A friend of mine at Apple who works on OS X has told me for years that "it's almost ready".
The biggest problem with the software market right now is that it favors the company get gets to market first. I see it like Linux 2.4 - if they say it's going to be done "when it's finished," I say let them have all the time they want.
The lesson for open source projects is that they need to be careful anout the names they use and make sure they establish their own brand independent of the 'open' generic brand.
And another hint: when you make your name, make sure it's not in any way suggestive of the nature of the product. Another problem that the SSH folk have are that their name is way too descriptive. Names such as these have much less of a chance of standing up in court.
For example: if a company called "Best" makes food, and another company springs up called "Best Buy," and they also make food - is "Best Buy" a trademark infringement? Most likely not.
If they name their company "Floogididdy" or something less meaningful, another company that names itself "Floogididdy Buy" is going to have a serious problem. That's because "Floogididdy" is a "coined term," and, by law, is a stronger trademark than "Best."
I'd say that the name SSH is way too suggestive of the nature of the product to be a strong trademark.
Unfortunately, they can sort of do that, provided they notify Palm.
If I make a contract with a tenant that says he must pay his rent by the second day of each month and I let him get away with paying on the tenth, he is legally entitled to keep paying on the tenth. However, if I notify him that our unwritten alteration of the contract has changed and that the rent is now due on the second, he has to pay on the second or risk being sued.
It's called the "doctrine of laches." If a contract creator does not assert his rights, he may lose them - but he may gain them back if he gives notice.
It works that way in patent law also. It's sad, really, that it does, but there you go.
...there isn't a law regarding spamming. You can only start prosecuting if by the actions of them spamming they do other damage.
The law has been slow to catch up with reality again. Traditionally, there hasn't been a law against spamming because there was a barrier to entry - with snail mail, spamming costs a lot of money. All you need to be able to spam now is a list and some time.
Who has broken the law? Taco, the server owner or me?
That would be you and Taco. That much is obvious. The server owner may have broken the law, and that's not so clear-cut.
Imagine that you start some community service. Let's say that 99% of your patrons turn out to be using your service to break the law. What's your moral obligation? Well, if you know about it, your moral obligation is to either stop the service, or fix it up so it's more legal. What's your legal obligation? Well, if you know about it, you may be guilty of a vicarious offense. You have to either stop the service, or fix it up.
Now, if the server owner in your hypothetical example can't help but know that 99% of his patrons use his services for illegal transactions, he may very well be guilty of vicarious infringement, and it would be his moral and legal duty to stop the service or fix it up.
Funny how the law follows morality sometimes, isn't it?
Really, I don't see where this Napster thing is so difficult. There's a reason that we can't own bazookas in the U.S. - you can be 99% sure that somebody who buys one will not be using it legally. Napster is the same way, in my opinion. Now, if they opened up to file formats like JPEG, GIF, DOC, etc., they'd be in a much better position. As it is, they can't help but know that the majority of their traffic is illegal.
Why would Scientology try to 'patent' their way of religion.
I believe we're talking about trade secrets and copyright. Patenting is for inventions. (Of course, they probably do have patents on some things.)
(ANOTHER NOTE TO TACO: Slashot needs a page on intellectual property law - explaining copyright, trademark, trade secret, patent, the Bern Convention, etc., etc.)
See my above post - every creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is fixed in a medium. (All registration does is grant you certain extra protections.) A trade secret is a trade secret automagically as well, as long as you've taken precautions to keep it a secret. Therefore, you could write a book and keep it a secret, and it would be subject to both protections.
I swear, all y'all should take a class on intellectual property law. My class this semester has been one of the most enlightening classes I've taken.
(NOTE TO TACO: Maybe Slashdot could keep a page on IP law - and link to it in any IP story - so everyone could read up on how this stuff works before they contribue to the discussion.)
Any creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed in a medium." Even your comment is copyrighted - but you have given Slashdot the implicit license to do whatever it is they do with it, so they're not infringing.
...that I'd like to pick. There is no such thing as "fair use rights." "Fair use rights," as a phrase, is all spin. According to copyright law, the holder of the copyright has exclusive rights to make copies - you don't. When the courts realized that there are certain times that you can make copies that don't obviate anyone's need to buy, they allowed it as a defense. Fair use is a defense, not a right.
