Well, the acronym I've generally seen used (esp. in Sci-Fi e.g. David Weber) is GRASER.
And given that they have multi-year fallout effects within the target area, I'd definitely classify them as much "nuclear" weapons as dirty bombs -- in short, any weapon with non-trivial radioactive fallout.
I thought XVT was "out there" along with these other tools. Is it too small to show up on the radar, or is something else going on? (www.xvt.com for the curious)
It seems like the legislature, the broadcasters, and the consumers, ought to be able to work out an exception provision to the existing laws.
Specifically, they ought to allow unlicensed transmitters below a certain output power (anyone know what the iTrip's broadcast power is?).
I mean, the spectrum licensees have a vested and understable interest in keeping their airwaves free of interference, but I don't think low-power transmissions like these had been envisioned when the law was codefied (receivers were a wee bit less sensitive and precise in 1949, methinks).
Right. So he should have said that Chinese form a *plurality*, not a majority.
And, from what I've heard (granted, that's pretty flimsy), you can't lump all of China into one or even just a few lingual groups. I'm honestly not sure how big a hole that kicks in the argument.
China has a lot more than just an oppressive goverment to deal with, though...
It's fairly obvious, by now, that humanity is no longer at a point where natural selection, in the genetic sense of the term, applies.
People who possess survival advantages don't tend to breed more. Almost any survival-limiting problem (problems controlling weight, respiratory problems, bad joints, whatever) are corrected or otherwise overcome via modern medicine, at least to the extent that you can still generally find someone to bear children with you, if you're so inclined.
Also, the majority of evolution for humans, now, is social rather than genetic in nature. That is to say, much more of our adult skillset is learned rather than genetically hard-wired. So, lack of genetically-driven selection isn't really a problem except where learning disabilities become a factor.
Right. It's almost exactly the same thing -- I say almost because you HAVE to go through the register (or at least the self-checkout) at the grocery store, so it's much easier to put that impulse stuff literally within arm's reach.
The gas station is a bit different -- they have the same impulse stuff there, but in effect the whole rest of the store is as at least as much for impulse buyers as for normal customers.
Pay at the pump is more like having call-ahead/online order and drive-up pickup of groceries, which at least some stores have now.
So we're back to the same question: Does the increase in customers of the "convenient" service (pay at the pump, or curbside delivery of groceries) offset the lost impulse sales?
I suspect it's the same answer, the Computer Scientist's favorite: "It depends."
The reason is that you loose all the foot traffic coming in to buy snacks and drinks.
The assumption underlying this is that some non-trivial percentage of people *forced* to come inside to pay, if they would have just paid at the pump otherwise, will actually buy something from the store now that they're inside.
I'm sure there is some number of people in this category; I'm not so sure it's enough to warrant hassling everyone by making them come inside AND (usually) having to have a few more employees to process all the payments.
Having said that, I think the particulars depend on other factors. I see plenty of gas stations that are barely anything but the pumps and one or two attendants (one inside, one outside). I've seen others that are closer to small supermarkets with gas stations.
Clearly, there is room for both schools of thought; it comes down to what your costs and margins are (for the gas and the store), and the demand for the products you are (or could be) selling in the store.
The airplane's control systems decide HOW to do; the pilot tells them WHAT to do -- go that way, speed up, slow down, whatever.
I agree that it will be quite awhile before this changes -- Brain's making the case that within 50 years is the time frame. I disagree, but I'm not sure I'd be against him. It really is just a milestone in a progression of changes and improvements.
For example, the crew of the shuttle has almost no direct control over takeoff, and only has direct control over certain phases of landing. There are stages that the computer does better, or that humans really couldn't do at all to the degree of timing and precision desired.
Granted, things can (and do, and will) still go wrong, and that's why, for the near-term, humans stay in the loop.
But eventually, the class of things that can be recovered from will also be identified and handled automatically, and that point, you only have the human-comfort factor to deal with.
And, I believe we will eventually overcome this. I agree today is not that day, and 5 years from now probably isn't either. But, damn, if I can trust a foreign guy I've never met before to get me from the airport to the hotel (switching from airplanes to cars, same class of problem by and large), I can certainly come to trust a computer. I personally think one additional pre-requisite will be including heuristics capabilities that tune such robotic controls to the situations and areas at hand.
