I do wonder though whether you could "harden" a species over time using some sort of selective mutation and breeding program to make them more suitable for space travel, though... probably more work than just shielding the ship properly.
I don't think so, you need a lot of energy to lift and accelerate a spaceship and every ounce saved is great. The humane way to do it would probably to study radiation protection mechanisms in bacteria and animals first and then insert these genes into the human genome.
Tibetans, exposed to more radiation from the heights, also would probably be great taikonauts, it would be foolish of the Chinese to try to create a mixed Tibetan population.
Or else in this case is that the what 1000 people that might buy this card because it has open source drivers?
Yea that will scare them.
No, the "or else" is a legal threat put forth in the GPL 2 when someone breaks the GPL by enforcing his patents in the attempt to circumvent it.
And the reason that I just call it "or else" rather than telling you what the GPL 2 says is that you'll need to work it out yourself by reading the license, because it is really hard to tell how such a situation would work out.
Moreover your post is pretty dysfunctional because I am just pointing out that if they once make the drivers free source, then they might have foregone on their patents forever, so the statement of the GP is no good.
The GPL2 implies that you allow people use your patents, or else!
Re:your property, including IP, goes to the gov't
on
Abandoned Games
·
· Score: 1
I wanted to point out the same thing.
However, if the government didn't auction off the rights soon, it soon probably will not even know that it was supposed to receive the rights. Unfortunately there is no lost+found office for IP, so an abandonware site takes its place.
I believe a "bona fide"(good faith) effort to find out whether there is still someone interested in and capable of selling or licensing that IP should be enough to protect an abandonware site. But the problem with this is that the site still runs the risk that someone will argue successfully that the "bona fide" effort wasn't good enough, and while the concept of a "bona fide" effort is not unknown to courts it will be weighted against the copyright, which is in black and white.
I guess one could get this out of my long winded sentences above: if you run an abandonware site, you risk getting sued, and one thing you can do to protect yourself a little is to document your "bona fide" efforts.
For those who don't know it, it is about growing funghi to feed your creatures, which you can cross-breed into pretty weird variations. It is cool and was only much later followed up by games like Impossible Creatures.
There were two things that might have kept the game from being more popular:
- The screen is very small and displays only a few creatures (fine at the time, but annoying later, when 1024x768 was standard)
- There is no strict mission progress or thread to follow. This makes the game very boring for those who like to operate under stress and time pressure. I found it interesting to find ways to entertain myself, but YMMV
yea, it seems the OP meant not the force, but the acceleration, which is initially identical.
he also forgot to mention that the hammer and the feather would need to be placed orthogonal to the path of the moon to avoid the need to think about swing-by effects.
Abandonware in general is not legal, at least the way the term is often used.
The only situation where you can truly expect it to be legal is when the company holding the copyrights went belly-up and even then you would need to find out whether anyone bid for the copyrights.
You could try to construct a moral or legal argument involving abandonded property, but a bona fide effort to find out whether the holder of the copyrights really gave up his rights might involve approaching the holder with an offer of 1 million bucks if he sold you a copy. I guess no-one would go to these lengths.
If it takes 10ms for a packet to get from the server to you, and the router holds that packet for 10ms longer, that throttles your bandwidth to half what it otherwise would be.
No it doesn't, not if you have many connections, and connections which send big packets of data without waiting for every ACK; To quote dunigan: "TCP uses a sliding-window protocol to implement flow control." so that window size is packet size times number of packets to transmit before an ACK can be expected.
I guess if you bump up the latency just hard enough it will eventually throttle bandwidth effectively, or if you use applications for testing that need to wait for a reply to small packets.
So I don't doubt that you can set up a test which proves your views, since doubling the latency as you proposed means hitting the sender so hard that it might exceed its max window size. I think I could set up a test which proves my views as well.
It also will get worse if you as the ISP intentionally drop packets to lower window size, but this is not increasing latency, it is sabotage.
Thanks, looking up documents on these keywords was very instructive to me.
Well, I suggested that ISPs set up P2P nodes, and since I am the thread starter it is my idea as far as slashdot is concerned.
