The article ridiculously claims that "many employees use digital cameras in their day to day work" - Maybe at a photojournalism shop, but in most real businesses you'd look pretty odd connecting your camera to the PC.
It's not as ridiculous as you think.
Perhaps most keyboard jockeys may not use digital cameras, but most of the businesses I know of who have employees that leave the building outfit their employees with digital camera.
Building inspectors use them for taking pictures of job sites. Insurance agents use them for making appraisals, insurance adjusters use them for taking pictures of accidents. Rig foremen use them to take pictures of their rigs. General contractors, cabling salesmen, and land surveyors use them to take pictures of job sites.. and this is just off the top of my head. I'm hard pressed to think of a company I deal with that doesn't have at least one digital camera for staff use.
To achieve 1gbp/s to mars you need to buffer all that data in case of packet loss. Available memory will throttle your throughput.
Well, by the time we have a 1Gb/s link to Mars, every computer will have a minumum of 128GB RAM, so this isn't really an issue.
The thing is that besides me underestimating the distance to Mars (sorry, and thanks for the correction), I'm right. Bandwidth and latency are orthogonal except in extreme cases (extremely high speed over extremely long distance.)
As another poster pointed out, with a 30 bit receive window and 100ms latency, it's possible to get 5Gb/s - well under the 480Mb/s that was posted here.
The problem you describe was solved in the 1990's. The fact that MS only recently got around to implementing it is beside the point.
Just because you can push 480Mb/s doesn't mean you're getting 480Mb/s throughput on any given connection.
Yes it does - it means that he's getting 480Mb/s to the outside world. Whether that is to one client on the same local link, or split between 1000 clients across the globe, it's still 480Mb/s.
Suppose you had 1Gb/s on two connections seperated by 5000 miles. You really think you're going got get 1Gb/s?
Yes. By definition. That's what 1Gb/s means. Latency and bandwidth are orthogonal.
The inherant latency delays in the protocol make it impossible to get anywhere near optimum bandwidth.
Latency and bandwith are orthogonal. If you could get 1Gb/s to Mars, it's *still* 1Gb/s, even though the latency would be measured in seconds (or possibly minutes.)
As they say, never underestimate the bandwith of a station wagon full of backup tapes hurtling down the highway.
I'm sure there are many companies that never donated that amount of their company property in the first place. Does that make them any less cold than BellSouth?
Yes, it does.
Consider your employer refusing to pay you one day. If they just claimed "well, none of the other companies in town are paying you either, so we're not any less cold than anyone else."
They promised they would do something, then reneged. It *is* worse than not promising at all.
no name changes, just a disclaimer on the box saying that it ws no relation to "Borland Turbo C".
This is not really comparable - Borland didn't trademark "Turbo", they trademarked "Turbo C" (and "Turbo Pascal", and a few others.) You'll note that none of the companies called their product "Turbo C - no relation to Borland Turbo C."
In other words, "Hasbro Risk" and "Your Risk - no relation to Hasbro", is all that's required.
In this case, the word "Risk" is trademarked, not "Hasbro Risk", so using the word "Risk" in the name of your game would be infringing. Simply adding "no relation" won't get you anywhere.
Trademarks to NOT grant exclusive rights to use - IOW - it is NOT akin to copyright;
Yes, which is exactly my point. You (however) are using the two interchangably, by (TWICE!?!) claiming that the name of a game is not protectable by trademarks, but by trying to back up that claim by posting something that specifically says it's not proctectable by *COPYRIGHT*. I'm glad to see that you understand there is a difference, but you aren't applying that understanding to the issue at hand.
The trademark is only protectable with the actual implementation of the game: IOW - their version of Risk.
No. Do some reading on "trademark dilution." You are completely and totally in the wrong here. You don't quite seem to grasp what it is that trademarks protect. Something does not have to be an exact copy to be infringing of a trademark.
