Quote: These are business plans, schematics, insider corporate strategy NOT speech - these items are CAD drawings, supplier contracts... NOT speech.... so no speech was abridged... and besides Congress didn't make a law. A judge ruled and enforced the law.
Crap. I don't know about other engineers, but, as a programmer, my work is definitely speech.
"Insider corporate strategy" is not in the public's interest. That's what leads to the exploding Pinto cover up, cigarette manufactures researching and suppressing information while doing on-going marketing to kids. Even a flopped product, like Apple's trade secret upcoming "iCrap", is harmful to the public because it causes higher prices and wasted resources. Sunshine won't necessarily prevent a company from releasing a bad product, and occasionally Trade Secrets might even be beneficial to a particular person or company with no little or no ill effect on society, however, in many cases trade secrets cause harm. More harm, in my opinion, than the perceived benefits from companies execs (there's more than one way to market a product other than "Surprise!") or bad (evil) schemes where trade secrets are essential.
Quote: By your argument it should be legal to yell the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater, or to lie to potential investors about a company's finances.
Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear. I wasn't arguing against Trade Secret laws or the "yelling in a crowded theater" adage. I think the person who had direct and legitimate access to Trade Secrets (or social engineered or haxored or stole or whatever) and disclosed them should go to jail per the law, and not profit from their crime. I think the guy who yells fire in a theater should go to jail, per the common sense.
However, (for instance in this case), once the criminal discloses the trade secret to journalists/press members/bloggers/anyone it's no longer secret. The criminal is still in violation of Trade Secret laws and should be prosecuted, but the now-informed journalists/press memebers/bloggers/anyone can't have their rights impugned (as long as they were not conspirators, and you can't assume that they are -- innocent until proven guilty).
On the public interest public interest argument, I can't stretch the danger of the action of "yelling in a crowed theater" to the perceived harm done by disclosing Apple's new, as you say, "iCrap". If it were up to me, I'd disclose every single trade secret gadget and doodad (with Copyright, Trademark and Patent protection of course) to prevent one Watergate from going undisclosed.
Constitution: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press;...
vs.
Judge: Kleinberg... ruled that no one has the right to publish trade secrets that only could have been provided by someone breaking the law.
How can a law that overrides the freedom of speech be constitutional? If a whistle blower discloses embarrassing/incriminating "trade secrets" will the press / people be denied their constitutional freedom of speech to disclose the information?
It is possible they have been using CVS all these years; CVS was publically released in 1896, though I believe they may have alternatively used RCS and migrated to CVS somewhere down the line.
"The unusually large number of comments received...has made it difficult to remove all street addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the comments for posting on our Internet Web site in a timely manner," the Treasury Department...
Its clear they didn't ask a programmer to try.
Just search and replace the following: [^ ]+@[^ ]+?\.[^ ]+ that should take care of your emails
[()0-9+-]+ should take care of many phone numbers
\d+.{,25}(dr|st|pl|ave|rd|blvd|highway|hwy|tr|terr ) - should take care of many street addresses
(Above are not tested-just some off the top of my head)
I'd suggest replacing them with "x"'s so have some idea what was removed, esp. in cases of false positives.
``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
OSI talks a lot about including open software in the commercial world.
Closing free software to commercial entities is an idea roundly rejected by modern free software thinkers.
Against this, let's look at how things are done at Microsoft. I'll use as an example Universal Plug and Play, which was/is Microsoft's initiative to make your refrigerator talk to your PC. Too many people get this wrong. UPNP is a standard that lets you transparently open up holes in your NAT. So if you want to run a game server or direct video chat behind your UPNP enabled router (many are) on WinXP, you can do so transparently. UPNP uses a protocol based on HTTP and XML to automatically configure port forwarding. It has little to do with a network enabled refrigerator.
I've read a lot of posts attacking Eolas in support of Microsoft and IE. However when you consider the following, MS deserves to get screwed on this one.
A long time ago, when people were using Mosaic, the proprietor of Eolas invented the plugin technology. He showed this technology to Microsoft who poo-pooed it. Fast-forward several months and Microsoft's adds plugins in IE. Microsoft gets sued, litigation ensures while the browser wars and Y2K come and go. Whether or not you agree with software patents, there is no doubt Microsoft screwed this guy. I highly doubt the jury would have given Eolas the case if MS had not done this.