That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far. I guess people should only use the internet how you see fit. Besides, you clearly don't understand that this isn't limited to things embedded in web pages. Any HTTP traffic will greately benefit.
I don't think so. Of course I can't prove it without presenting a scientific study, but for one, the big images served will be mostly from sites with less visitors, so there won't be many cache hits, sites with big media and many visitors will already be using akamai, and finally caching all HTTP replies in a proxy requires a big proxy or proxy farm - this means that downstream-ISPs would actually carry the costs of the big content providers or have to pay for the slashdot effect. I guess you see the problem in there. Or not, so let me spell it out: P2P users volunteer their bandwidth out of altruism, in a way, but why should the ISP volunteer to provide the bandwidth for another business?
As far as I am concerned lowering network bandwidth requirements would require rethinking of protocols, for example if you look at this very slashdot page you will notice that most of the waste of bandwidth actually is in the navigation which however is not served separately.
I guess in two years we will talk again on slashdot and you will say you always have been saying that protocols need to be improved or changed. You also neglect to mention that HTTP 1.0 did not support continuing a download in the middle, which was crippling in the times of 56k, so the HTTP protocol has been improved after those times of the proxies(which often refused to cache especially the big downloads anyway)
Regarding the ISP question, you can benefit from a fast line when downloading software from a central site, without using it 24/7. However, P2P users tend to download stuff they don't really need, just to get over the boredom in waiting for the download to start (and complete) which they actually are interested in. Not to forget that you might simply leave both your PC and your P2P running just to improve your queue rating, which is wasting resources both at the ISP and in your energy bill. I know what you will say now, it is not my business what you do with your bandwidth as you pay for it, but as you seem to be opposed to increased fees for power users, it seems you don't like paying that much either.
I guess you want to convince me that proxies in theory are a good idea, which I don't disagree with completely, but then you get lost in arguing that latency and bandwidth is the same, which it clearly isn't. I guess to top it off you probably have a job where you in theory know this stuff better than me.
Well, congratulate yourself, I guess you know on what.
You mentioned HTTP proxies yourself, and HTTP is supposed to serve web pages, not documents or images. Static images that are part of the page are cached by the browser anyway, and advertisements are often not cached but delivered dynamically. Regarding "When there is a multi-MB file embedded in that web-page", maybe you just shouldn't embed such big images, and even when you have a reason to do so, either the target audience is to small to make the ISP set up a proxy for them, or you should deliver the content by other protocols.
I did not say the ISP should falsely advertise. I said he should make a contract that he can keep without loopholes, like kicking out customers.
I did not say he should throttle P2P bandwidth, which is what you are talking about, but that the ISP should use latency to shape traffic.
And, no, it isn't your job to help the ISP make profit, but it is not the job of the ISP either to maintain a contract that is not profitable to the ISP.
Maybe you are not one yourself, but the people who use your argument are freeloaders on fees paid by others. I guess your enthusiasm for HTTP proxies is honorable, but HTTP is not P2P, and as long as P2P does not implement a proxy-like behavior, it isn't good, and usually it is hard to make P2P work like proxies because the number of clients willing to upload a specific file at a specific time is small. However, as I suggested, fatcoring in latency between P2P clients for queue ratings should result in improved P2P behavior and lower global network load.
Well, the problem with HTTP proxies is that today most of content of the www is dynamic in some way - so caching is not that useful. The next buzzword standard, Ajax, is even built around being dynamic. I think this needs to be sorted out completely, this is not how the web2.0 should look.
Regarding that "ISPs are advertising 768k, so they have to offer 768k". It is not as simple as that, ISPs face the "empty seat problem". If they charge the casual user for a fully used 768k line, they will lose these customers to other ISPs. This means that those who run P2P 24/7 are perceived as problems in the business plan, which they are. I don't think P2P apps should be fettered when run casually, but that they should be controlled by charges for network traffic.
So a "flat rate" would practially mean a rate where 95% of users are covered, and only 5% have to pay extra bandwidth fees, which might again be reasonably capped. It is not constructive for P2P-users to somehow insist on their rights to use the bandwidth since the ISP then will have to find other ways to harm P2P, simply because otherwise the ISP will be out of business.