Just imagine what kinds of patents we would have if every element had to be unique. We wouldn't have many patents, would we? An idea may be unique even if every element is not - it's the combination of them that counts.
Apple's patent may very well be upheld if it's not overbroad.
I've always thought that composing music and playing instruments had more to do with my programming skillz than just typing speed...
But of course, that begs the question: what's the cause and what's the effect? Or is there no cause-effect relationship - but all the named activities (drawing, painting, music, programming) reinforce each other and/or use the same circuits in your brain?
Thus, if you add features to a product you GPLed, but you own the copyright for...well, if the company manages to snake the copyright from you...
IANAL, but this is how I understand it: as the copyright holder, you have exclusive rights to make derivative works. If, while you work for the company, you make a derivative work of your previous work, the company automatically owns the copyright to the derivative work. You consented to allow them to create it, and now they own it - as soon as it is "fixed in a medium." (That includes RAM.) So they don't actually "snake" the copyright from you - they lawfully own it automatically.
So you're saying that people who aren't tempted are inherently weaker than those who are?
Wow - I think I need to be stronger. I think I'll start putting up posters of naked women all over my house so I can continually choose my wife over them, and thus be stronger. I'll put beer in the fridge and stash some powder and shrooms in my dresser drawers. Then I'll put up pictures of my enemies' faces with targets on them and own lots of guns. In the face of all this temptation, I'll choose the Right Things to Do.
I was wondering if the original poster had bothered to digest the article.
In a nutshell:
Super-sampling either 1) averages multiple renderings of the same scene, or 2) draws the scene at 4x (or 8x, etc.) the resolution and then averages blocks of 4 (or 8, etc.). (Voodoo 5 does the former.)
Multi-sampling doesn't do this, but it multiplies the x and y size of the z buffer by some amount and uses the extra z info to decide how transparent a pixel is. (Each pixel has 4, or maybe 8 z-values.)
In super-sampling, you have a big performance and bandwidth hit. Same with multi-sampling, except that it saves you three (or 7, etc.) extra texture lookups per pixel. For what it saves you, you don't get anti-aliased textures, but that stuff is usually dealt with in texture filtering anyway, so it's acceptable.
So yes, you're right - there's a performance hit and the original poster was smoking something funny, but multi-sampling is still way cool.
Freedom of speech apparently doesn't apply to some topics.
Right. And as soon as you forget your starry-eyed idealism, you'll probably accept it.
I'm really getting sick of Slashdot for this very reason. This is absolutely correct - freedom of speech does not apply to all topics. You can't lawfully plot the assassination of the president, you can't lawfully say or write damaging things about people that you know are false, you can't lawfully sell a canned soda drink and call it Coca Cola, etc., etc.
Some restriction is necessary to keep our economy running smoothly, to keep some semblance of order, and to keep things fair and just.
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death, blah, blah, blah... Don't make me ill. I'd never defend to the death the right of someone put up a web site about squishing kittens into Mason jars - my family is too important to me to do that.
Don't get me wrong - freedom of speech is the best default for making a judgment on what is lawful to say. But you know what? I have a favorite limitation on free speech - an overriding principle. The Supreme Court of the United States said it in their judgment on Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629: "the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society." They were saying that New York was not at fault for making criminal the selling of pornographic material to minors.
Just some stuff for you starry-eyed idealists to think about.
That would be a major pain in the butt. Personally, I like the exactness in programming and how it forces you to express your creativity in a completely logical way. Can you imagine a computer that would always try to do what it thought you wanted instead of what you said?
Ick. Not nearly enough control or exactness in that.
Nobody talks or thinks like this...
Actually, I think like that, and so do plenty of other people. I've not only found it very convenient to do so while programming, but also in solving everyday problems. Every field has its own unique language and ways of thinking. Why should the field in which we command machines be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
I second the motion.
By the way - if they think it's a bird or a plane, why are they all pointing?
I never understood that.
A friend of mine at Apple who works on OS X has told me for years that "it's almost ready".
The biggest problem with the software market right now is that it favors the company get gets to market first. I see it like Linux 2.4 - if they say it's going to be done "when it's finished," I say let them have all the time they want.
The lesson for open source projects is that they need to be careful anout the names they use and make sure they establish their own brand independent of the 'open' generic brand.