MS gets hundreds of patents per year and the only reason they don't make a big stink about it is because they can (currently) make plenty of money with out creating a huge PR stink (and possibly more monopoly litigation).
Eolas's plugin technology was first demoed in 1993 and patented in 1994. The concept of Flash / SVG and plugins in general might seem obvious after years of ubigious browser support, however it was a significant invention in the early 90's.
Microsoft takes full advantage of the patent system with aggressive patents like the typing indicator in IM, databased online polls and Microsoft's numerous other pre-emptive patents to curtail competition.
I don't believe that Microsoft/Macromedia/et al's lame fix of document.write'ing the / tag instead of having them directly on the page gets around the patent. It simply stinks of a PR move to make Eolas look bad (lookie, he's wreaking the web) while not addressing the patent.
In general I don't support software patents, but Microsoft deserves to eat dirt on this one.
I'm a little skeptical of Microsoft/Macromedia's fix. A jury of 12 reasonable Joe Blows decided that Eolas has a patent on all web-browser plugin technology. Microsoft's fix is to use Javascript write the tag instead of having it directly on the page.
This feels more like a PR move than a solution to the patent.
Original UNIX history chart created by Eric Levenez. Copyright (C) 1996-2003, Eric Levenez. January 2, 2003.
Used with permission.
(Emphasis added.)
I do not know too much about Eric Levenez; however, judging from his web site it seems extreamly unlikely that he gave SCO permission to use his chart, much less deface it in the derivative work they produced.
IANAL but I don't think SCO's use qualifies under Eric's note "You can freely use this diagram for non-commercial purpose. "
CNet writers and editors: don't bother writing yet another biased article about this one, I saved you the trouble! Article follows:
Over the hot debate over whether or not Linux can steal SCO (SCOX)'s IP, in a childish move, developers of GCC threaten to pull SCO support unless SCO withdraws its lawsuit. A Microsoft (MSFT) representative was quoted as saying, "Our customers can count on us to provide consistant support for all the platforms we currently support in our compilers. Additionally, Windows Server 2003 provides a consistant and robust solution for all your server needs. Buy Office XP today too."/. readers: sorry, venting some frustration here
Do you have any information about the availability of Fossil's watch (as far as where and when?) Amazon claims to have a release date, but they keep changing it without explaination.
Where did you see that? Fossil's spec sheet says 4-5 days. Which should be fine if you stick it in its charger every night before going to bed. If you put a charger on your nightstand, it won't even be inconvenient.
According to the spec sheet: "Based on an average usage of 30 minutes per day", not including backlight or IR.
It would be extremely helpful for Mozilla marketing if AOL/TW would donate rights to the Netscape name to the Mozilla project. I have found that its really difficult to convince people that Mozilla is Netscape, however, Mozilla is defiantly worthy of that branding.
I know the consensus is that AOL sucks; mod me down if you must. Considering their contribution of a stupendous project like mozilla (funding, many full time Netscape developers, hosting, existing software, robust set of tools, all donated to make the best browser free software), I hope any good ideas they come out with increases the # of their subscribers.
A blogging feature not original, or particularly timely, but there is no time like the present. This is a great idea for AOL to add great value to their free AIM service (and AOL). I'd say most people have an intrinsic need to espouse their daily lives in a public setting. Current blogging offers require, at least, a smidgen of tech-know-how to find livejournal, download a client, or whatever. With AOL, the user only needs to know what a "Journal" is and have AIM/AOL installed; I believe the service will be quite popular.
Slashdot Mirror
Quote: These are business plans, schematics, insider corporate strategy NOT speech - these items are CAD drawings, supplier contracts ... NOT speech .... so no speech was abridged ... and besides Congress didn't make a law. A judge ruled and enforced the law.
Crap. I don't know about other engineers, but, as a programmer, my work is definitely speech.
"Insider corporate strategy" is not in the public's interest. That's what leads to the exploding Pinto cover up, cigarette manufactures researching and suppressing information while doing on-going marketing to kids. Even a flopped product, like Apple's trade secret upcoming "iCrap", is harmful to the public because it causes higher prices and wasted resources. Sunshine won't necessarily prevent a company from releasing a bad product, and occasionally Trade Secrets might even be beneficial to a particular person or company with no little or no ill effect on society, however, in many cases trade secrets cause harm. More harm, in my opinion, than the perceived benefits from companies execs (there's more than one way to market a product other than "Surprise!") or bad (evil) schemes where trade secrets are essential.