1) ISPs should set up their own P2P "clients" to act as servers to deliver the most popular legal content (let's just assume that there is actually a demand for legitmate content on P2P networks)
2) ISPs should not simply block P2P traffic, but should instead encourage P2P-traffic between users in their own and "friendly" network, so that more of the flow of data in P2P stays within their own networks, reducing fees to other nets. Since many P2P-networks consider latency in their queue ratings, one way would be to raise latency a little.
I am not even mentioning that ISPs should structure their contracts in such a way that power-users with high network load pay more. Using the networks resources fully is not rogue behavior, it is simply different behavior.
How would Symantec know that the user did not edit the host file himself to block updates from other AV vendors, for example because these detect Symantecs AV as a rootkit?
Strengthening the patent system by asking the governments left arm to sue the right arm will not happen; would you expect a system to screw the people to be replaced by a system of the government screwing itself? To put it another way, the government would continually receive flak from all corners for doing so.
Now strengthening the system by making what is patented sounds sensible. However this would lower the "success" metrics of patents/year and actually might allow non-US companies to sell innovative products in the US. Moreover, it will cost more and will thus kill the defense argument of the patent system that it is meant to work for the small inventor.
As the patent system stands, it is best for the US government to milk the USPTO for income, since that is the only thing the PTO is actually good at. It can never be good at making sure that only new and original stuff is patented, because there is no objective measure for that. Well actually I can tell you one, it is "if you keep your patent secret, an no-one else comes up with the idea or a better one within the time the patent holds, then the patent is new and original". Obviously, such metrics is useless.
The only suggestions for improvements I could offer are:
(1) lower the duration a patent is valid and enforceable to reduce the pain
(2) make sure the patent application hands out enough information to truly assist someone in copying the invention
(3) make sure the patent application carefully and directly spells out what the invention actually is good at, which also means no claims which are just the icing on the cake.
(4) regarding (2) and (3) and other criteria like novelty, if a patent fails to follow the guidelines, in general, DO NOT allow a judge to somehow FIX the patent by cancelling random claims and declaring the other ones valid. If the patent application is broken, the applicant has failed his duties and the entire patent should be cancelled, otherwise there is NO INCENTIVE for the applicant not TO GAMBLE THE SYSTEM.
I think he should simply collect the fees like an actor would. If he can't do that because he agreed to the video being published, well bad luck.
I think he "humilated" himself, if it is really humilation, because many other people did similar stunts, not to even mention ST cons. I happily recall the day myself when I was having battles with hockey clubs with that other guy.
Well, my point is that if your web application uses Cookies as a method to grant yaccess privileges, then it is more likely that it is possible to inject an image link that is actually a request. I am talking from the land of imperfect applications here, if you had a perfect application, you would probably not have an XSS opportunity in image links, and you would us your methods you cooked up yourself like sequence numbers to order and secure our requests.
The Canterbury Corpus Compression Test only measures primarily the compression ratio, not the speed.
They are still in business if they have an algorithm that is faster when receiving repeat data over long periods of time, that is faster than the two obvious algorithms of e.g. a) uncompressing all related backups.tar.bz2 received so far, appending the new backup.tar, then compressing to new backups.tar.bz2 b) uncompressing a vcs like subversion.tar.bz2, committing the update, then compressing it to new subversion.tar.bz2 again.
Also, the methods above only work well on data that is somewhat sorted between users submitting it to backup.
At first I thought it doesn't matter whether you use GET or POST, but he has a point with the image tag, because you can more often sneak a GET request into an im src attribute than a POST.
A second reason as pointed out by pikine is that all GET requests are supposed to be idempotent, as in, they perform operations which do no major changes to the basic data of the hosted application. For example, many wiki authors complained about rogue bots deleting their content when the bots actually were only following GET requests.
Well, my complaint about the article would be that the this also affects non-Ajax apps. Maybe it would be different if Ajax was using its own access method but POST and GET.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, so, does that egg have a Buddha nature? Or that stone out there for that matter?
