Here you may see the close correlation between CO2 and Temperature variation in planet history. You may find that recent CO2 concentration level of 375 ppm is much higher than any value in the previous 450,000 years, and that the rate of increase of CO2 with time is about 100 times higher than any other rate of increase in the recorded history.
They can drill ice cores from the Antartic to precisely detail changes in the earths climate and CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the past 500,000 years.
I'm sure there are more many other articles around. NOVA did an excellent show on this as well. I'm stating something that is generally accepted in the scientific community (outside of those scientists counsulting to Bush - they are the minority).
Re:Aren't we still in an Ice Age?
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sure it takes alot of energy to melt ice. But the greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 might provide that energy.
The Antartic is the largest body of ice on this planet. If the Antartic melts in a significant way (and there seems to be some worrisome cracks forming) this water will be added to the oceans. To say that this will not have any measurable effect is being naive.
You are right that climate behavior seems chaotic. And there aren't computers powerful enough to give an accurate prediction of what might happen.
But one only has to look as far as Venice, Italy to see that the ocean there is rising. One can't help but wonder if there is not a link. The same goes for the drought in the Western US that has Lake Powell at it's lowest point ever.
Re:Aren't we still in an Ice Age?
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
Here you may see the close correlation between CO2 and Temperature variation in planet history. You may find that recent CO2 concentration level of 375 ppm is much higher than any value in the previous 450,000 years, and that the rate of increase of CO2 with time is about 100 times higher than any other rate of increase in the recorded history.
This is not a minority opinion, and there is general consensus in the scientific community that this is the case.
They can drill ice cores from the Antartic to precisely detail changes in the earths climate and CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the past 500,000 years.
I'm stating something that is a leading theory of atmospheric science.
Re:Aren't we still in an Ice Age?
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If that recollection is true, then we're still in an "Ice Age" and should expect the world to be getting warmer if the "Ice Age" is in fact coming to an end
This is what I call "Dubya" science or speak, as this is something like what he would say.
The fact is that we are conducting a worldwide uncontrolled experiment on mother earth, as we pump evermore quantities of CO2 in the enviroment.
There has never been a greater amount of CO2 in the enviroment than right at this point of time.
This outpouring of uncontrolled CO2 started with the industrial revolution and hasn't slowed since.
Likewise, the temperature of the Earth has been rising steadily and at a faster rate.
People may scoff at and dismiss a 1 degree raise in the earth temperature as nothing important, but there is one fact of physics that is incontrovertible;
Ice is frozen at 32 degrees, ice is *water* at 33 degrees
Which means that we start losing the polar ice caps with a one degree change in the earth's climate.
Startling evidence has occured that this shows this very thing may be happening - The north pole turns to water on a regular basis, and a huge part of the Antartic ice sheet has broken off.
I'll let somebody else post the links or google it. One of them was an old slashdot story.
So scientists or whoever can diss the movie all they want, but it is just a matter of time before some weather related event occurs that will come back to bite us in the collective but in a big way due to global warming.
I have a shaver that does this too, it sits in holder and charges.
However he says he needs to do it over a distance of 2 to 4 inches, and there won't be enough coupling between the coils to achieve enough voltage to charge the battery.
I'm not saying that it is impossible, but rather exotic electronics means expensive electronics, and most toys are very price sensitive.
Anyway, that was Tesla's great dream, to transmit power.
Yeah, as other posters noted, I was laughing too and saying "what's next, five blades?"
The cartridges are so expensive that I feel like I am using a cadillac to scrape hairs off my face. And that's for the three bladed kind.
What I find interesting is that Wal-Mart has a generic cartridge that fits the sensor razor.
So since they have dozens of patents on the sensor (presumably to stop cartridge knock offs), how are the generics able to be made?
Myself, I'm an Atra man. The dollar store had a ten pack of generic cartridges for a dollar. I filled a large drawer with them.
They don't have the lubra strip on them, but I'm quite happy with the price.
It also seems that the three blade variety do not stay as sharp as long, and clog easier. Which is natural if your profit model is based on people tossing cartridges.
They sent me a free four blade razor in the mail. I think I will save it for special occasions.
