Once their work is finished, there will be no Linux antivirus tools left, so windows will be more secure!
Actually, they're doing it so that more Windows machines will be responsible for Windows being more secure. Most antivirus tools for Unix and Mac systems are not really about protecting those systems from viruses. Instead, those tools are often used to scan for *Windows* viruses and prevent the machine from becoming a carrier for further Windows infections.
This whole thing is somewhat amusing anyway, as Microsoft found themselves in the position of needing Unix anti-virus software when they purchased Hotmail. You see, Hotmail originally ran on BSD machines and thus was incapable of scanning email for virus attachments. Microsoft got on the case of a few anti-virus providers at the time to get them software for BSD. Oh the irony.
1. "Opera is configured by default to identify itself as Internet Explorer' " Isn't that fraud?
No. Fraud is about using lies for direct financial gain, and requires specific intent. Opera identifies itself as IE for interoperability purposes, something that "modern" tech laws (such as the DMCA) protect.
Plus, the whole point of the www is that it is browser independent. So this is unstandard behavior, and should be shunned(2).
I'm sure Grandma will think it's great that her bank and realtor websites don't work because Opera is taking a stand.
The real blame for this lies first in Netscape (which extended the web in many incompatible ways, but at least worked on every OS) and later in Microsoft (who used Netscape's tactics to sew up the web). If Tim Berners-Lee was dead, I'm sure he'd be rolling in his grave. Instead he's had to settle for being alive and helping correct this nonsense.
These are just wild claims at the moment. If he believes that the numbers are overrated, then he needs to look into the data collection methods used. Which I'm not certain why he'd do that anyway. A user who isn't using IE is a user who's more open to alternatives. Inflated FireFox numbers could help adoption of BOTH browsers.
Russian rocket failure rates are about on par with US rocket failure rates; the only thing that I can think of offhand that they've had serious reliability problems with are their mars probes.
FWIW, *everyone* has had massive failure rates with Mars Probes. The only difference is that NASA has more experience and has managed to get fairly good at avoiding many of the pitfalls that were believed to cause the loss of many of their probes.
Cosmos 1 was funded by the insurance money from the previous failure, so don't think that this is the end.:)
It may be the last time the insurance company underwrites them, though.;-)
The article is light on details, but my guess is that the booster was probably similar to a Boeing Sea Launch system. (Wikipedia says it was a Volna ICBM. The Boeing system is really just the Zenit strap-on boosters from the Energia superbooster.) The booster probably doesn't have too much power on its own, and does best if orbit can be obtained without much need for ajusting the orbit when you get up there. Now Russia is in a fairly lousy place for launches (thus the crappy location of the ISS in orbit), so a sea launch platform allows the rocket to take off from a more useful latitude.
I'm not really holding out for Solar Sails as a viable propulsion mechanisms, but it is a crying shame to have perfectly good hardware getting lost. Even if the propulsion didn't pan out as anything useful, it might still return a tremendous amount of useful data on space operations. Data that could be useful for other projects such as solar energy collectors or M2P2 propulsion.
Speaking of M2P2, anyone know of any research updates? The website is just as useless as ever for updates. Are they just sitting on the tech?
I was going to say that this was only last Wednesday, but then I reread the EFF's claim. According to the EFF, the amendment was supposed to be introduced yesterday. So perhaps someone got cold feet, or the EFF had a bad floppy on this one.
I had that happen once with "One Night in Bangkok". For some reason, the DJ kept taking requests for the song during the "Lunch at the 80's" program. Finally, one of the requesters asked why he kept playing "One Night in Bangkok". He finally fessed up to the fact that the CD player was jammed and that he had a technician on the way to get it out so they could play other music. Whoops.:-D
I can't check the wiki since it has been slashdotted, does anyonw know how much Java is in NeoOffice?
A LOT. NeoOffice/J more or less uses the core of OOo for opening/saving files, and rendering the GUI to a back-buffer. Everything else, such as the screen handling, clipboard, I/O, and anything else machine specific, is done through Java.