What the copyright office has to say is meaningless, because we're not talking about copyright - we're talking about TRADEMARKS. And the name of a game is protectable as a trademark.
The name is not protectable
Correction: "the name is not protectable by copyright" Which is irrelevant, as the person you're replying to specifically used the word trademark.
You would do your self a favour by reading about trademarks before you post in this thread again.
The same Canada that just voted their Congress out of office?
No, that's the one in your imagination. We're talking about the one in the real world, which doesn't have the US
The same Canada that almost killed a friend of mine whose plane was grounded on 9/11, got a stomach flu and almost died in a Canadian hospital while he waited THREE DAYS for a doctor to see him?
Possibly - if your friend didn't go to a walk-in clinic (as was already suggested.)
The same Canada where people are on waiting lists for years for a basic MRI
If I were going to design a parody Web site to make fun of overpriced consulting firms that do nothing but spout buzzwords and suck up their clients' cash... that's the site I'd make.
And then he'd sue you for copyright infringement.:o)
(This is one of the guys who thinks the SCO lawsuits were a good idea, don't forget:o)
Five light years; you forgot to factor in the round trip.
Actually, (since we're pulling stuff out our asses here) if you assume that the aliens have technology that can monitor us in real time (say some kind of FTL telescope), you don't have to worry about round-trip time... that would put it at about 9 light years (IIRC seti@home started in 1996.)
Not counting the time required to discover the flaw, then design and create the exploit, of course.
It stripped away all the crap surrounding a lot of superhero comics and got back to the basics, which was a story about Peter Parker.
Unfortunately, it stripped away too much - rather than Peter being a genius with a scientific background who uses his brain to outwit his foes, he's now just a 'regular joe' who battles evil scientists by defeating them with his brawn. And *ALL* of the scientists he meets are evil (or will be), turned that way by the corrupting influence of science.
Previously, the moral behind Spiderman was that knowledge is good, and that science can be used for either good or evil purposes. Now, the moral is that science will corrupt you and turn you evil.
It's the story of a guy who's been bitten by a radioactive spider
I'm guessing that you didn't actually watch it then. The new scientific bogeyman is genetic manipulation, not radioactivity.
we're still gathering data. So stop jumping to conclusions
The problem with this line of thinking is that by the time we've *finished* gathering data, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Which is the better scenario: "Umm, well, it looks like you guys were right, and humans are the cause. It's too bad that 99.999% of the world's surface is uninhabitable now, and we'll all be extinct in 50 years. Whoops." or "See, I was right - it was a natural event! It's going down now, so we can start polluting again."
The whole "convicted of abusing their monopoly position" is entirely meaningless. I wish that you lemmings would quit repeating that
Translation: "I can't actually refute this based on facts, so I'll just insult you all for bringing it up, and then try to make it look like they're victims."
I work with a school district. Most of the schools are part of a wired WAN, but there were a couple that were out of range of the SHDSL gear we were using. One had a cable internet connection, and we used a VPN to connect to it. (A linux box was doing NAT and running Squid/squidguard, in addition to the VPN.)
Someone in management decided that they wanted to switch from Cable to the local telco monopoly's brand of DSL. So we order the DSL, and I go switch it over - pretty simple, just move the ethernet cable from the cablemodem to the DSL box, and restart the DHCP client (the VPN will pick up the change just fine.)
Two days later, my pager goes off - the school is offline. So I go out there, and it turns out I can't ping the default gateway - I call the telco, and they go through their "reinstall your TCP/IP stack" script - lo and behold, restarting the DHCP client and all is fine.. the machine now as a new IP address (odd that the DHCP lease was valid when I restarted it - it should have been given the same address.)
Two days later (almost exactly 48 hours), the same thing happens! I go out there, and do the same song and dance - get a new IP address, and all is fine. The telco still blames Linux, despite the fact that this same box had been running for over *TWO YEARS* on the cable network without a single service call.
