see that lay people are upset when hearing this because it violates freedom of speech. Not someones oddball interpretation of the first amendment but people are starting to truly want to be informed not only because they can be but because they want to be.
People everywhere are seeing internet companies as (from time to time) just that - nothing more and nothing less. If company A sues company B about an issue of "morality" -- and questionable at that then they have no "morality" themselves. Corporations aren't evil - just some of them have evil people (tm).
Watching the etoys stock as a whole - it reflects that bad press because of a stupid issue also reflect what a public company is all about. The fact here is that they did not do what the public wanted, but what they wanted... so the public hammered them (badly).
Etoy will end up countersuing them and possibly even the court that granted the injunction siting that there is no legislation that allows for this type of legal action to actually take place. Regardless this will be a big win for freedom of speech and also a big win for any artist...
If art is about making a stand for what you believe then these artists are being true martyrs - and nobody (except etoys) can possibly loose this battle.
Let's say that I lived in 1910, or 1953 - patent laws affected me differently. Now imagine I am an inventor from Maine. Now why would I patent a dumb idea, or common concept? It's a waste of money, time, and in the end it isn't going to mean a hill of beans. Let's say I want to release a prototype into a very viable market, am I going to patent every idea and concept around the main product. This is what I ment by "nullified" - it doesn't make the paper idea or however old patent go away. That's why it is a "sad fact" that "these type of patents" or not product related, but service related method patents are thrown out in court by a judge. The entire concept behind the service industry is to make it easier for the end consumer regardless of the industry. Let's be honest, do you think that Barnes and Noble outright STOLE (gasp) the idea of being able to click on a single link, button, or whatever they have from Amazon.com?
Now as to having a blaring error for the date I would note the preface of copyright law:
Act of August 5th 1977 (Amendment to section 203, title 17, U.S. Code, being the Act of 1909, as amended, and to section 708, Title 17, U.S. Code, being the Copyright Act of 1976, regarding the deposit of moneys by the Register of Copyrights in the Treasury of the United States), Pub. L. 95-94, 91 Stat. 653,682.
Perhaps it doesn't predate the Automobile but the common use of it. 1909 is when the initial act was revamped, or as far back as it goes. It would seem to me that patent law has never been rewritten and that there have only really been amendments to patent law since then. I say this after largely reading the publicly avaliable documents on the internet from the library of congress on Patent Law. I am not an expert, I'm a Network Admin/Analyst type, not a lawyer. I would however like to challange the validity of the laws and how they are handled, hopefully calling for a complete rewrite of the patent laws out there.
The sad fact of the matter is that patenting a concept or idea is terribly difficult to uphold in court through the entirety of a trial. A "Method For Implementing..." patent was initially granted to companies or small inventors before their product came out. In other words if I had an method for implementing a concept, for instance a computer I may implement "method for data transport via the ISA bus" etc. etc.. These patents are supposed to be nullified or pushed into the background when the product as a whole is released.
In the past if a product was released it was perceived as the only way to do the task that was performedby that product. After the automobile technology and patent laws should have changed -- well technology changed but patent laws never did.
The problem now is that technology is rapidly accelerating, gaining ground on and in every field. Naturally people will take advantage to "cash out" - as in any time period, or society. The problem is that the American Justice System helps and hurts at the same time. It helps break up the monopolys that it helps create. So now it's the governments fault -- which isn't entirely true. Again, we don't live in a Utopian Society but let's not be lazy -- let's change patent law to reflect the times, not the 1890's.
Perhaps you should look into the XF86 release 4.0 promises... full 3d support is one of them.
I think you are confusing the actual protest with the looters and rioters. Those who were protesting, were simply exercising their right to assembly and free speech. Those who were rioting and looting have no such rights, in my opinion.
As per the rest of the week, a state of civil emergency was called - due to the vast damage caused by one night. People still protested just fine - those who were disobeying the law by disrupting the peace however were thrown in jail.
Do you have any examples?
>This (Protesters == Good) and (Anarchists == Bad) is a little annoying
As much as I agree that the ideal of Anarchy is a wonderful one, same with socialism, or communism - I do not see anytime in the near future where human nature will change to the point where it becomes probable. Corporations are actually (for the most part) the most democratic businesses in the world. Multiple ownership, often there are (worker forced) unions, etc allow for a diverse playing field. I see democracy as a whole an organized anarchy - the individual has more freedom then anything, except for what the many (or at least in theory) say is unacceptable.
Let's just say it would be the same way in an anarchy... if you were living in an anarchistic village and did something to piss off your neighbor really bad - there is no law to say he can't kill you on the spot... so human nature would rule.
At anyrate, Anarchy is not a bad thing and that's not what I'm saying. It's just that these children, protestors, or otherwise revolutionaries must try to grab our (the peoples) fancy first - not just start busting up everything in the name of anarchy. Why? Because Anarchy lives off of strength in numbers.
Later, I will step off my soapbox.