Re:Corporations preclude competition on the cheap.
on
Apple Sued Over iTunes UI
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
RMS continues to be a guiding authority for how the free software community interprets software patents
Doesn't matter. He's not a lawyer, nor is this discussion about free software. As a result, his opinions are irrelevant in this situation.
you show your stripes well enough by not explaining why you disagree with his arguments.
I'm not disagreeing with him at all. I'm ignoring him because his opinion has no bearing on the subject at hand. If there's some part of his opinion that you think has bearing, then it is your responsibility to bring it into the discussion. I'm not going to wade through his speech and praise his opinions all day long.
IBM says they get an order of magnitude more value from cross-licensing than pursuing lawsuits. This article clearly illustrates the value of cross-licensing.
Except that Contois is not looking for cross-licensing deals. They're suing Apple for money in a baseless lawsuit where they're claiming damages because Apple invented something that sorta, kinda, not really looked like a method of streaming MIDI files to Yamaha Keyboards. (Exhibit: http://www.contois.com)
If you have a point, please make it. But please don't waste people's time by demanding that they be an RMS fan in order to hold an intelligent discussion.
At least the courts knew better this time and ruled in favor of open information that the public paid for.
What is it with the "this time" stuff? After a case goes through the full process of being heard, being appealed, and being heard at higher courts, it's reasonably certain that the outcome is correct according to the law. If the courts produce a decision you don't like, then you probably need to look to your lawmakers, not your justices.
Of course, most of the "decisions" that people complain about around here never go to court. i.e. The case procedes as:
1. Person get cease and desist or notices a rights violation.
2. Lots of complaining about how bad the courts are, and how they're all in Bush's/Clinton's/Jimmy Carter's pocket.
3. Case never goes to court, despite the law actually stating the "correct answer".
4. More complaining about how bad the courts are.
Yeash people. Believe it or not, the US court system does tend to work correctly.
Ok, I'm done with my rant now. You can mod me offtopic. (Because I am.)
Re:Corporations preclude competition on the cheap.
on
Apple Sued Over iTunes UI
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
1. Never point me to RMS as a source for legal advice. You're only going to annoy me, and still fail to make your point.
2. Legal battles are not always expensive. Most large corporations keep lawyers on staff anyway, so it never hurts to see if you can get the judge to make a speedy decision. If the case shows signs of dragging out and costing the company huge amounts of money, *then* a settlement can always be reconsidered. If the other party doesn't want to settle (which is almost never the case in a baseless lawsuit), then it will likely hurt their case in front of the judge.
And FWIW, over the past few days I've downloaded Linux From Scratch CD and Book, Knoppix lastest, and OpenSolaris code over BitTorrent. Xandros also provides a free version of their distro only over bittorrent, and many game demos come over bittorrent. It's gotten to the point where I get pretty upset if I *can't* get a large file over BT. (Others may remember me bitching about not being able to download Solaris 10 over BT. I still can't, but at least I can get the source and OpenSolaris derivitives.)
If you're a product of the US education system, go ask for your money back, because you didn't get what you paid for. Rights are not granted by a constitution. Rights are inherent (at the 'certain inalienable' ones).
Man, I'm glad I didn't go to your education system. You have a pretty warped view of history.
Our declaration of independence says the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
1. You'll note the suspicious lack of "Freedom of Speech". 2. Our founding fathers recognized that while rights are not granted by a government, it is the governments job to ensure the rights under which the people will live.
Something else to note is that the US Constitution went into effect in 1789. Yet the First Ammendment (the right to free speech) was not added until 1791! The exact origins of the ammendment are complex, but they stem from the desire by the early American government and populace to provide a method for the general public to keep tabs on what their government was doing. Thus protection was set up to provide for freedom of speech and press. NO OTHER COUNTRY RECOGNIZED THIS FREEDOM. In fact, many governments went as far as to explicitly censor the newspapers of time.
So the origins of the freedom of speech are nowhere near as simple or "inalienable" as you make them out to be. If I were you, I'd ask for my VAT back.