You will not truly understand until you have accepted the Matrix.
To put it in another frame: There is always more than one conspiracy.
I do wonder though whether you could "harden" a species over time using some sort of selective mutation and breeding program to make them more suitable for space travel, though ... probably more work than just shielding the ship properly.
I don't think so, you need a lot of energy to lift and accelerate a spaceship and every ounce saved is great. The humane way to do it would probably to study radiation protection mechanisms in bacteria and animals first and then insert these genes into the human genome.Tibetans, exposed to more radiation from the heights, also would probably be great taikonauts, it would be foolish of the Chinese to try to create a mixed Tibetan population.
Or else in this case is that the what 1000 people that might buy this card because it has open source drivers?
No, the "or else" is a legal threat put forth in the GPL 2 when someone breaks the GPL by enforcing his patents in the attempt to circumvent it.Yea that will scare them.
And the reason that I just call it "or else" rather than telling you what the GPL 2 says is that you'll need to work it out yourself by reading the license, because it is really hard to tell how such a situation would work out.
Moreover your post is pretty dysfunctional because I am just pointing out that if they once make the drivers free source, then they might have foregone on their patents forever, so the statement of the GP is no good.
The GPL2 implies that you allow people use your patents, or else!
However, if the government didn't auction off the rights soon, it soon probably will not even know that it was supposed to receive the rights. Unfortunately there is no lost+found office for IP, so an abandonware site takes its place.
I believe a "bona fide"(good faith) effort to find out whether there is still someone interested in and capable of selling or licensing that IP should be enough to protect an abandonware site. But the problem with this is that the site still runs the risk that someone will argue successfully that the "bona fide" effort wasn't good enough, and while the concept of a "bona fide" effort is not unknown to courts it will be weighted against the copyright, which is in black and white.
I guess one could get this out of my long winded sentences above: if you run an abandonware site, you risk getting sued, and one thing you can do to protect yourself a little is to document your "bona fide" efforts.
In other words he wasn't right, and neither were you.
Lets say we communicated on a level above the verbatim and eventually refined the statements.Welcome to the states and a video that is 1/3rd a disclaimer
One underdog I loved to play was Gene Wars.
For those who don't know it, it is about growing funghi to feed your creatures, which you can cross-breed into pretty weird variations. It is cool and was only much later followed up by games like Impossible Creatures.
There were two things that might have kept the game from being more popular:
- The screen is very small and displays only a few creatures (fine at the time, but annoying later, when 1024x768 was standard)
- There is no strict mission progress or thread to follow. This makes the game very boring for those who like to operate under stress and time pressure. I found it interesting to find ways to entertain myself, but YMMV
yea, it seems the OP meant not the force, but the acceleration, which is initially identical.
he also forgot to mention that the hammer and the feather would need to be placed orthogonal to the path of the moon to avoid the need to think about swing-by effects.
Abandonware in general is not legal, at least the way the term is often used.
The only situation where you can truly expect it to be legal is when the company holding the copyrights went belly-up and even then you would need to find out whether anyone bid for the copyrights.
You could try to construct a moral or legal argument involving abandonded property, but a bona fide effort to find out whether the holder of the copyrights really gave up his rights might involve approaching the holder with an offer of 1 million bucks if he sold you a copy. I guess no-one would go to these lengths.
Troll is correct in his physics statement, as OT as it might be
If it takes 10ms for a packet to get from the server to you, and the router holds that packet for 10ms longer, that throttles your bandwidth to half what it otherwise would be.
No it doesn't, not if you have many connections, and connections which send big packets of data without waiting for every ACK; To quote dunigan: "TCP uses a sliding-window protocol to implement flow control." so that window size is packet size times number of packets to transmit before an ACK can be expected.I guess if you bump up the latency just hard enough it will eventually throttle bandwidth effectively, or if you use applications for testing that need to wait for a reply to small packets.
So I don't doubt that you can set up a test which proves your views, since doubling the latency as you proposed means hitting the sender so hard that it might exceed its max window size. I think I could set up a test which proves my views as well.
It also will get worse if you as the ISP intentionally drop packets to lower window size, but this is not increasing latency, it is sabotage.