Maybe I can get a hot date through slashdot personals.
then even though I'm demonstrating the effectiveness of the box in turning fish into chickens I'm not forfeiting any patent rights...
Was it a public beta or was it not? If you publicly disclose that you have a black box that turns a fish into chicken (and with the way DNA research is going, don't laugh at it) publicly, it is your responsibility to patent it.
Just because nobody may not know the workings of the black box does not make it any less your responsibility to patent it. Because unless the patent examiner grants you the patent and hence the monopoly on it you don't have exclusive rights to it.
So, if you publish that you have a machine (or let the public use it, like in a beta) that turns a fish into chickens, you have a year to file tha patent on it. After that year, your exclusive rights to the secret box that turns fish into chickens evaporates. Anybody can use the idea and make a box that does the same thing.
But that was not what is at argument here. What is being challenged here is that the FAT file system is not really a "novel" or "unique" idea in the first place, but rather obvious for those who are familiar with the technology.
As the article states, and why this will be important in the future, the patent office granted a patent to something that was obvious.
The problem is not patents themselves (and I would argue that software patents are not entirely bad if held to the original standards that they were supposed to be under), but that the patent examiner will slap a patent on anything that walks through the door.
For one reason or another the patent office is broken (not enough money), with the attitude that rather than themselves having to put a critical eye torward something that may be obvious, they decide to not do this and let a judge later sort it out.
Which is wrong, and just another example why our government is broken in more ways than one.
Admittedly, it costs a lot of money to hire an examiner that is familiar with often arcane (but important) technologies. But it does not let the patent office off the hook.
What we have is people who are getting a software patent equivalent to a patent on breathing air.
The business method patents (this kind of patent is worse than software, as it has no technology behind it) come to mind, like the "ecommerce" one.
Some would argue that software patents should never have been granted because it is a "slippery slope". I think they are right. The original software patents were granted to machines that controlled the vulcanization of rubber (novel and nonobvious) and another that read data off seisometers.
We have slid from that all the way down to the "one click" patent to buy something.
Anyway, this is an important fight that needs to be won.
special editions generally imply access to the original production team, pristine studio prints, archieval footage etc., etc.
It's very presumptuous to assume that any one single commercial entity would be able to produce the only "special edition" possible for a given work. As you pointed out, in many instances it is a "team" that produces films, and any given team member might have material that they could give to any company that they wanted to for whatever reason. Thus there very easily could be different "special editions".
While access to any specific print that might have a better quality than another might be a factor, it's certainly not the only one that a "special edition" might consist of.
Conversely, the copyright holder may restrict access to prevent a derivate work that they do not approve of. This happens in many instances (naturally). The music Gershwin and Gone With the Wind is an example of this.
have you seen many public domain titles preserved and documented with such care?
No, the reason is that there are no works that are going into the public domain. In fact, thanks to the egregious example of congressional whoring that is called the Copyright Term Extension Act, or the Sonny Bono act, no copyrighted work since the founding of this nation is going into the public domain.
meaning that a studio will consider the known quantity, the marketable classic, the safer bet than an original story? welcome to the real world of Hollywood.
Opposite to what you, Hollywood, the studios, or the large corporations may think, copyright was created in the constitution to serve the public interest. Not a corporate interest.
I would submit that the public deserves its due, and should decide what is marketable and not any particular studio executive that answers only to shareholders. Copyrighted works that are eighty years old should belong to the public, not a movie studio that is going to sit on the film cans. The movie "It's a Wonderful Life" never gained popularity until it became part of the public domain.
I find, along with many others, the idea that corporate interests (esp. when it comes to copyright) superceed everything else including a public interest increasingly repulsive.
For the same reasons that its a good idea that drug patents (and others) expire, so should copyrights. But drug comapnies contnually "game the system" to prevent this, at a detriment and expense to the public. So it is with copyrights, the only difference the corporate interests (like Disney) have won and copyrights don't expire anymore.