Since these songs reside only on my iPod, it is most certainly controlling the music device.
Bzzt! You're not controlling the iPod, you're interfacing with its database.
When I push Play/Pause/Skip in iTunes, the song on the iPod is played/paused/skipped.
But you're still not causing the iPod to play the music. You're causing your own computer to stream music from the iPod's database.
The patent is quite clear on this issue. When you press the play button, it must force the player piano to begin playing. Using the computer to capture and process what is currently being fed into the player piano's punch-tape feed is not covered by this patent.
If you go into Itunes, put some music on the Ipod, click on the Ipod icon, and play the music from there. As far as I know it pulls it off the Ipod to play.
That's backwards. The the computer is *pulling* a stream from the iPod and is still not controlling it. Neither is the iPod controlling iTunes. The two devices are merely interfaced, which is not covered by the patent in question.
I don't think most people would agree with speakers as "External Computer Controlled devices" but I think everyone would agree that the iPod is.
I wouldn't agree. "Computer Controlled" specifically means that the parent computer is the interface to which the attached device responds. The patent even goes into great detail of this interface and calls the device a "player piano". An iPod, OTOH, is an independent device. It is in no way "controlled" by the host computer, but merely interfaces for file transfers. There is currently no method by which an iPod can begin play by "pressing the play button on the computer interface." (in the patent, look it up) Rather, the user must interface directly with the iPod to access the downloaded database.
Does MOD4Win control an external music playing device (like a player piano or an iPod)?
No, but neither does iTunes. According to their patent, the software must be capable of "b) sending a data stream from the computer to the computer controlled music device in response to step a) for controlling the playing of the selected song;". Or in other words, the external device must respond directly to the stream provided by the computer device.
iTunes does no such thing. It merely downloads the music to the player for storage, control, and later playback by the player. i.e. An iPod cannot be reasonably compared with directly controlling a "player piano".
MOD4Win had "multiple data display", "database features", and "music control" in 1993. Not to mention that NeXTSTEP had the scrolling file chooser interface used by iTunes, many years prior to 1996. If anything, Apple might be able to countersue for this company copying *their* interface!
Sorry, their arguments aren't holding water. And I still don't see any player pianos.:-/
This seems to cover not only iTunes but WinAMP, FooBar2000, and just about any other player that can organize music and play only selected artists, albums, or genre's.
Except that WinAMP was released in 1997 and the patent was filed in 1999. Not to mention the original MP3 Player, WinPlay3, which had been released several years prior. There's nothing wrong with the current patent system, just that the existing rules need to be better enforced. The attempts to invalidate patents through a review process are the most promising to date.
If I were Apple, I'd fight this one in court. I'm not a patent lawyer, but this seems to be a rediculous patent. The primary claims seem to be:
1. That a computer program can have buttons to start and stop music. 2. That a computer program can display two or more data fields about that music during play.
There is another claim about controlling a player piano (!), but that seems irrelevant to this case.
The problems I see with this patent are:
1. The claims argued are blatently obvious. It's one step above a patent for displaying and manipulating data on a screen. The only difference is that this adds music! (rolls eyes) 2. Plenty of prior art exists. For example, MIDI and CD players throughout the 90's were capable of "controlling the playback of music" and "displaying two or more data fields about the song". Not to mention MP3 player that existed prior to January 1999. 3. The primary focus of the body of the patent is on player piano control. AFAIK, iTunes does not run player pianos. 4. The patent points to MIDI or a MIDI-like device as the stream being controlled. Digital audio is not a method of controlling a digital instrument, but rather a synthesis of a complete sound environment.
Perhaps the best reform would be to allow for reprocussions against the patent holder should his patent be found to be issued in error or inapplicablE? For example, if the patent holder was forced to pay court costs, he may think twice before initiating a baseless suit.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the new measure of believability?
;-)
Yep, the "Aha, that whole swimming across the ocean thing was a funny joke! No wait, it wasn't." level of believability.