Thanks, looking up documents on these keywords was very instructive to me.
That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far. I guess people should only use the internet how you see fit. Besides, you clearly don't understand that this isn't limited to things embedded in web pages. Any HTTP traffic will greately benefit.
I don't think so. Of course I can't prove it without presenting a scientific study, but for one, the big images served will be mostly from sites with less visitors, so there won't be many cache hits, sites with big media and many visitors will already be using akamai, and finally caching all HTTP replies in a proxy requires a big proxy or proxy farm - this means that downstream-ISPs would actually carry the costs of the big content providers or have to pay for the slashdot effect. I guess you see the problem in there. Or not, so let me spell it out: P2P users volunteer their bandwidth out of altruism, in a way, but why should the ISP volunteer to provide the bandwidth for another business?As far as I am concerned lowering network bandwidth requirements would require rethinking of protocols, for example if you look at this very slashdot page you will notice that most of the waste of bandwidth actually is in the navigation which however is not served separately.
I guess in two years we will talk again on slashdot and you will say you always have been saying that protocols need to be improved or changed. You also neglect to mention that HTTP 1.0 did not support continuing a download in the middle, which was crippling in the times of 56k, so the HTTP protocol has been improved after those times of the proxies(which often refused to cache especially the big downloads anyway)
Regarding the ISP question, you can benefit from a fast line when downloading software from a central site, without using it 24/7. However, P2P users tend to download stuff they don't really need, just to get over the boredom in waiting for the download to start (and complete) which they actually are interested in. Not to forget that you might simply leave both your PC and your P2P running just to improve your queue rating, which is wasting resources both at the ISP and in your energy bill. I know what you will say now, it is not my business what you do with your bandwidth as you pay for it, but as you seem to be opposed to increased fees for power users, it seems you don't like paying that much either.
I guess you want to convince me that proxies in theory are a good idea, which I don't disagree with completely, but then you get lost in arguing that latency and bandwidth is the same, which it clearly isn't. I guess to top it off you probably have a job where you in theory know this stuff better than me.
Well, congratulate yourself, I guess you know on what.
You mentioned HTTP proxies yourself, and HTTP is supposed to serve web pages, not documents or images. Static images that are part of the page are cached by the browser anyway, and advertisements are often not cached but delivered dynamically. Regarding "When there is a multi-MB file embedded in that web-page", maybe you just shouldn't embed such big images, and even when you have a reason to do so, either the target audience is to small to make the ISP set up a proxy for them, or you should deliver the content by other protocols.
I did not say the ISP should falsely advertise. I said he should make a contract that he can keep without loopholes, like kicking out customers.
I did not say he should throttle P2P bandwidth, which is what you are talking about, but that the ISP should use latency to shape traffic.
And, no, it isn't your job to help the ISP make profit, but it is not the job of the ISP either to maintain a contract that is not profitable to the ISP.
Maybe you are not one yourself, but the people who use your argument are freeloaders on fees paid by others. I guess your enthusiasm for HTTP proxies is honorable, but HTTP is not P2P, and as long as P2P does not implement a proxy-like behavior, it isn't good, and usually it is hard to make P2P work like proxies because the number of clients willing to upload a specific file at a specific time is small. However, as I suggested, fatcoring in latency between P2P clients for queue ratings should result in improved P2P behavior and lower global network load.
Well, the problem with HTTP proxies is that today most of content of the www is dynamic in some way - so caching is not that useful. The next buzzword standard, Ajax, is even built around being dynamic. I think this needs to be sorted out completely, this is not how the web2.0 should look.
Regarding that "ISPs are advertising 768k, so they have to offer 768k".
It is not as simple as that, ISPs face the "empty seat problem". If they charge the casual user for a fully used 768k line, they will lose these customers to other ISPs. This means that those who run P2P 24/7 are perceived as problems in the business plan, which they are. I don't think P2P apps should be fettered when run casually, but that they should be controlled by charges for network traffic.