I assume that you must represent such a corporate interest (or you are a troll), as anyone who has given copyright half a thought can see how everlasting copyrights are not only wrong for a competitive marketplace of ideas, but morally wrong as well.
you mean those $25 special edition DVDS and $70 boxed sets that deliver a ton of extras, better video, theatrical sound, and cost less in real terms than the VHS cassettes they replace?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. If more than one company is allowed to produce "special editions", there would be greater choice, more competition, and less expensive versions for the consumer. So instead of it being $25, it could be just $10 if there was a competitive marketplace. All of which is good for the consumer/public.
a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.
like "The Lord of the Rings," "The Hobbit" and "King Kong?" oh, wait, those are all titles still under copyrigh
That's right. Because they are still under copyright, that means licensing fees (usually very expensive) must be paid before a movie or deritave work is made. Which decreases the ability of others to make their own work available to the public, and lessens the variety we have to choose and enjoy. It also means higher prices for a ticket/rental. Which is bad for the public and culture at large.
So, that being said, what was the point of your post?
This really shows the "snowball" effect that copyright has become.
Europe expanded the length of copyrights because of suspension during WWII(however they weren't suspended in the US!). Then US copyright law was "expanded" to "bring it in line" with european law. Now Australia is doing the same thing to "bring it in line" with US law.
The next logical step is for some other country to "expand" their copyright law to "be in line" with Australian law. Then the US will undoubtedly follow suit.
Citizens do not see how this is hurting them, but it does. Everything from more expensive videos to a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.
Expect Disney to start lobbying for another copyright extension in a couple of years to protect Mickey. And we know how US lawmakers love to listen to the corporation.
The _only_ way this is going to change if it becomes _very_ politically expensive to expand copyright law.
With the war in Iraq, terrorism, and many people being left behind in this so-called recovery, health care worries, budget deficits, copyright law is at the bottom of people's list.
Data (other than print) has been stored on paper via bar codes. Some early programmable calculators (notably hp) used this to store programs.
Then came the SoftStrip, a kind of 2d barcode that could store higher densities of data. It was used primarily by magazines in the late eighties to print programs that you could scan into your computer (most likely an apple II) rather than laboriously typing them in, which was fraught with errors. A couple of magazines that this appeared in was Nibble and Byte.
But this was not economical for large programs (as it competed with advertising space), and it never achieved widespread popularity.
But the idea was just too clever to die, and other applications of this idea have appeared along with imitators.
The most readily available example of this idea being used is postage printing, that seems to now be widespread.
This technology will always be cheaper than RFIDs, magnetic strips, and smartcards.
As an aside, the benefit of this paper disc that Sony invented is going to be the cost of the media. This is the primary reason Dataplay discs were not able to get off the ground. With the media being inexpensive and a company like Sony to boost it in their applications, I suspect that this could become popular.
One last thing - don't forget that the first technique of storing data on paper other than writing and pictures would be the thumbprint.
I mean, do I install it on my computer, park it in my driveway, or drink it from a fancy bottle?
Maybe all those things, as Lindo^H^H^H^HLinspire takes over the desktop from Microsoft, and seeks licensing agreements with other vendors for use of their future good name.
Linspire......an air of sophistication that will give you inspiration!
So they went after some guy named Olympus for calling his pizza restaurant "Olympic Pizza" instead
Supposedly when the trademark law concerning "Olympics(tm)" was passed, existing businesses that had "Olympic" and places that referenced a geographical feature (like Mt. Olympus here in Utah) were to be "grandfathered" into the law.
However that has not stopped the Olympic committee from taking a number of "Olympic diners" to court to get them to change their name, even though they had rights to their name.
I am sure they were/are hoping small businesses would fold rather than face expensive legal battles.
For example, you could play a specific title until a certain date, or you could buy a subscription allowing you to play anything you want for a given period.
That's what he is working on. I'm sure the RIAA loves the idea of "rental" music.
Apple not only has a more solid model of music ownership with itunes, they will have done it first. Luckily this project is going to show up late to the party when they unveil it two years from now.
I agree that there is an too much of an anti-microsoft slant on Slashdot. Windows is a secure, reliable *##buffer overflow##* platform. It will only become more @@#-ha ha ha ha-#@@ secure as time passes, and trusted %$@-I 0wn3r j00-@$% computing will become a reality. I myself have run Windows %$%-I'm s0 133t-$%$ with little problems for years. I too think this is way overblo@@@@NO CARRIER
The tip of the smallest soldering iron is orders of magnitude larger than the traces within a chip.