Once their work is finished, there will be no Linux antivirus tools left, so windows will be more secure!
Actually, they're doing it so that more Windows machines will be responsible for Windows being more secure. Most antivirus tools for Unix and Mac systems are not really about protecting those systems from viruses. Instead, those tools are often used to scan for *Windows* viruses and prevent the machine from becoming a carrier for further Windows infections.
This whole thing is somewhat amusing anyway, as Microsoft found themselves in the position of needing Unix anti-virus software when they purchased Hotmail. You see, Hotmail originally ran on BSD machines and thus was incapable of scanning email for virus attachments. Microsoft got on the case of a few anti-virus providers at the time to get them software for BSD. Oh the irony.
1. "Opera is configured by default to identify itself as Internet Explorer' "
Isn't that fraud?
No. Fraud is about using lies for direct financial gain, and requires specific intent. Opera identifies itself as IE for interoperability purposes, something that "modern" tech laws (such as the DMCA) protect.
Plus, the whole point of the www is that it is browser independent. So this is unstandard behavior, and should be shunned(2).
I'm sure Grandma will think it's great that her bank and realtor websites don't work because Opera is taking a stand.
The real blame for this lies first in Netscape (which extended the web in many incompatible ways, but at least worked on every OS) and later in Microsoft (who used Netscape's tactics to sew up the web). If Tim Berners-Lee was dead, I'm sure he'd be rolling in his grave. Instead he's had to settle for being alive and helping correct this nonsense.
Like we're going to believe a guy who couldn't even swim the Atlantic.
These are just wild claims at the moment. If he believes that the numbers are overrated, then he needs to look into the data collection methods used. Which I'm not certain why he'd do that anyway. A user who isn't using IE is a user who's more open to alternatives. Inflated FireFox numbers could help adoption of BOTH browsers.
Russian rocket failure rates are about on par with US rocket failure rates; the only thing that I can think of offhand that they've had serious reliability problems with are their mars probes.
:)
;-)
FWIW, *everyone* has had massive failure rates with Mars Probes. The only difference is that NASA has more experience and has managed to get fairly good at avoiding many of the pitfalls that were believed to cause the loss of many of their probes.
Cosmos 1 was funded by the insurance money from the previous failure, so don't think that this is the end.
It may be the last time the insurance company underwrites them, though.
The article is light on details, but my guess is that the booster was probably similar to a Boeing Sea Launch system. (Wikipedia says it was a Volna ICBM. The Boeing system is really just the Zenit strap-on boosters from the Energia superbooster.) The booster probably doesn't have too much power on its own, and does best if orbit can be obtained without much need for ajusting the orbit when you get up there. Now Russia is in a fairly lousy place for launches (thus the crappy location of the ISS in orbit), so a sea launch platform allows the rocket to take off from a more useful latitude.
That's my guess, anyway.
I'm not really holding out for Solar Sails as a viable propulsion mechanisms, but it is a crying shame to have perfectly good hardware getting lost. Even if the propulsion didn't pan out as anything useful, it might still return a tremendous amount of useful data on space operations. Data that could be useful for other projects such as solar energy collectors or M2P2 propulsion.
Speaking of M2P2, anyone know of any research updates? The website is just as useless as ever for updates. Are they just sitting on the tech?
I was going to say that this was only last Wednesday, but then I reread the EFF's claim. According to the EFF, the amendment was supposed to be introduced yesterday. So perhaps someone got cold feet, or the EFF had a bad floppy on this one.
Indeed. Might this be the very vote?
I had that happen once with "One Night in Bangkok". For some reason, the DJ kept taking requests for the song during the "Lunch at the 80's" program. Finally, one of the requesters asked why he kept playing "One Night in Bangkok". He finally fessed up to the fact that the CD player was jammed and that he had a technician on the way to get it out so they could play other music. Whoops. :-D
I can't check the wiki since it has been slashdotted, does anyonw know how much Java is in NeoOffice?