Quote: By your argument it should be legal to yell the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater, or to lie to potential investors about a company's finances.
Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear. I wasn't arguing against Trade Secret laws or the "yelling in a crowded theater" adage. I think the person who had direct and legitimate access to Trade Secrets (or social engineered or haxored or stole or whatever) and disclosed them should go to jail per the law, and not profit from their crime. I think the guy who yells fire in a theater should go to jail, per the common sense.
However, (for instance in this case), once the criminal discloses the trade secret to journalists/press members/bloggers/anyone it's no longer secret. The criminal is still in violation of Trade Secret laws and should be prosecuted, but the now-informed journalists/press memebers/bloggers/anyone can't have their rights impugned (as long as they were not conspirators, and you can't assume that they are -- innocent until proven guilty).
On the public interest public interest argument, I can't stretch the danger of the action of "yelling in a crowed theater" to the perceived harm done by disclosing Apple's new, as you say, "iCrap". If it were up to me, I'd disclose every single trade secret gadget and doodad (with Copyright, Trademark and Patent protection of course) to prevent one Watergate from going undisclosed.
Constitution: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; ...
vs.
Judge: Kleinberg ... ruled that no one has the right to publish trade secrets that only could have been provided by someone breaking the law.
How can a law that overrides the freedom of speech be constitutional? If a whistle blower discloses embarrassing/incriminating "trade secrets" will the press / people be denied their constitutional freedom of speech to disclose the information?
My last name is Default, you insensitive clod!
Yep, it's a typo. I meant 1986.
Check out the repository for this project hosted on SF. Here's a link to the readme file history (dates back to 17 years, 11 months ago!!!).
It is possible they have been using CVS all these years; CVS was publically released in 1896, though I believe they may have alternatively used RCS and migrated to CVS somewhere down the line.
See here for a hi-res picture (warning, it is 600k ).
In case you were wondering, it uses laptop-style SODIMM memory.
Try OO 1.1 (the latest stable version) if you haven't already. The memory footprint (like 100mb -> 10mb) and speed are much improved from 1.0x.
Its clear they didn't ask a programmer to try.
Just search and replace the following:
[^ ]+@[^ ]+?\.[^ ]+ that should take care of your emails
[()0-9+-]+ should take care of many phone numbers
\d+.{,25}(dr|st|pl|ave|rd|blvd|highway|hwy|tr|ter
(Above are not tested-just some off the top of my head)
I'd suggest replacing them with "x"'s so have some idea what was removed, esp. in cases of false positives.
I want to know about the status of the Eolas "fix". I'm pretty surprised the reviewer did not mention its absence/presence.
OSI talks a lot about including open software in the commercial world.
Closing free software to commercial entities is an idea roundly rejected by modern free software thinkers.
Since people are serving data over DNS...
Why not server domain name information over HTTP?
$ dig txt 0_1197_56633ab0d90f43c68ed1b47358eccfe7.netrogenic .com
c .com
7 .netrogenic.com. IN TXT
. netrogenic.com. 3118 IN TXT "64383a616e6e6f756e636534333a687474703a2f2f746f727 2656e742e64756c75672e64756b652e6564753a363936392f6 16e6e6f756e636531333a6372656174696f6e2064617465693 130363830353734393265343a696e666f64353a66696c65736 c64363a6c656e6774686935373565343a706174686c363a4d4 435"
; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> txt 0_1197_56633ab0d90f43c68ed1b47358eccfe7.netrogeni
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 51320
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;0_1197_56633ab0d90f43c68ed1b47358eccfe
;; ANSWER SECTION:
0_1197_56633ab0d90f43c68ed1b47358eccfe7
;; Query time: 3 msec
;; SERVER: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx#53(xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)
;; WHEN: Sun Nov 30 13:13:56 2003
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 337
Against this, let's look at how things are done at Microsoft. I'll use as an example Universal Plug and Play, which was/is Microsoft's initiative to make your refrigerator talk to your PC.
Too many people get this wrong. UPNP is a standard that lets you transparently open up holes in your NAT. So if you want to run a game server or direct video chat behind your UPNP enabled router (many are) on WinXP, you can do so transparently. UPNP uses a protocol based on HTTP and XML to automatically configure port forwarding. It has little to do with a network enabled refrigerator.