You really don't need to solder the insides of a chip.
The chip is connected to a number of external circuits. You can program an in-circuit emulator (ICE) to simulate the functions of the chip (without DRM).
Granted, you might have to disect the chip to provide specific register access (like a key), but this has been done many years ago (like with satellite TV). This does not need soldering. If it is a two-die chip, it may be just a matter of monitoring the internal chip interconnects (easy).
It does take relative skill and analysis, but it is all straightforward. Of course you want to be careful not to be under the jurisdiction of the DMCA or similar laws.
This is beyond the reach of the casual hacker, but certainly not impossible. DRM is like safes - they do not promise invincibility, but rather a "Tool an Torch Resistance" in minutes. Which means that it is a question of time for someone to break in the safe, not whether they will or not. I'm sure the DRM makers want clients to think of the latter when they are sold DRM.
The only cryptography that is currently unbreakable is quantum cryptography. The various RIAA labs probably keep up to date on this technology. Alternatively, DRM producers could (and probably will) use long key lengths and expoxy filled electronics. All these things have been done in the past.
But there will come a point that DRM is so unworkable that people will not buy products containing it (whether it limits use or is difficult to use). The fact that you can put itunes on three computers and unlimited ipods is a nod to this reality.
Slashdot Mirror
As usual, in our arrogance we automatically assume that any change in climate can only be caused by us.
There is a significant number of scientists that say that our arrogance is in saying that our actions will not have an effect on the climate.
I call bullshirt on this. Link a document that proves this outrageous statement.
Bullshirt right back at you.
From this link:
Here you may see the close correlation between CO2 and Temperature variation in planet history. You may find that recent CO2 concentration level of 375 ppm is much higher than any value in the previous 450,000 years, and that the rate of increase of CO2 with time is about 100 times higher than any other rate of increase in the recorded history.
They can drill ice cores from the Antartic to precisely detail changes in the earths climate and CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the past 500,000 years.
I'm sure there are more many other articles around. NOVA did an excellent show on this as well. I'm stating something that is generally accepted in the scientific community (outside of those scientists counsulting to Bush - they are the minority).
Sure it takes alot of energy to melt ice. But the greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 might provide that energy.
The Antartic is the largest body of ice on this planet. If the Antartic melts in a significant way (and there seems to be some worrisome cracks forming) this water will be added to the oceans. To say that this will not have any measurable effect is being naive.
You are right that climate behavior seems chaotic. And there aren't computers powerful enough to give an accurate prediction of what might happen.
But one only has to look as far as Venice, Italy to see that the ocean there is rising. One can't help but wonder if there is not a link. The same goes for the drought in the Western US that has Lake Powell at it's lowest point ever.
From this link
Here you may see the close correlation between CO2 and Temperature variation in planet history. You may find that recent CO2 concentration level of 375 ppm is much higher than any value in the previous 450,000 years, and that the rate of increase of CO2 with time is about 100 times higher than any other rate of increase in the recorded history.
This is not a minority opinion, and there is general consensus in the scientific community that this is the case.
They can drill ice cores from the Antartic to precisely detail changes in the earths climate and CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the past 500,000 years.
I'm stating something that is a leading theory of atmospheric science.
If that recollection is true, then we're still in an "Ice Age" and should expect the world to be getting warmer if the "Ice Age" is in fact coming to an end
This is what I call "Dubya" science or speak, as this is something like what he would say.
The fact is that we are conducting a worldwide uncontrolled experiment on mother earth, as we pump evermore quantities of CO2 in the enviroment.
There has never been a greater amount of CO2 in the enviroment than right at this point of time.
This outpouring of uncontrolled CO2 started with the industrial revolution and hasn't slowed since.
Likewise, the temperature of the Earth has been rising steadily and at a faster rate.
People may scoff at and dismiss a 1 degree raise in the earth temperature as nothing important, but there is one fact of physics that is incontrovertible;
Ice is frozen at 32 degrees, ice is *water* at 33 degrees
Which means that we start losing the polar ice caps with a one degree change in the earth's climate.
Startling evidence has occured that this shows this very thing may be happening - The north pole turns to water on a regular basis, and a huge part of the Antartic ice sheet has broken off.