Two days later, my pager goes off *again*. This time, I decide to hook it back up to the cable (which isn't due to be removed for another week or so.) I leave it right up until the cable guy goes to pick up the modem. It runs perfectly, I never heard a peep out of it.
Two days after I switch it back over to the DSL, it goes down *AGAIN*. At this point, it's blatantly obvious that it's the telco - so a quick cronjob to kill the DHCP client every day, then restart it, and this problem never recurs.
About a year later, I was talking to someone who works for the Telco, and he tells me that they deliberately kill connections that have been up for 48 hours, because they think it will stop people from running servers (regardless of the fact that dyndns will counter that.) The helpdesk people are told "if resetting the client machine fixes a problem, then that means that the problem was with the client's computer."
Maybe your ISP is doing something similarly braindead.
Slashdot Mirror
The article ridiculously claims that "many employees use digital cameras in their day to day work" - Maybe at a photojournalism shop, but in most real businesses you'd look pretty odd connecting your camera to the PC.
It's not as ridiculous as you think.
Perhaps most keyboard jockeys may not use digital cameras, but most of the businesses I know of who have employees that leave the building outfit their employees with digital camera.
Building inspectors use them for taking pictures of job sites. Insurance agents use them for making appraisals, insurance adjusters use them for taking pictures of accidents. Rig foremen use them to take pictures of their rigs. General contractors, cabling salesmen, and land surveyors use them to take pictures of job sites.. and this is just off the top of my head. I'm hard pressed to think of a company I deal with that doesn't have at least one digital camera for staff use.
To achieve 1gbp/s to mars you need to buffer all that data in case of packet loss. Available memory will throttle your throughput.
Well, by the time we have a 1Gb/s link to Mars, every computer will have a minumum of 128GB RAM, so this isn't really an issue.
The thing is that besides me underestimating the distance to Mars (sorry, and thanks for the correction), I'm right. Bandwidth and latency are orthogonal except in extreme cases (extremely high speed over extremely long distance.)
As another poster pointed out, with a 30 bit receive window and 100ms latency, it's possible to get 5Gb/s - well under the 480Mb/s that was posted here.
The problem you describe was solved in the 1990's. The fact that MS only recently got around to implementing it is beside the point.
You're confused.
No, he's not.
Just because you can push 480Mb/s doesn't mean you're getting 480Mb/s throughput on any given connection.
Yes it does - it means that he's getting 480Mb/s to the outside world. Whether that is to one client on the same local link, or split between 1000 clients across the globe, it's still 480Mb/s.
Suppose you had 1Gb/s on two connections seperated by 5000 miles. You really think you're going got get 1Gb/s?
Yes. By definition. That's what 1Gb/s means. Latency and bandwidth are orthogonal.
The inherant latency delays in the protocol make it impossible to get anywhere near optimum bandwidth.
Latency and bandwith are orthogonal. If you could get 1Gb/s to Mars, it's *still* 1Gb/s, even though the latency would be measured in seconds (or possibly minutes.)
As they say, never underestimate the bandwith of a station wagon full of backup tapes hurtling down the highway.
If you want to make sure companies release functional units, you stop buying from companies that don't.
OK, genius - how exactly do you know which companies are which, you know, *before* they release their product?
Your 'incentive' just means I have to pay more for products to cover the liability of imperfect products. That isn't a free market.
Are you *really* that stupid, or are you just trolling?
"Let's not make companies answer for deliberate mistakes, because then their products (which don't work) will cost more!"
If you really believe that, I think you're pulling too hard. :o)
I'm sure there are many companies that never donated that amount of their company property in the first place. Does that make them any less cold than BellSouth?
Yes, it does.
Consider your employer refusing to pay you one day. If they just claimed "well, none of the other companies in town are paying you either, so we're not any less cold than anyone else."
They promised they would do something, then reneged. It *is* worse than not promising at all.
You have no clue. You are wrong, almost totally and completely.
The "vendor" has *ZERO* meaning with regards to trademarks. What matters is the *PHRASE*.