That is, the Taxi-Bot 2020 I'm riding in has been 'trained' on the streets of whichever city it's driving in, has identified which intersections and roads are particularly dangerous due to pedestrians, and so on.
The human-comfort factor will be the hardest to overcome, because so much of it is emotional and irrational (on many levels), but I think it WILL be overcome eventually.
Like I said, I fully expect all sorts of problems/fallout associated with any system whose extent exceeds your property. Every objection I've seen either acknowledges that existing systems DO over-extend and therefore are bad, or pretends I didn't disclaim myself in this way.
I guess I should have spoken in hypothetical instead of actual terms. If you could devise a system that was demonstrably able to only affect the area demarcated as your property, would it be legal to use?
Obviously, you might have trouble distributing such a system, since there's no guarantee that it wouldn't get used in other situations (e.g. jamming a whole neighborhood rather than just your house). I suspect that's the key reason why FCC regulations don't permit such devices at ALL -- too likely to get abused rather than used.
Kind of interesting, though, when you compare that line of reasoning against things like gun control, VCRs, file sharing...
So, those movie theaters, restaurants, etc. that block cell phone signals are breaking the law?
I doubt anyone's going to get far with that line of reasoning. A dismissed lawsuit or three, maybe, but that's about it.
Obviously, any such employed technology has to be operated intelligently -- if you have some sort of active jamming on your property that happens to also jam signals for a mile in every direction, you'll be in trouble, because now you are (probably) broadcasting a signal illegally (if it's cell signals you're blocking, only a specific cellular carriers have the right to broadcast in the spectrum you're jamming).
But, assuming you can *reasonably* limit the extent of your blocking solution to the "ground level" extent of your property, I think you're good to go. And, aside from grossly overpowered jamming, it's hard to imagine a solution with that kind of fallout.
You can't *declaratively* limit a legal broadcast originating from off your private property from entering it.
You can, of course, devise technical means of preventing it within your property -- for example, jamming cell phone signals at a movie theater, or the hyperbole-laden Faraday's Cage suggestion.
I'm not sure this has been 100% verified legally -- I could see someone *arguing* that they should be entitled to receive cellular calls anywhere they would normally be able to receive them, but not *winning*, however.
I suppose they could try to get the law (or FCC regulations) changed to limit WiFi hotspots, but there's certainly no such limits in place right now.
And, strictly legal issues aside, global acccess with limited denial seems to be the only sensible way to go about it.
The fact that Comcast ponied up sponsorship in exchange for something 'exclusive' is a matter between them and the stadium. They BOTH should have realized that there's no automatic way to guarantee that exclusivity when it can be superseded by forces beyond their control. You could listen to an FM radio station inside the stadium even if they had a 'stadium station' transmitting locally; access to external WiFi concurrent with specifically-provided on-site access is little different, at the end of the day.
It's not QUITE the same, but you can select among multiple available hotspots just like you can tune to different stations. There's a potential conflict if outside and local both want to use the same frequency, but that's orthagonal to the situation here, IMHO.
When hotspot ranges/capacities are very small, it's a whitelist problem -- you select where to HAVE access. With higher ranges and capacities, you start having to look at like a blacklist problem, choosing where to NOT allow access and not worry about everywhere else.
It's not, necessarily, copying the book onto your PDA so you can read it wherever you want to.
I agree with most of what you said, but this statement is erroneous.
The right to format-shift (e.g. making a CD copy of an audio cassette you've legally bought) and the right to make "collections" (e.g. making a "Bob's favorites" CD with selected tracks from several CD's he legally owns) are both protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. The latter doesn't readily apply to books, but the former is a fairly direct application.
So, yes, you CAN create an eBook from a Book you've bought (assuming you had some means of practically doing so), for your personal and noncommercial use. Obviously, distributing the eBook file(s) of that book to any and everyone is a different story, since doing so is copying, or allowing others to copy, a version of the entire book.
people should cross-read declarations made by big corporation reps to find the motive behind their actions
I couldn't agree more. In the end, it ALWAYS has to boil down to the bottom line, even if some of the line items in question are more intangible than others (like customer/consumer goodwill).
I fine theory, but I disagree (and I have a nagging suspicion this is a troll, but either way, it bears answering).
MS is getting on the anti-spam problem because it helps them, yes. But not for some theoretical future savings on bandwidth costs. They're doing it because taking an active role looks good to customers and investors, both of which are increasingly seeing spam as a real problem and not just something us techies talk about.