I'll let somebody else post the links or google it. One of them was an old slashdot story.
So scientists or whoever can diss the movie all they want, but it is just a matter of time before some weather related event occurs that will come back to bite us in the collective but in a big way due to global warming.
I have a shaver that does this too, it sits in holder and charges.
However he says he needs to do it over a distance of 2 to 4 inches, and there won't be enough coupling between the coils to achieve enough voltage to charge the battery.
I'm not saying that it is impossible, but rather exotic electronics means expensive electronics, and most toys are very price sensitive.
Anyway, that was Tesla's great dream, to transmit power.
Buffering.....Buffering....PWNED....Buffering..
Yeah, as other posters noted, I was laughing too and saying "what's next, five blades?"
The cartridges are so expensive that I feel like I am using a cadillac to scrape hairs off my face. And that's for the three bladed kind.
What I find interesting is that Wal-Mart has a generic cartridge that fits the sensor razor.
So since they have dozens of patents on the sensor (presumably to stop cartridge knock offs), how are the generics able to be made?
Myself, I'm an Atra man. The dollar store had a ten pack of generic cartridges for a dollar. I filled a large drawer with them.
They don't have the lubra strip on them, but I'm quite happy with the price.
It also seems that the three blade variety do not stay as sharp as long, and clog easier. Which is natural if your profit model is based on people tossing cartridges.
They sent me a free four blade razor in the mail. I think I will save it for special occasions.
Maybe I can get a hot date through slashdot personals.
Me against 10,000 other nerds. I don't know.
then even though I'm demonstrating the effectiveness of the box in turning fish into chickens I'm not forfeiting any patent rights...
Was it a public beta or was it not? If you publicly disclose that you have a black box that turns a fish into chicken (and with the way DNA research is going, don't laugh at it) publicly, it is your responsibility to patent it.
Just because nobody may not know the workings of the black box does not make it any less your responsibility to patent it. Because unless the patent examiner grants you the patent and hence the monopoly on it you don't have exclusive rights to it.
So, if you publish that you have a machine (or let the public use it, like in a beta) that turns a fish into chickens, you have a year to file tha patent on it. After that year, your exclusive rights to the secret box that turns fish into chickens evaporates. Anybody can use the idea and make a box that does the same thing.
But that was not what is at argument here. What is being challenged here is that the FAT file system is not really a "novel" or "unique" idea in the first place, but rather obvious for those who are familiar with the technology.
The three qualifications for a patent are usefulness, novelty, and it has to be nonobviuos
As the article states, and why this will be important in the future, the patent office granted a patent to something that was obvious.
The problem is not patents themselves (and I would argue that software patents are not entirely bad if held to the original standards that they were supposed to be under), but that the patent examiner will slap a patent on anything that walks through the door.
For one reason or another the patent office is broken (not enough money), with the attitude that rather than themselves having to put a critical eye torward something that may be obvious, they decide to not do this and let a judge later sort it out.
Which is wrong, and just another example why our government is broken in more ways than one.
Admittedly, it costs a lot of money to hire an examiner that is familiar with often arcane (but important) technologies. But it does not let the patent office off the hook.
What we have is people who are getting a software patent equivalent to a patent on breathing air.
The business method patents (this kind of patent is worse than software, as it has no technology behind it) come to mind, like the "ecommerce" one.
Some would argue that software patents should never have been granted because it is a "slippery slope". I think they are right. The original software patents were granted to machines that controlled the vulcanization of rubber (novel and nonobvious) and another that read data off seisometers.
We have slid from that all the way down to the "one click" patent to buy something.
Anyway, this is an important fight that needs to be won.
special editions generally imply access to the original production team, pristine studio prints, archieval footage etc., etc.
It's very presumptuous to assume that any one single commercial entity would be able to produce the only "special edition" possible for a given work. As you pointed out, in many instances it is a "team" that produces films, and any given team member might have material that they could give to any company that they wanted to for whatever reason. Thus there very easily could be different "special editions".
While access to any specific print that might have a better quality than another might be a factor, it's certainly not the only one that a "special edition" might consist of.
