So in short, Palladium cannot be optional. If it were optional, then why bother at all? It guarantees nothing to the user.
It can, but there would have to be some kind of interface allowing the user to talk to it directly and configure it. I.e., your RogueOS couldn't authorize itself, but the user could authorize it.
If Palladium is not optional, then who holds the keys to sign programs?
I assume that it would be certificate authorities like VeriSign.
If someone actually COMPILES the kernel without first removing patented techniques, well, that's their own problem.
Actually, under U.S. law, anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention" is violating the patent. Technically, the patent holder could even go after the end users, but that's generally not practical.
So how about hosting the code on a foreign server beyond the reach of U.S. courts? They can still go after you. The law declares, "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." In other words, if you ask somebody to host the violating code for you and they do, then you are an infringer.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
I think that much of the problem stems from the "non-obvious" bar being set too low.
When a company invests a lot of time and money to come up with an idea that the world would otherwise not have had, I think that the company should have a right to protect that investment through patents. Without such protection, they won't make the investment in the first place, so the idea won't be conceived, and society will be all the poorer for that.
The problem occurs when an inevitable idea becomes the property of whoever gets to the patent office first. When that happens, the law is taking an idea that would otherwise have belonged to society and general, and barring everybody except the owner from using it.
Do you have any suggestions that don't depend on the fantasy of getting 90% of American consumers all on the same page?
If we could organize such a vast demonstration, we'd overwhelm our Congressmen and Senator office with millions of letters on this issue. That would be a lot more effective than having all those same people postpone their CD purchases for a day.
You: "You know that CD that I helped you make, so that you call listen to just your favorite songs from all your Abba and Barry Manilow albums? They want to make that illegal, too."
She: "That's not very nice at all. By the way, I just got these new albums by Jennifer Lopez, Shakira, and Celine Dion. I only like about a third of the songs. Will you help me put those on a single CD?"
reaching out to the average Mac user and explaining that usage restrictions are evil.
Interesting. The "average Mac user" is a content creator, no?
The entertainment industry is a sort of an alliance of "artistic" content creators and "business savvy" content distributors. (The quotation marks may be significant.) When the executive tells the artist, "These content restrictions are going to make us both a lot of money," and John Q. Slashdot tells the artist that "usage restrictions are evil," which one is more likely to persuade?
B. It is an unlawful practice pursuant to section 44-1522 for any seller or solicitor or anyone acting on their behalf who conducts a telephone solicitation in this state to do any of the following:
...
4. Make a telephone call to any residential telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or the call is made with the prior express consent of the called party.
If an advertisement is transmitted from one state to a recipient in another state, wouldn't that qualify as interstate commerce, and therefore outside the reach of state law?
They really need to superscede it with a law that bans advertisement in all cases where the caller does not foot the bill of the communication -- i.e. making only telemarketing and junk mail legal.
In some cases, the caller doesn't really foot the bill for telemarketing, either. In particular, I'm talking about telemarketing via recorded messages.
This practice is very much like spam. When I receive such a call, it consumes my time--if only a few seconds--to interrupt what I'm doing, answer the phone, recognize it for what it is, and hang up. (If I'm not home when the call arrives, I end up going through the same process with my answering machine.) The caller doesn't expend human time making each individual call, but is consuming human time on the callee's end. Overall, the cost to the callee is probably higher than the cost to the caller.
It's worth noting that in my state (Arizona), this practice is illegal. Nevertheless, I receive such calls frequently.
government somehow implements the $.05/email they have been trying to pass for years.
very little spam: cost = $.50 a day
if the service could guarantee it, it might be worth it.
Hmm. Here's an idea, though I don't know how we'd get there from here:
Suppose there is a nominal fee (a few cents) for each e-mail, payable
to the recipient.
You can generate tokens to provide to friends, legitimate mailing lists, etc., that would allow them to e-mail you without paying the fee. The tokens are revokable, in case they fall into the hands of spammers. You can also generate one-shot tokens, limited-use tokens, time-limited tokens, etc.
When a legitimate sender does end up having to pay you the fee-- say, an acquaintance to who doesn't have a token, or somebody responding to your public request for information-- it is expected that, as a courtesy, you will refund the fee. There is, however, no technical or legal compulsion to do so.