Remember folks, publicly held corporations are *legally* driven by one thing, and ONLY one thing: Maximizing shareholder return.
That they consequentially minimize other concerns, like the ecology, or customer satisfaction (when it stands in opposition to revenue/profit/market share/etc.), is hardly a surprising consequence. These issues are only worthwhile when the fallout of ignoring them costs more than it does to respect them (and to be seen to respect them). Just ask Best Buy about the economic value of good customer service.
So, I agree to the extent that MS's motives for fighting spam are less than altruistic. But, as a public corporation, they have NO BUSINESS in benevolence; their shareholders could sue (and win) if they sacrificed shareholder value for some other purpose without very good reasons for doing so.
This is about whether or not the Java Runtime should be bundled with Windows, right? If I'm off-base here, please enlighten me.
I'm as against anti-trust as the next guy, but I can see why forcing MS to bundle Java (or, for contrast, a similar plugin e.g. Flash or Shockwave) is going too far.
Mainly, it would place an additional support burden on MS that's not really appropriate -- they'd have to keep up with versioning, deal with customers who are confused as to who services it, etc.
Anyone who's smart enough to distinguish it as belonging to Sun rather than MS should be smart enough to go find it on their own (these days; granted at the original time of the suit perhaps it wasn't nearly so straightforward), and it *is* free, after all.
I think the real criteria is closer to whether you could reasonably believe the distributor can legally distribute it to you.
You can't *reasonably* believe that a random (and/or arbitrary) client on a P2P network has the right to distribute copyrighted songs to you for no fee.
Now where things get interesting is fair use.
I mean, if I own a Metallica CD, I'm pretty certain that format-shifting of it to a collection of MP3s is legal under fair use. Can the *means* of that format shift be downloading them from Kazaa? Or must I rip them myself?
Of course, the DMCA says that fair use ISN'T fair, not if any sort of copy protection is involved, at least...
Bah.
Obviously, the RIAA needs to stop trying to litigate/legislate the problem away (since every attempt seems to invariably infringe on OUR rights under fair use doctrine), and instead work on providing legal alternatives to illegal sharing. There will ALWAYS be infringers, but taking such a hard line will only encourage it, while providing legal and cost-effective alternatives would discourage it.
I think he was a little vague with his first question, and what he meant to ask was, "How much *processing* time is added for each incoming email?"
As in, how much longer is the turnaround between the RCPT command coming in and you either sending the OK or the Temporary Failure.
And yes, you'd want this particular delay to be as minimal as possible. In the long term, that means Greylisting will have to be a built-in to, or well-formed plug-in for, a mailserver if it is to minimize performance impact.
About 3 days after the Apocalypse, by my reckoning...
In all seriousness, I meant to say when the case goes to trial (if it does), because I *suspect* they'll have to make that information available to the court, and so it becomes a question of whether either or both sides attempt to seal the trial and/or the ruling and/or any hypothetical settlement.
They're not claiming the code was "secret", just that the licenses governing its use in AIX were violated by IBM putting it into Linux.
Of course, that assumes that the code DID get into Linux from SCO AND that IBM was the one who put the code there. The code could well have come from elsewhere (and that means from somewhere else's code base, from someone else independently and the similarities are incidental or inevitable given the problems being solved, OR under the terms of a difference license), and someone other than IBM may have been responsible.
We won't know the actual answer until it's a matter of public record what copying is being claimed, if then.
Hit the "wayback" links and read the License Agreement SCO was offering these sources under.
It's sufficiently restrictive such that you most certainly can't copy the code into a GPL'd product -- not legally, at least.
Of course, that's assuming the source SCO's providing you (for 100 bucks, by and large) is your ONLY way of accessing the code. The case IBM and the Linux community at large will make (I'm pretty sure) is that the violations SCO claims are NOT violations because SCO's code wasn't the only means of obtaining that code, or at least the algorithms in question.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the acronym I've generally seen used (esp. in Sci-Fi e.g. David Weber) is GRASER.
And given that they have multi-year fallout effects within the target area, I'd definitely classify them as much "nuclear" weapons as dirty bombs -- in short, any weapon with non-trivial radioactive fallout.