If a generic word can't be trademarked, then how is it that Parker Brothers managed to register the trademark?
If MS lost against Lindows, why is Lindows not called Lindows anymore?
no name changes, just a disclaimer on the box saying that it ws no relation to "Borland Turbo C".
This is not really comparable - Borland didn't trademark "Turbo", they trademarked "Turbo C" (and "Turbo Pascal", and a few others.) You'll note that none of the companies called their product "Turbo C - no relation to Borland Turbo C."
In other words, "Hasbro Risk" and "Your Risk - no relation to Hasbro", is all that's required.
In this case, the word "Risk" is trademarked, not "Hasbro Risk", so using the word "Risk" in the name of your game would be infringing. Simply adding "no relation" won't get you anywhere.
Oh, for fucks sake:
Yes, for fucks sake is right.
Trademarks to NOT grant exclusive rights to use - IOW - it is NOT akin to copyright;
Yes, which is exactly my point. You (however) are using the two interchangably, by (TWICE!?!) claiming that the name of a game is not protectable by trademarks, but by trying to back up that claim by posting something that specifically says it's not proctectable by *COPYRIGHT*. I'm glad to see that you understand there is a difference, but you aren't applying that understanding to the issue at hand.
The trademark is only protectable with the actual implementation of the game: IOW - their version of Risk.
No. Do some reading on "trademark dilution." You are completely and totally in the wrong here. You don't quite seem to grasp what it is that trademarks protect. Something does not have to be an exact copy to be infringing of a trademark.
I offer the name "Backstab" as an alternate name for a Risk-like game
:o)
My suggestion would be to call it "CISK"
Yes, it really, really is.
Read what the us copyright office has to say
What the copyright office has to say is meaningless, because we're not talking about copyright - we're talking about TRADEMARKS. And the name of a game is protectable as a trademark.
The name is not protectable
Correction: "the name is not protectable by copyright" Which is irrelevant, as the person you're replying to specifically used the word trademark.
You would do your self a favour by reading about trademarks before you post in this thread again.
Or maybe his shift key is broken? :o)
The same Canada that just voted their Congress out of office?
No, that's the one in your imagination. We're talking about the one in the real world, which doesn't have the US
The same Canada that almost killed a friend of mine whose plane was grounded on 9/11, got a stomach flu and almost died in a Canadian hospital while he waited THREE DAYS for a doctor to see him?
Possibly - if your friend didn't go to a walk-in clinic (as was already suggested.)
The same Canada where people are on waiting lists for years for a basic MRI
No, that's the one from your imagination again.
If I were going to design a parody Web site to make fun of overpriced consulting firms that do nothing but spout buzzwords and suck up their clients' cash ... that's the site I'd make.
:o)
:o)
And then he'd sue you for copyright infringement.
(This is one of the guys who thinks the SCO lawsuits were a good idea, don't forget
Five light years; you forgot to factor in the round trip.
Actually, (since we're pulling stuff out our asses here) if you assume that the aliens have technology that can monitor us in real time (say some kind of FTL telescope), you don't have to worry about round-trip time... that would put it at about 9 light years (IIRC seti@home started in 1996.)
Not counting the time required to discover the flaw, then design and create the exploit, of course.
So who's to say that the aliens haven't found a magic kind of purely software technology, far beyond our own, to take over our own computer systems?
Thank god you don't work in the movie/TV industry.
It's people like you that cause me to have to explain to my family "No, it's not possible for a Pentium 133 to become sentient."
I'm hoping for a "Smallville," 20 years on, without the pandering to the Kristin Kreuk oglers.
:o)
Come on - if it's on the big screen, they can show some T&A - I pray that they'll be pandering to the Kristin Kruek oglers.
The critical maqss audience is pavlovian - market a blockbuster in a familiar way with the familiar effects, etc... and that audience is there.
Hollywood is finding that this is increasingly no longer the case.