The intent of this idea is that legitimate e-mail would rarely result in an unrefunded charge, but a spammer who sends unsolicited ads to a million addresses would have to pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through. That should discourage all unsolicited but the most exceptionally well-targeted. Even if they're not discouraged, at least you'll be compensated for your time.
I don't get it. I'm probably just ridiculously naive, but how can it be good marketing to show the world that you feel a need to resort to deception to market your product?
In his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.
What does the "free market" have to do with this? The proposed legislation addresses the nature of software to be used by the government, doesn't it? Whatever software they choose, it's chosen by the government.
So if the Peruvian government chooses software that is produced by a company that makes big donations to Hamilton's party, that's the free market, but if the government chooses software made by somebody else, that's government intervention? Is that Hamilton's position?
Maybe we should try to build a world where people aren't trying to kill us.
Science will lead to the solution of this problem, as of all others.
Eventually, we should be able to develop techniques in genetic engineering, pharmacology, and cybernetics that will allow us to eliminate tendencies toward homicidal behavior.
While we're at it, let's excise other antisocial behavior traits as well.
Written by someone who does not seem to be employed in the corporate world. How can you possibly expect any company to openly endorse a law-breaking event? Sheesh!
Was anybody asking for HP's open endorsement? Perens was going to be doing this as an individual on his own time, not as a representative of HP. Couldn't the company simply have abstained from involvement?
Apparently, these things are pretty tough to come by. I found this forum post, dated 4/19, about somebody who had 80 of the things... sold out within hours.
A search on eBay turned up one that recently sold for $300, and two open auctions with current bids at $275. Impressive, considering that Apple used to sell them for $249. The Anonymous Coward above said that my Cube will appreciate in value; evidently, that goes for the graphics card, too.
Apparently, if you have enough money, it's pretty tough for anybody to stop you from doing this. It's a favorite tactic of the Church of Scientology. Go to any anti-Scientology website and you can read the gory details of scores of stories of adversaries of Scientology who were beaten down by this tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
It can, but there would have to be some kind of interface allowing the user to talk to it directly and configure it. I.e., your RogueOS couldn't authorize itself, but the user could authorize it.
If Palladium is not optional, then who holds the keys to sign programs?
I assume that it would be certificate authorities like VeriSign.
If someone actually COMPILES the kernel without first removing patented techniques, well, that's their own problem.
Actually, under U.S. law, anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention" is violating the patent. Technically, the patent holder could even go after the end users, but that's generally not practical.
So how about hosting the code on a foreign server beyond the reach of U.S. courts? They can still go after you. The law declares, "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." In other words, if you ask somebody to host the violating code for you and they do, then you are an infringer.
I think that much of the problem stems from the "non-obvious" bar being set too low.
When a company invests a lot of time and money to come up with an idea that the world would otherwise not have had, I think that the company should have a right to protect that investment through patents. Without such protection, they won't make the investment in the first place, so the idea won't be conceived, and society will be all the poorer for that.
The problem occurs when an inevitable idea becomes the property of whoever gets to the patent office first. When that happens, the law is taking an idea that would otherwise have belonged to society and general, and barring everybody except the owner from using it.
I would suggest the following:
Do you have any suggestions that don't depend on the fantasy of getting 90% of American consumers all on the same page?
If we could organize such a vast demonstration, we'd overwhelm our Congressmen and Senator office with millions of letters on this issue. That would be a lot more effective than having all those same people postpone their CD purchases for a day.
Along similar lines:
You: "You know that CD that I helped you make, so that you call listen to just your favorite songs from all your Abba and Barry Manilow albums? They want to make that illegal, too."
She: "That's not very nice at all. By the way, I just got these new albums by Jennifer Lopez, Shakira, and Celine Dion. I only like about a third of the songs. Will you help me put those on a single CD?"
You: "Uh... sorry."
reaching out to the average Mac user and explaining that usage restrictions are evil.
Interesting. The "average Mac user" is a content creator, no?