And another hint: when you make your name, make sure it's not in any way suggestive of the nature of the product. Another problem that the SSH folk have are that their name is way too descriptive. Names such as these have much less of a chance of standing up in court.
For example: if a company called "Best" makes food, and another company springs up called "Best Buy," and they also make food - is "Best Buy" a trademark infringement? Most likely not.
If they name their company "Floogididdy" or something less meaningful, another company that names itself "Floogididdy Buy" is going to have a serious problem. That's because "Floogididdy" is a "coined term," and, by law, is a stronger trademark than "Best."
I'd say that the name SSH is way too suggestive of the nature of the product to be a strong trademark.
This lowers Texas on the list of "states to move to" when my lease runs out.
What do you mean? The bill hasn't passed.
Unfortunately, they can sort of do that, provided they notify Palm.
If I make a contract with a tenant that says he must pay his rent by the second day of each month and I let him get away with paying on the tenth, he is legally entitled to keep paying on the tenth. However, if I notify him that our unwritten alteration of the contract has changed and that the rent is now due on the second, he has to pay on the second or risk being sued.
It's called the "doctrine of laches." If a contract creator does not assert his rights, he may lose them - but he may gain them back if he gives notice.
It works that way in patent law also. It's sad, really, that it does, but there you go.
...there isn't a law regarding spamming. You can only start prosecuting if by the actions of them spamming they do other damage.
The law has been slow to catch up with reality again. Traditionally, there hasn't been a law against spamming because there was a barrier to entry - with snail mail, spamming costs a lot of money. All you need to be able to spam now is a list and some time.
Oh, my heck...this is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time!
Interesting. I always understood it better graphically:
...and so on up to 100 lines. Then you mirror it about the diagonal edge and get
1
22
333
4444
55555
666666
1666666
2255555
3334444
4444333
5555522
6666661
Hey - the width is equal to the height + 1! Multiply width and height, divide by two...
I find it far more likely that, in reality, this is how Gauss explained it. For something this simple, the equation usually comes after the concept.
My household is a benevolent dictatorship, not a constitutional republic.
One of the few and the proud. I'm glad you speak up.
Who has broken the law? Taco, the server owner or me?
That would be you and Taco. That much is obvious. The server owner may have broken the law, and that's not so clear-cut.
Imagine that you start some community service. Let's say that 99% of your patrons turn out to be using your service to break the law. What's your moral obligation? Well, if you know about it, your moral obligation is to either stop the service, or fix it up so it's more legal. What's your legal obligation? Well, if you know about it, you may be guilty of a vicarious offense. You have to either stop the service, or fix it up.
Now, if the server owner in your hypothetical example can't help but know that 99% of his patrons use his services for illegal transactions, he may very well be guilty of vicarious infringement, and it would be his moral and legal duty to stop the service or fix it up.
Funny how the law follows morality sometimes, isn't it?
Really, I don't see where this Napster thing is so difficult. There's a reason that we can't own bazookas in the U.S. - you can be 99% sure that somebody who buys one will not be using it legally. Napster is the same way, in my opinion. Now, if they opened up to file formats like JPEG, GIF, DOC, etc., they'd be in a much better position. As it is, they can't help but know that the majority of their traffic is illegal.
Why would Scientology try to 'patent' their way of religion.
I believe we're talking about trade secrets and copyright. Patenting is for inventions. (Of course, they probably do have patents on some things.)
(ANOTHER NOTE TO TACO: Slashot needs a page on intellectual property law - explaining copyright, trademark, trade secret, patent, the Bern Convention, etc., etc.)
See my above post - every creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is fixed in a medium. (All registration does is grant you certain extra protections.) A trade secret is a trade secret automagically as well, as long as you've taken precautions to keep it a secret. Therefore, you could write a book and keep it a secret, and it would be subject to both protections.
I swear, all y'all should take a class on intellectual property law. My class this semester has been one of the most enlightening classes I've taken.
(NOTE TO TACO: Maybe Slashdot could keep a page on IP law - and link to it in any IP story - so everyone could read up on how this stuff works before they contribue to the discussion.)
Any creative work is copyrighted as soon as it is "fixed in a medium." Even your comment is copyrighted - but you have given Slashdot the implicit license to do whatever it is they do with it, so they're not infringing.