They're blaming "piracy", but in reality, the schlock they're pumping out just isn't bringing people into theatres anymore.
It stripped away all the crap surrounding a lot of superhero comics and got back to the basics, which was a story about Peter Parker.
Unfortunately, it stripped away too much - rather than Peter being a genius with a scientific background who uses his brain to outwit his foes, he's now just a 'regular joe' who battles evil scientists by defeating them with his brawn. And *ALL* of the scientists he meets are evil (or will be), turned that way by the corrupting influence of science.
Previously, the moral behind Spiderman was that knowledge is good, and that science can be used for either good or evil purposes. Now, the moral is that science will corrupt you and turn you evil.
It's the story of a guy who's been bitten by a radioactive spider
I'm guessing that you didn't actually watch it then. The new scientific bogeyman is genetic manipulation, not radioactivity.
This trick will not work on a properly configured machine with limited user access and resource limits in place. You can hardly blame the OS for this.
Oh? Why does the OS not ship properly configured?
It is *exactly* the OS's fault for being susceptible to this by default.
we're still gathering data. So stop jumping to conclusions
The problem with this line of thinking is that by the time we've *finished* gathering data, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Which is the better scenario:
"Umm, well, it looks like you guys were right, and humans are the cause. It's too bad that 99.999% of the world's surface is uninhabitable now, and we'll all be extinct in 50 years. Whoops."
or
"See, I was right - it was a natural event! It's going down now, so we can start polluting again."
The whole "convicted of abusing their monopoly position" is entirely meaningless. I wish that you lemmings would quit repeating that
Translation: "I can't actually refute this based on facts, so I'll just insult you all for bringing it up, and then try to make it look like they're victims."
How can they be so audacious to want to prevent the illegal distribution of things they sell?
The RIAA sells MP3's now?
Where, exactly?
put a glass in the microwave some time, or a piece of plastic. it will get hot.
Well duh - that's because they're made out of water!
Didn't you study Aristotle in school?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to prepare for my job as a science teacher in Kansas.
I work with a school district. Most of the schools are part of a wired WAN, but there were a couple that were out of range of the SHDSL gear we were using. One had a cable internet connection, and we used a VPN to connect to it. (A linux box was doing NAT and running Squid/squidguard, in addition to the VPN.)
Someone in management decided that they wanted to switch from Cable to the local telco monopoly's brand of DSL. So we order the DSL, and I go switch it over - pretty simple, just move the ethernet cable from the cablemodem to the DSL box, and restart the DHCP client (the VPN will pick up the change just fine.)
Two days later, my pager goes off - the school is offline. So I go out there, and it turns out I can't ping the default gateway - I call the telco, and they go through their "reinstall your TCP/IP stack" script - lo and behold, restarting the DHCP client and all is fine.. the machine now as a new IP address (odd that the DHCP lease was valid when I restarted it - it should have been given the same address.)
Two days later (almost exactly 48 hours), the same thing happens! I go out there, and do the same song and dance - get a new IP address, and all is fine. The telco still blames Linux, despite the fact that this same box had been running for over *TWO YEARS* on the cable network without a single service call.
Two days later, my pager goes off *again*. This time, I decide to hook it back up to the cable (which isn't due to be removed for another week or so.) I leave it right up until the cable guy goes to pick up the modem. It runs perfectly, I never heard a peep out of it.
Two days after I switch it back over to the DSL, it goes down *AGAIN*. At this point, it's blatantly obvious that it's the telco - so a quick cronjob to kill the DHCP client every day, then restart it, and this problem never recurs.
About a year later, I was talking to someone who works for the Telco, and he tells me that they deliberately kill connections that have been up for 48 hours, because they think it will stop people from running servers (regardless of the fact that dyndns will counter that.) The helpdesk people are told "if resetting the client machine fixes a problem, then that means that the problem was with the client's computer."
Maybe your ISP is doing something similarly braindead.