The entertainment industry is a sort of an alliance of "artistic" content creators and "business savvy" content distributors. (The quotation marks may be significant.) When the executive tells the artist, "These content restrictions are going to make us both a lot of money," and John Q. Slashdot tells the artist that "usage restrictions are evil," which one is more likely to persuade?
Arizona Revised Statues 44-1278:
If an advertisement is transmitted from one state to a recipient in another state, wouldn't that qualify as interstate commerce, and therefore outside the reach of state law?
In some cases, the caller doesn't really foot the bill for telemarketing, either. In particular, I'm talking about telemarketing via recorded messages.
This practice is very much like spam. When I receive such a call, it consumes my time--if only a few seconds--to interrupt what I'm doing, answer the phone, recognize it for what it is, and hang up. (If I'm not home when the call arrives, I end up going through the same process with my answering machine.) The caller doesn't expend human time making each individual call, but is consuming human time on the callee's end. Overall, the cost to the callee is probably higher than the cost to the caller.
It's worth noting that in my state (Arizona), this practice is illegal. Nevertheless, I receive such calls frequently.
Oh, yikes. I'm starting to think like Gates? Somebody kill me.
If that "guaranteed for life" e-mail address is sufficiently important that you're willing to pay for it, why not just register a domain name?
very little spam: cost = $.50 a day
if the service could guarantee it, it might be worth it.
Hmm. Here's an idea, though I don't know how we'd get there from here:
The intent of this idea is that legitimate e-mail would rarely result in an unrefunded charge, but a spammer who sends unsolicited ads to a million addresses would have to pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through. That should discourage all unsolicited but the most exceptionally well-targeted. Even if they're not discouraged, at least you'll be compensated for your time.
I don't get it. I'm probably just ridiculously naive, but how can it be good marketing to show the world that you feel a need to resort to deception to market your product?
Right after World War II.
What does the "free market" have to do with this? The proposed legislation addresses the nature of software to be used by the government, doesn't it? Whatever software they choose, it's chosen by the government.
So if the Peruvian government chooses software that is produced by a company that makes big donations to Hamilton's party, that's the free market, but if the government chooses software made by somebody else, that's government intervention? Is that Hamilton's position?
Science will lead to the solution of this problem, as of all others.
Eventually, we should be able to develop techniques in genetic engineering, pharmacology, and cybernetics that will allow us to eliminate tendencies toward homicidal behavior.
While we're at it, let's excise other antisocial behavior traits as well.
Resistance is futile.
Was anybody asking for HP's open endorsement? Perens was going to be doing this as an individual on his own time, not as a representative of HP. Couldn't the company simply have abstained from involvement?
I dunno about that. I can remember lots of quotes from Jedi:
Perhaps the measuring stick ought to be whether you remember these quotes fondly.
Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suuuufffffeeeeerrrrriiinnnggg.
And then, without a hint of irony: "Much danger I fear in his training."
What an annoying little troll.
Thanks again.
Apparently, these things are pretty tough to come by. I found this forum post, dated 4/19, about somebody who had 80 of the things... sold out within hours.
A search on eBay turned up one that recently sold for $300, and two open auctions with current bids at $275. Impressive, considering that Apple used to sell them for $249. The Anonymous Coward above said that my Cube will appreciate in value; evidently, that goes for the graphics card, too.
no, you can get an Apple-legitimate Radeon 32MB for your Cube
Thanks for the info! Where would I get this? I don't see it offerred at the Apple on-line store. About how much should I expect to pay for it?
should've ordered that Radeon when you got it...
I got it used; DVD/450 model with 192MB RAM (64+128; one open DIMM slot) plus a USB CD-writer for about $800. Still seems like a pretty good deal.
all ibooks, crt imacs, and g3 powerbooks are Phucked.
:-(
I guess my Cube is phucked, too.
I find it difficult to belive that George Lucas couldn't come up with a better name for a drug than DEATH STICKS!
Or a better name for the drug dealer than "Philip Morris."
Apparently, if you have enough money, it's pretty tough for anybody to stop you from doing this. It's a favorite tactic of the Church of Scientology. Go to any anti-Scientology website and you can read the gory details of scores of stories of adversaries of Scientology who were beaten down by this tactic.