Conversely, the copyright holder may restrict access to prevent a derivate work that they do not approve of. This happens in many instances (naturally). The music Gershwin and Gone With the Wind is an example of this.
have you seen many public domain titles preserved and documented with such care?
No, the reason is that there are no works that are going into the public domain. In fact, thanks to the egregious example of congressional whoring that is called the Copyright Term Extension Act, or the Sonny Bono act, no copyrighted work since the founding of this nation is going into the public domain.
meaning that a studio will consider the known quantity, the marketable classic, the safer bet than an original story? welcome to the real world of Hollywood.
Opposite to what you, Hollywood, the studios, or the large corporations may think, copyright was created in the constitution to serve the public interest. Not a corporate interest.
I would submit that the public deserves its due, and should decide what is marketable and not any particular studio executive that answers only to shareholders. Copyrighted works that are eighty years old should belong to the public, not a movie studio that is going to sit on the film cans. The movie "It's a Wonderful Life" never gained popularity until it became part of the public domain.
I find, along with many others, the idea that corporate interests (esp. when it comes to copyright) superceed everything else including a public interest increasingly repulsive.
For the same reasons that its a good idea that drug patents (and others) expire, so should copyrights. But drug comapnies contnually "game the system" to prevent this, at a detriment and expense to the public. So it is with copyrights, the only difference the corporate interests (like Disney) have won and copyrights don't expire anymore.
I assume that you must represent such a corporate interest (or you are a troll), as anyone who has given copyright half a thought can see how everlasting copyrights are not only wrong for a competitive marketplace of ideas, but morally wrong as well.
more expensive videos
you mean those $25 special edition DVDS and $70 boxed sets that deliver a ton of extras, better video, theatrical sound, and cost less in real terms than the VHS cassettes they replace?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. If more than one company is allowed to produce "special editions", there would be greater choice, more competition, and less expensive versions for the consumer. So instead of it being $25, it could be just $10 if there was a competitive marketplace. All of which is good for the consumer/public.
a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.
like "The Lord of the Rings," "The Hobbit" and "King Kong?"
oh, wait, those are all titles still under copyrigh
That's right. Because they are still under copyright, that means licensing fees (usually very expensive) must be paid before a movie or deritave work is made. Which decreases the ability of others to make their own work available to the public, and lessens the variety we have to choose and enjoy. It also means higher prices for a ticket/rental. Which is bad for the public and culture at large.
So, that being said, what was the point of your post?
This really shows the "snowball" effect that copyright has become.
Europe expanded the length of copyrights because of suspension during WWII(however they weren't suspended in the US!). Then US copyright law was "expanded" to "bring it in line" with european law. Now Australia is doing the same thing to "bring it in line" with US law.
The next logical step is for some other country to "expand" their copyright law to "be in line" with Australian law. Then the US will undoubtedly follow suit.
Citizens do not see how this is hurting them, but it does. Everything from more expensive videos to a cultural "lockdown" preventing new creative works based on the old ones.
Expect Disney to start lobbying for another copyright extension in a couple of years to protect Mickey. And we know how US lawmakers love to listen to the corporation.
The _only_ way this is going to change if it becomes _very_ politically expensive to expand copyright law.
With the war in Iraq, terrorism, and many people being left behind in this so-called recovery, health care worries, budget deficits, copyright law is at the bottom of people's list.
We can now put information down on paper!!!
Just think of what we can do now!
Be careful at what you laugh at.
Data (other than print) has been stored on paper via bar codes. Some early programmable calculators (notably hp) used this to store programs.
Then came the SoftStrip, a kind of 2d barcode that could store higher densities of data. It was used primarily by magazines in the late eighties to print programs that you could scan into your computer (most likely an apple II) rather than laboriously typing them in, which was fraught with errors. A couple of magazines that this appeared in was Nibble and Byte.
But this was not economical for large programs (as it competed with advertising space), and it never achieved widespread popularity.
But the idea was just too clever to die, and other applications of this idea have appeared along with imitators.
The most readily available example of this idea being used is postage printing, that seems to now be widespread.
This technology will always be cheaper than RFIDs, magnetic strips, and smartcards.
As an aside, the benefit of this paper disc that Sony invented is going to be the cost of the media. This is the primary reason Dataplay discs were not able to get off the ground. With the media being inexpensive and a company like Sony to boost it in their applications, I suspect that this could become popular.