I've read a lot of posts attacking Eolas in support of Microsoft and IE. However when you consider the following, MS deserves to get screwed on this one.
A long time ago, when people were using Mosaic, the proprietor of Eolas invented the plugin technology. He showed this technology to Microsoft who poo-pooed it. Fast-forward several months and Microsoft's adds plugins in IE. Microsoft gets sued, litigation ensures while the browser wars and Y2K come and go. Whether or not you agree with software patents, there is no doubt Microsoft screwed this guy. I highly doubt the jury would have given Eolas the case if MS had not done this.
MS gets hundreds of patents per year and the only reason they don't make a big stink about it is because they can (currently) make plenty of money with out creating a huge PR stink (and possibly more monopoly litigation).
Eolas's plugin technology was first demoed in 1993 and patented in 1994. The concept of Flash / SVG and plugins in general might seem obvious after years of ubigious browser support, however it was a significant invention in the early 90's.
Microsoft takes full advantage of the patent system with aggressive patents like the typing indicator in IM, databased online polls and Microsoft's numerous other pre-emptive patents to curtail competition.
I don't believe that Microsoft/Macromedia/et al's lame fix of document.write'ing the / tag instead of having them directly on the page gets around the patent. It simply stinks of a PR move to make Eolas look bad (lookie, he's wreaking the web) while not addressing the patent.
In general I don't support software patents, but Microsoft deserves to eat dirt on this one.
I'm a little skeptical of Microsoft/Macromedia's fix. A jury of 12 reasonable Joe Blows decided that Eolas has a patent on all web-browser plugin technology. Microsoft's fix is to use Javascript write the tag instead of having it directly on the page.
This feels more like a PR move than a solution to the patent.
Second, interesting thing is that the problem is fixed by a *software upgrade*
and not something physical.
I imagine that the "software upgrade" turns off the device earlier in a low-power situation.
SCO claims
(Emphasis added.)
I do not know too much about Eric Levenez; however, judging from his web site it seems extreamly unlikely that he gave SCO permission to use his chart, much less deface it in the derivative work they produced.
IANAL but I don't think SCO's use qualifies under Eric's note "You can freely use this diagram for non-commercial purpose. "
when you don't have Microsoft ads plastered all over your page (like some people).
/. is a whore.
On the topic of MS ads on Slashdot:
CNet writers and editors: don't bother writing yet another biased article about this one, I saved you the trouble! Article follows:
/. readers: sorry, venting some frustration here
Over the hot debate over whether or not Linux can steal SCO (SCOX)'s IP, in a childish move, developers of GCC threaten to pull SCO support unless SCO withdraws its lawsuit. A Microsoft (MSFT) representative was quoted as saying, "Our customers can count on us to provide consistant support for all the platforms we currently support in our compilers. Additionally, Windows Server 2003 provides a consistant and robust solution for all your server needs. Buy Office XP today too."
Do you have any information about the availability of Fossil's watch (as far as where and when?) Amazon claims to have a release date, but they keep changing it without explaination.
Where did you see that? Fossil's spec sheet says 4-5 days. Which should be fine if you stick it in its charger every night before going to bed. If you put a charger on your nightstand, it won't even be inconvenient.
According to the spec sheet: "Based on an average usage of 30 minutes per day", not including backlight or IR.
30 minutes * 4 days = 2 hours
I'd like more than that if possible.
For the following reasons:
I do have some questions:
It would be extremely helpful for Mozilla marketing if AOL/TW would donate rights to the Netscape name to the Mozilla project. I have found that its really difficult to convince people that Mozilla is Netscape, however, Mozilla is defiantly worthy of that branding.
I know the consensus is that AOL sucks; mod me down if you must. Considering their contribution of a stupendous project like mozilla (funding, many full time Netscape developers, hosting, existing software, robust set of tools, all donated to make the best browser free software), I hope any good ideas they come out with increases the # of their subscribers.
A blogging feature not original, or particularly timely, but there is no time like the present. This is a great idea for AOL to add great value to their free AIM service (and AOL). I'd say most people have an intrinsic need to espouse their daily lives in a public setting. Current blogging offers require, at least, a smidgen of tech-know-how to find livejournal, download a client, or whatever. With AOL, the user only needs to know what a "Journal" is and have AIM/AOL installed; I believe the service will be quite popular.