A LOT. NeoOffice/J more or less uses the core of OOo for opening/saving files, and rendering the GUI to a back-buffer. Everything else, such as the screen handling, clipboard, I/O, and anything else machine specific, is done through Java.
RMS continues to be a guiding authority for how the free software community interprets software patents
Doesn't matter. He's not a lawyer, nor is this discussion about free software. As a result, his opinions are irrelevant in this situation.
you show your stripes well enough by not explaining why you disagree with his arguments.
I'm not disagreeing with him at all. I'm ignoring him because his opinion has no bearing on the subject at hand. If there's some part of his opinion that you think has bearing, then it is your responsibility to bring it into the discussion. I'm not going to wade through his speech and praise his opinions all day long.
IBM says they get an order of magnitude more value from cross-licensing than pursuing lawsuits. This article clearly illustrates the value of cross-licensing.
Except that Contois is not looking for cross-licensing deals. They're suing Apple for money in a baseless lawsuit where they're claiming damages because Apple invented something that sorta, kinda, not really looked like a method of streaming MIDI files to Yamaha Keyboards. (Exhibit: http://www.contois.com)
If you have a point, please make it. But please don't waste people's time by demanding that they be an RMS fan in order to hold an intelligent discussion.
At least the courts knew better this time and ruled in favor of open information that the public paid for.
What is it with the "this time" stuff? After a case goes through the full process of being heard, being appealed, and being heard at higher courts, it's reasonably certain that the outcome is correct according to the law. If the courts produce a decision you don't like, then you probably need to look to your lawmakers, not your justices.
Of course, most of the "decisions" that people complain about around here never go to court. i.e. The case procedes as:
1. Person get cease and desist or notices a rights violation.
2. Lots of complaining about how bad the courts are, and how they're all in Bush's/Clinton's/Jimmy Carter's pocket.
3. Case never goes to court, despite the law actually stating the "correct answer".
4. More complaining about how bad the courts are.
Yeash people. Believe it or not, the US court system does tend to work correctly.
Ok, I'm done with my rant now. You can mod me offtopic. (Because I am.)
1. Never point me to RMS as a source for legal advice. You're only going to annoy me, and still fail to make your point.
2. Legal battles are not always expensive. Most large corporations keep lawyers on staff anyway, so it never hurts to see if you can get the judge to make a speedy decision. If the case shows signs of dragging out and costing the company huge amounts of money, *then* a settlement can always be reconsidered. If the other party doesn't want to settle (which is almost never the case in a baseless lawsuit), then it will likely hurt their case in front of the judge.
Can someone tell me a real,legal use for bittorrent?
Obviously, someone wasn't paying attention.
And FWIW, over the past few days I've downloaded Linux From Scratch CD and Book, Knoppix lastest, and OpenSolaris code over BitTorrent. Xandros also provides a free version of their distro only over bittorrent, and many game demos come over bittorrent. It's gotten to the point where I get pretty upset if I *can't* get a large file over BT. (Others may remember me bitching about not being able to download Solaris 10 over BT. I still can't, but at least I can get the source and OpenSolaris derivitives.)
Isn't it at least telling the iPod to start spinning the hard drive to access the database?
Not directly. The parent computer merely requests information from the device. How the device goes about providing that information is irrelevant.
Man, I'm glad I didn't go to your education system. You have a pretty warped view of history.
Our declaration of independence says the following:
1. You'll note the suspicious lack of "Freedom of Speech".
2. Our founding fathers recognized that while rights are not granted by a government, it is the governments job to ensure the rights under which the people will live.
Something else to note is that the US Constitution went into effect in 1789. Yet the First Ammendment (the right to free speech) was not added until 1791! The exact origins of the ammendment are complex, but they stem from the desire by the early American government and populace to provide a method for the general public to keep tabs on what their government was doing. Thus protection was set up to provide for freedom of speech and press. NO OTHER COUNTRY RECOGNIZED THIS FREEDOM. In fact, many governments went as far as to explicitly censor the newspapers of time.
So the origins of the freedom of speech are nowhere near as simple or "inalienable" as you make them out to be. If I were you, I'd ask for my VAT back.