Xentax
I thought XVT was "out there" along with these other tools. Is it too small to show up on the radar, or is something else going on? (www.xvt.com for the curious)
Xentax
It seems like the legislature, the broadcasters, and the consumers, ought to be able to work out an exception provision to the existing laws.
Specifically, they ought to allow unlicensed transmitters below a certain output power (anyone know what the iTrip's broadcast power is?).
I mean, the spectrum licensees have a vested and understable interest in keeping their airwaves free of interference, but I don't think low-power transmissions like these had been envisioned when the law was codefied (receivers were a wee bit less sensitive and precise in 1949, methinks).
Xentax
Right. So he should have said that Chinese form a *plurality*, not a majority.
And, from what I've heard (granted, that's pretty flimsy), you can't lump all of China into one or even just a few lingual groups. I'm honestly not sure how big a hole that kicks in the argument.
China has a lot more than just an oppressive goverment to deal with, though...
Xentax
It's fairly obvious, by now, that humanity is no longer at a point where natural selection, in the genetic sense of the term, applies.
People who possess survival advantages don't tend to breed more. Almost any survival-limiting problem (problems controlling weight, respiratory problems, bad joints, whatever) are corrected or otherwise overcome via modern medicine, at least to the extent that you can still generally find someone to bear children with you, if you're so inclined.
Also, the majority of evolution for humans, now, is social rather than genetic in nature. That is to say, much more of our adult skillset is learned rather than genetically hard-wired. So, lack of genetically-driven selection isn't really a problem except where learning disabilities become a factor.
Xentax
He spoils the whole freaking story! Edit or remove this "review", please!
Xentax
Um, no.
Copyright infringement can fall under civil or criminal liability, or both.
Read the interview answers from the DoJ earlier today.
Xentax
Right. It's almost exactly the same thing -- I say almost because you HAVE to go through the register (or at least the self-checkout) at the grocery store, so it's much easier to put that impulse stuff literally within arm's reach.
The gas station is a bit different -- they have the same impulse stuff there, but in effect the whole rest of the store is as at least as much for impulse buyers as for normal customers.
Pay at the pump is more like having call-ahead/online order and drive-up pickup of groceries, which at least some stores have now.
So we're back to the same question: Does the increase in customers of the "convenient" service (pay at the pump, or curbside delivery of groceries) offset the lost impulse sales?
I suspect it's the same answer, the Computer Scientist's favorite: "It depends."
Xentax
The reason is that you loose all the foot traffic coming in to buy snacks and drinks.
The assumption underlying this is that some non-trivial percentage of people *forced* to come inside to pay, if they would have just paid at the pump otherwise, will actually buy something from the store now that they're inside.
I'm sure there is some number of people in this category; I'm not so sure it's enough to warrant hassling everyone by making them come inside AND (usually) having to have a few more employees to process all the payments.
Having said that, I think the particulars depend on other factors. I see plenty of gas stations that are barely anything but the pumps and one or two attendants (one inside, one outside). I've seen others that are closer to small supermarkets with gas stations.
Clearly, there is room for both schools of thought; it comes down to what your costs and margins are (for the gas and the store), and the demand for the products you are (or could be) selling in the store.
Xentax
The airplane's control systems decide HOW to do; the pilot tells them WHAT to do -- go that way, speed up, slow down, whatever.
I agree that it will be quite awhile before this changes -- Brain's making the case that within 50 years is the time frame. I disagree, but I'm not sure I'd be against him. It really is just a milestone in a progression of changes and improvements.
For example, the crew of the shuttle has almost no direct control over takeoff, and only has direct control over certain phases of landing. There are stages that the computer does better, or that humans really couldn't do at all to the degree of timing and precision desired.
Granted, things can (and do, and will) still go wrong, and that's why, for the near-term, humans stay in the loop.
But eventually, the class of things that can be recovered from will also be identified and handled automatically, and that point, you only have the human-comfort factor to deal with.
And, I believe we will eventually overcome this. I agree today is not that day, and 5 years from now probably isn't either. But, damn, if I can trust a foreign guy I've never met before to get me from the airport to the hotel (switching from airplanes to cars, same class of problem by and large), I can certainly come to trust a computer. I personally think one additional pre-requisite will be including heuristics capabilities that tune such robotic controls to the situations and areas at hand.
That is, the Taxi-Bot 2020 I'm riding in has been 'trained' on the streets of whichever city it's driving in, has identified which intersections and roads are particularly dangerous due to pedestrians, and so on.