...that I'd like to pick. There is no such thing as "fair use rights." "Fair use rights," as a phrase, is all spin. According to copyright law, the holder of the copyright has exclusive rights to make copies - you don't. When the courts realized that there are certain times that you can make copies that don't obviate anyone's need to buy, they allowed it as a defense. Fair use is a defense, not a right.
Right. You're obviously not a patent lawyer.
Just imagine what kinds of patents we would have if every element had to be unique. We wouldn't have many patents, would we? An idea may be unique even if every element is not - it's the combination of them that counts.
Apple's patent may very well be upheld if it's not overbroad.
...people sheepishly parrot...
That's one of the funniest mixed metaphors I've heard in a long time. I'm adding it to my list.
You would know then, wouldn't you?<grin>
I've always thought that composing music and playing instruments had more to do with my programming skillz than just typing speed...
But of course, that begs the question: what's the cause and what's the effect? Or is there no cause-effect relationship - but all the named activities (drawing, painting, music, programming) reinforce each other and/or use the same circuits in your brain?
I can't believe people actually think like you.
Grow some humanity.
Thus, if you add features to a product you GPLed, but you own the copyright for...well, if the company manages to snake the copyright from you...
IANAL, but this is how I understand it: as the copyright holder, you have exclusive rights to make derivative works. If, while you work for the company, you make a derivative work of your previous work, the company automatically owns the copyright to the derivative work. You consented to allow them to create it, and now they own it - as soon as it is "fixed in a medium." (That includes RAM.) So they don't actually "snake" the copyright from you - they lawfully own it automatically.
That sounds like a job for the FSF.
So you're saying that people who aren't tempted are inherently weaker than those who are?
Wow - I think I need to be stronger. I think I'll start putting up posters of naked women all over my house so I can continually choose my wife over them, and thus be stronger. I'll put beer in the fridge and stash some powder and shrooms in my dresser drawers. Then I'll put up pictures of my enemies' faces with targets on them and own lots of guns. In the face of all this temptation, I'll choose the Right Things to Do.
I'll be so strong.
I was wondering if the original poster had bothered to digest the article.
In a nutshell:
Super-sampling either 1) averages multiple renderings of the same scene, or 2) draws the scene at 4x (or 8x, etc.) the resolution and then averages blocks of 4 (or 8, etc.). (Voodoo 5 does the former.)
Multi-sampling doesn't do this, but it multiplies the x and y size of the z buffer by some amount and uses the extra z info to decide how transparent a pixel is. (Each pixel has 4, or maybe 8 z-values.)
In super-sampling, you have a big performance and bandwidth hit. Same with multi-sampling, except that it saves you three (or 7, etc.) extra texture lookups per pixel. For what it saves you, you don't get anti-aliased textures, but that stuff is usually dealt with in texture filtering anyway, so it's acceptable.
So yes, you're right - there's a performance hit and the original poster was smoking something funny, but multi-sampling is still way cool.
Freedom of speech apparently doesn't apply to some topics.
Right. And as soon as you forget your starry-eyed idealism, you'll probably accept it.
I'm really getting sick of Slashdot for this very reason. This is absolutely correct - freedom of speech does not apply to all topics. You can't lawfully plot the assassination of the president, you can't lawfully say or write damaging things about people that you know are false, you can't lawfully sell a canned soda drink and call it Coca Cola, etc., etc.
Some restriction is necessary to keep our economy running smoothly, to keep some semblance of order, and to keep things fair and just.
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death, blah, blah, blah... Don't make me ill. I'd never defend to the death the right of someone put up a web site about squishing kittens into Mason jars - my family is too important to me to do that.
Don't get me wrong - freedom of speech is the best default for making a judgment on what is lawful to say. But you know what? I have a favorite limitation on free speech - an overriding principle. The Supreme Court of the United States said it in their judgment on Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629: "the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society." They were saying that New York was not at fault for making criminal the selling of pornographic material to minors.
Just some stuff for you starry-eyed idealists to think about.
That would be a major pain in the butt. Personally, I like the exactness in programming and how it forces you to express your creativity in a completely logical way. Can you imagine a computer that would always try to do what it thought you wanted instead of what you said?
Ick. Not nearly enough control or exactness in that.
Nobody talks or thinks like this...
Actually, I think like that, and so do plenty of other people. I've not only found it very convenient to do so while programming, but also in solving everyday problems. Every field has its own unique language and ways of thinking. Why should the field in which we command machines be any different?