Since these songs reside only on my iPod, it is most certainly controlling the music device.
Bzzt! You're not controlling the iPod, you're interfacing with its database.
When I push Play/Pause/Skip in iTunes, the song on the iPod is played/paused/skipped.
But you're still not causing the iPod to play the music. You're causing your own computer to stream music from the iPod's database.
The patent is quite clear on this issue. When you press the play button, it must force the player piano to begin playing. Using the computer to capture and process what is currently being fed into the player piano's punch-tape feed is not covered by this patent.
If you go into Itunes, put some music on the Ipod, click on the Ipod icon, and play the music from there. As far as I know it pulls it off the Ipod to play.
That's backwards. The the computer is *pulling* a stream from the iPod and is still not controlling it. Neither is the iPod controlling iTunes. The two devices are merely interfaced, which is not covered by the patent in question.
I don't think most people would agree with speakers as "External Computer Controlled devices" but I think everyone would agree that the iPod is.
I wouldn't agree. "Computer Controlled" specifically means that the parent computer is the interface to which the attached device responds. The patent even goes into great detail of this interface and calls the device a "player piano". An iPod, OTOH, is an independent device. It is in no way "controlled" by the host computer, but merely interfaces for file transfers. There is currently no method by which an iPod can begin play by "pressing the play button on the computer interface." (in the patent, look it up) Rather, the user must interface directly with the iPod to access the downloaded database.
Does MOD4Win control an external music playing device (like a player piano or an iPod)?
No, but neither does iTunes. According to their patent, the software must be capable of "b) sending a data stream from the computer to the computer controlled music device in response to step a) for controlling the playing of the selected song;". Or in other words, the external device must respond directly to the stream provided by the computer device.
iTunes does no such thing. It merely downloads the music to the player for storage, control, and later playback by the player. i.e. An iPod cannot be reasonably compared with directly controlling a "player piano".
The patent was filed in 1996. RTFPF.
Okay, fine. WinPlay3 was released in 1995. Not to mention MOD4Win which was released in 1993.
MOD4Win had "multiple data display", "database features", and "music control" in 1993. Not to mention that NeXTSTEP had the scrolling file chooser interface used by iTunes, many years prior to 1996. If anything, Apple might be able to countersue for this company copying *their* interface!
:-/
Sorry, their arguments aren't holding water. And I still don't see any player pianos.
This seems to cover not only iTunes but WinAMP, FooBar2000, and just about any other player that can organize music and play only selected artists, albums, or genre's.
Except that WinAMP was released in 1997 and the patent was filed in 1999. Not to mention the original MP3 Player, WinPlay3, which had been released several years prior. There's nothing wrong with the current patent system, just that the existing rules need to be better enforced. The attempts to invalidate patents through a review process are the most promising to date.
If I were Apple, I'd fight this one in court. I'm not a patent lawyer, but this seems to be a rediculous patent. The primary claims seem to be:
1. That a computer program can have buttons to start and stop music.
2. That a computer program can display two or more data fields about that music during play.
There is another claim about controlling a player piano (!), but that seems irrelevant to this case.
The problems I see with this patent are:
1. The claims argued are blatently obvious. It's one step above a patent for displaying and manipulating data on a screen. The only difference is that this adds music! (rolls eyes)
2. Plenty of prior art exists. For example, MIDI and CD players throughout the 90's were capable of "controlling the playback of music" and "displaying two or more data fields about the song". Not to mention MP3 player that existed prior to January 1999.
3. The primary focus of the body of the patent is on player piano control. AFAIK, iTunes does not run player pianos.
4. The patent points to MIDI or a MIDI-like device as the stream being controlled. Digital audio is not a method of controlling a digital instrument, but rather a synthesis of a complete sound environment.
Perhaps the best reform would be to allow for reprocussions against the patent holder should his patent be found to be issued in error or inapplicablE? For example, if the patent holder was forced to pay court costs, he may think twice before initiating a baseless suit.