So a "flat rate" would practially mean a rate where 95% of users are covered, and only 5% have to pay extra bandwidth fees, which might again be reasonably capped. It is not constructive for P2P-users to somehow insist on their rights to use the bandwidth since the ISP then will have to find other ways to harm P2P, simply because otherwise the ISP will be out of business.
1) ISPs should set up their own P2P "clients" to act as servers to deliver the most popular legal content (let's just assume that there is actually a demand for legitmate content on P2P networks)
2) ISPs should not simply block P2P traffic, but should instead encourage P2P-traffic between users in their own and "friendly" network, so that more of the flow of data in P2P stays within their own networks, reducing fees to other nets. Since many P2P-networks consider latency in their queue ratings, one way would be to raise latency a little.
I am not even mentioning that ISPs should structure their contracts in such a way that power-users with high network load pay more. Using the networks resources fully is not rogue behavior, it is simply different behavior.
How would Symantec know that the user did not edit the host file himself to block updates from other AV vendors, for example because these detect Symantecs AV as a rootkit?
I have seen that line too, but with other apps. It is probably due to some change in Pango between Pango versions, or due to the GTK version.
Now strengthening the system by making what is patented sounds sensible. However this would lower the "success" metrics of patents/year and actually might allow non-US companies to sell innovative products in the US. Moreover, it will cost more and will thus kill the defense argument of the patent system that it is meant to work for the small inventor.
As the patent system stands, it is best for the US government to milk the USPTO for income, since that is the only thing the PTO is actually good at. It can never be good at making sure that only new and original stuff is patented, because there is no objective measure for that. Well actually I can tell you one, it is "if you keep your patent secret, an no-one else comes up with the idea or a better one within the time the patent holds, then the patent is new and original". Obviously, such metrics is useless.
The only suggestions for improvements I could offer are: (1) lower the duration a patent is valid and enforceable to reduce the pain
(2) make sure the patent application hands out enough information to truly assist someone in copying the invention
(3) make sure the patent application carefully and directly spells out what the invention actually is good at, which also means no claims which are just the icing on the cake.
(4) regarding (2) and (3) and other criteria like novelty, if a patent fails to follow the guidelines, in general, DO NOT allow a judge to somehow FIX the patent by cancelling random claims and declaring the other ones valid. If the patent application is broken, the applicant has failed his duties and the entire patent should be cancelled, otherwise there is NO INCENTIVE for the applicant not TO GAMBLE THE SYSTEM.
I think he should simply collect the fees like an actor would. If he can't do that because he agreed to the video being published, well bad luck.
I think he "humilated" himself, if it is really humilation, because many other people did similar stunts, not to even mention ST cons. I happily recall the day myself when I was having battles with hockey clubs with that other guy.
They need to hold just one card in order to be able to sue successfully for patent infringement.
Well, my point is that if your web application uses Cookies as a method to grant yaccess privileges, then it is more likely that it is possible to inject an image link that is actually a request. I am talking from the land of imperfect applications here, if you had a perfect application, you would probably not have an XSS opportunity in image links, and you would us your methods you cooked up yourself like sequence numbers to order and secure our requests.
The Canterbury Corpus Compression Test only measures primarily the compression ratio, not the speed.
They are still in business if they have an algorithm that is faster when receiving repeat data over long periods of time, that is faster than the two obvious algorithms of e.g.
a) uncompressing all related backups.tar.bz2 received so far, appending the new backup.tar, then compressing to new backups.tar.bz2
b) uncompressing a vcs like subversion.tar.bz2, committing the update, then compressing it to new subversion.tar.bz2 again.
Also, the methods above only work well on data that is somewhat sorted between users submitting it to backup.
At first I thought it doesn't matter whether you use GET or POST, but he has a point with the image tag, because you can more often sneak a GET request into an im src attribute than a POST.
A second reason as pointed out by pikine is that all GET requests are supposed to be idempotent, as in, they perform operations which do no major changes to the basic data of the hosted application. For example, many wiki authors complained about rogue bots deleting their content when the bots actually were only following GET requests.
Well, my complaint about the article would be that the this also affects non-Ajax apps. Maybe it would be different if Ajax was using its own access method but POST and GET.