The human-comfort factor will be the hardest to overcome, because so much of it is emotional and irrational (on many levels), but I think it WILL be overcome eventually.
Xentax
Interesting.
Like I said, I fully expect all sorts of problems/fallout associated with any system whose extent exceeds your property. Every objection I've seen either acknowledges that existing systems DO over-extend and therefore are bad, or pretends I didn't disclaim myself in this way.
I guess I should have spoken in hypothetical instead of actual terms. If you could devise a system that was demonstrably able to only affect the area demarcated as your property, would it be legal to use?
Obviously, you might have trouble distributing such a system, since there's no guarantee that it wouldn't get used in other situations (e.g. jamming a whole neighborhood rather than just your house). I suspect that's the key reason why FCC regulations don't permit such devices at ALL -- too likely to get abused rather than used.
Kind of interesting, though, when you compare that line of reasoning against things like gun control, VCRs, file sharing...
Xentax
So, those movie theaters, restaurants, etc. that block cell phone signals are breaking the law?
I doubt anyone's going to get far with that line of reasoning. A dismissed lawsuit or three, maybe, but that's about it.
Obviously, any such employed technology has to be operated intelligently -- if you have some sort of active jamming on your property that happens to also jam signals for a mile in every direction, you'll be in trouble, because now you are (probably) broadcasting a signal illegally (if it's cell signals you're blocking, only a specific cellular carriers have the right to broadcast in the spectrum you're jamming).
But, assuming you can *reasonably* limit the extent of your blocking solution to the "ground level" extent of your property, I think you're good to go. And, aside from grossly overpowered jamming, it's hard to imagine a solution with that kind of fallout.
Xentax
Um, no.
You can't *declaratively* limit a legal broadcast originating from off your private property from entering it.
You can, of course, devise technical means of preventing it within your property -- for example, jamming cell phone signals at a movie theater, or the hyperbole-laden Faraday's Cage suggestion.
I'm not sure this has been 100% verified legally -- I could see someone *arguing* that they should be entitled to receive cellular calls anywhere they would normally be able to receive them, but not *winning*, however.
I suppose they could try to get the law (or FCC regulations) changed to limit WiFi hotspots, but there's certainly no such limits in place right now.
And, strictly legal issues aside, global acccess with limited denial seems to be the only sensible way to go about it.
The fact that Comcast ponied up sponsorship in exchange for something 'exclusive' is a matter between them and the stadium. They BOTH should have realized that there's no automatic way to guarantee that exclusivity when it can be superseded by forces beyond their control. You could listen to an FM radio station inside the stadium even if they had a 'stadium station' transmitting locally; access to external WiFi concurrent with specifically-provided on-site access is little different, at the end of the day.
It's not QUITE the same, but you can select among multiple available hotspots just like you can tune to different stations. There's a potential conflict if outside and local both want to use the same frequency, but that's orthagonal to the situation here, IMHO.
When hotspot ranges/capacities are very small, it's a whitelist problem -- you select where to HAVE access. With higher ranges and capacities, you start having to look at like a blacklist problem, choosing where to NOT allow access and not worry about everywhere else.
Xentax
It's not, necessarily, copying the book onto your PDA so you can read it wherever you want to.
I agree with most of what you said, but this statement is erroneous.
The right to format-shift (e.g. making a CD copy of an audio cassette you've legally bought) and the right to make "collections" (e.g. making a "Bob's favorites" CD with selected tracks from several CD's he legally owns) are both protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. The latter doesn't readily apply to books, but the former is a fairly direct application.
So, yes, you CAN create an eBook from a Book you've bought (assuming you had some means of practically doing so), for your personal and noncommercial use. Obviously, distributing the eBook file(s) of that book to any and everyone is a different story, since doing so is copying, or allowing others to copy, a version of the entire book.
Xentax
people should cross-read declarations made by big corporation reps to find the motive behind their actions
I couldn't agree more. In the end, it ALWAYS has to boil down to the bottom line, even if some of the line items in question are more intangible than others (like customer/consumer goodwill).
Xentax
I fine theory, but I disagree (and I have a nagging suspicion this is a troll, but either way, it bears answering).
MS is getting on the anti-spam problem because it helps them, yes. But not for some theoretical future savings on bandwidth costs. They're doing it because taking an active role looks good to customers and investors, both of which are increasingly seeing spam as a real problem and not just something us techies talk about.