One last thing - don't forget that the first technique of storing data on paper other than writing and pictures would be the thumbprint.
I mean, do I install it on my computer, park it in my driveway, or drink it from a fancy bottle?
Maybe all those things, as Lindo^H^H^H^HLinspire takes over the desktop from Microsoft, and seeks licensing agreements with other vendors for use of their future good name.
Linspire......an air of sophistication that will give you inspiration!
I should head up marketing for them, huh?
Not necessarily. Microsoft could conceivably argue that Lindos was not a far enough of a departure away from their name like they did with Lin---s.
This way they get out of it entirely and are able to continue to sell in foreign countries.
Meanwhile they can continue the battle at home, and hopefully prove that Microsoft hijacked the generic term "windows" (like from X) for themselves.
While this may not be the ideal solution, it will work until they win the court case, which I'm certainly hoping for.
Not that I could do any better, I'm sure... but Linspire really sounds boring.
.
At least it's not Expire
Unless you want to get out of your car, walk away, and still be able to listen to your music
That's why they invented extension cords.
So they went after some guy named Olympus for calling his pizza restaurant "Olympic Pizza" instead
Supposedly when the trademark law concerning "Olympics(tm)" was passed, existing businesses that had "Olympic" and places that referenced a geographical feature (like Mt. Olympus here in Utah) were to be "grandfathered" into the law.
However that has not stopped the Olympic committee from taking a number of "Olympic diners" to court to get them to change their name, even though they had rights to their name.
I am sure they were/are hoping small businesses would fold rather than face expensive legal battles.
From the interview;
For example, you could play a specific title until a certain date, or you could buy a subscription allowing you to play anything you want for a given period.
That's what he is working on. I'm sure the RIAA loves the idea of "rental" music.
Apple not only has a more solid model of music ownership with itunes, they will have done it first. Luckily this project is going to show up late to the party when they unveil it two years from now.
Nothing new here. Move on.
Now, my opinion of MS is not that great, but this just seems wrong
Not really, if one of the companies is a cockroach.
Someone is sniffing passwords off the network (telnet or http sessions probably) or cracking badly chosen ones
They could be using hardware keyloggers, in which case NO machine is invulnerable.
I agree that there is an too much of an anti-microsoft slant on Slashdot. Windows is a secure, reliable *##buffer overflow##* platform. It will only become more @@#-ha ha ha ha-#@@ secure as time passes, and trusted %$@-I 0wn3r j00-@$% computing will become a reality. I myself have run Windows %$%-I'm s0 133t-$%$ with little problems for years. I too think this is way overblo@@@@NO CARRIER
The tip of the smallest soldering iron is orders of magnitude larger than the traces within a chip.
You really don't need to solder the insides of a chip.
The chip is connected to a number of external circuits. You can program an in-circuit emulator (ICE) to simulate the functions of the chip (without DRM).
Granted, you might have to disect the chip to provide specific register access (like a key), but this has been done many years ago (like with satellite TV). This does not need soldering. If it is a two-die chip, it may be just a matter of monitoring the internal chip interconnects (easy).
It does take relative skill and analysis, but it is all straightforward. Of course you want to be careful not to be under the jurisdiction of the DMCA or similar laws.
This is beyond the reach of the casual hacker, but certainly not impossible. DRM is like safes - they do not promise invincibility, but rather a "Tool an Torch Resistance" in minutes. Which means that it is a question of time for someone to break in the safe, not whether they will or not. I'm sure the DRM makers want clients to think of the latter when they are sold DRM.
The only cryptography that is currently unbreakable is quantum cryptography. The various RIAA labs probably keep up to date on this technology. Alternatively, DRM producers could (and probably will) use long key lengths and expoxy filled electronics. All these things have been done in the past.
But there will come a point that DRM is so unworkable that people will not buy products containing it (whether it limits use or is difficult to use). The fact that you can put itunes on three computers and unlimited ipods is a nod to this reality.
it can be hacked.
RFIDs do not transmit RF. Rather you need a RFID "reader" that transmits a signal to the RFID to see if you have any tags in your tires.
You still might have tags in your tires.