Remember folks, publicly held corporations are *legally* driven by one thing, and ONLY one thing: Maximizing shareholder return.
That they consequentially minimize other concerns, like the ecology, or customer satisfaction (when it stands in opposition to revenue/profit/market share/etc.), is hardly a surprising consequence. These issues are only worthwhile when the fallout of ignoring them costs more than it does to respect them (and to be seen to respect them). Just ask Best Buy about the economic value of good customer service.
So, I agree to the extent that MS's motives for fighting spam are less than altruistic. But, as a public corporation, they have NO BUSINESS in benevolence; their shareholders could sue (and win) if they sacrificed shareholder value for some other purpose without very good reasons for doing so.
Xentax
"Anybody moves and the bunny gets it!"
Xentax
This is about whether or not the Java Runtime should be bundled with Windows, right? If I'm off-base here, please enlighten me.
I'm as against anti-trust as the next guy, but I can see why forcing MS to bundle Java (or, for contrast, a similar plugin e.g. Flash or Shockwave) is going too far.
Mainly, it would place an additional support burden on MS that's not really appropriate -- they'd have to keep up with versioning, deal with customers who are confused as to who services it, etc.
Anyone who's smart enough to distinguish it as belonging to Sun rather than MS should be smart enough to go find it on their own (these days; granted at the original time of the suit perhaps it wasn't nearly so straightforward), and it *is* free, after all.
Xentax
I think the real criteria is closer to whether you could reasonably believe the distributor can legally distribute it to you.
You can't *reasonably* believe that a random (and/or arbitrary) client on a P2P network has the right to distribute copyrighted songs to you for no fee.
Now where things get interesting is fair use.
I mean, if I own a Metallica CD, I'm pretty certain that format-shifting of it to a collection of MP3s is legal under fair use. Can the *means* of that format shift be downloading them from Kazaa? Or must I rip them myself?
Of course, the DMCA says that fair use ISN'T fair, not if any sort of copy protection is involved, at least...
Bah.
Obviously, the RIAA needs to stop trying to litigate/legislate the problem away (since every attempt seems to invariably infringe on OUR rights under fair use doctrine), and instead work on providing legal alternatives to illegal sharing. There will ALWAYS be infringers, but taking such a hard line will only encourage it, while providing legal and cost-effective alternatives would discourage it.
Xentax
AFAIK, you can't maintain a WiFi connection when you're moving more than a little bit (like a car going 60 mph).
Xentax
I think he was a little vague with his first question, and what he meant to ask was, "How much *processing* time is added for each incoming email?"
As in, how much longer is the turnaround between the RCPT command coming in and you either sending the OK or the Temporary Failure.
And yes, you'd want this particular delay to be as minimal as possible. In the long term, that means Greylisting will have to be a built-in to, or well-formed plug-in for, a mailserver if it is to minimize performance impact.
Xentax
About 3 days after the Apocalypse, by my reckoning...
In all seriousness, I meant to say when the case goes to trial (if it does), because I *suspect* they'll have to make that information available to the court, and so it becomes a question of whether either or both sides attempt to seal the trial and/or the ruling and/or any hypothetical settlement.
Xentax
Um, no.
They're not claiming the code was "secret", just that the licenses governing its use in AIX were violated by IBM putting it into Linux.
Of course, that assumes that the code DID get into Linux from SCO AND that IBM was the one who put the code there. The code could well have come from elsewhere (and that means from somewhere else's code base, from someone else independently and the similarities are incidental or inevitable given the problems being solved, OR under the terms of a difference license), and someone other than IBM may have been responsible.
We won't know the actual answer until it's a matter of public record what copying is being claimed, if then.
Xentax
Xentax
Hit the "wayback" links and read the License Agreement SCO was offering these sources under.
It's sufficiently restrictive such that you most certainly can't copy the code into a GPL'd product -- not legally, at least.
Of course, that's assuming the source SCO's providing you (for 100 bucks, by and large) is your ONLY way of accessing the code. The case IBM and the Linux community at large will make (I'm pretty sure) is that the violations SCO claims are NOT violations because SCO's code wasn't the only means of obtaining that code, or at least the algorithms in question.
Xentax
Well, according to the website, small files aren't really effective with this, due to protocol overheads.
Files from about a meg on up work well, though.
Xentax