Apologies for this guy who is apparently trying to make it look like a rabid posting from me or something. He got the numbers right anyway, but he's wrong about women. There is no such thing as a free date.
This is what anonymizer.com (and others) are for. You can view any web site in complete stealth, since the data is SSL encrypted and the URLs are scrambled. Unless your company blocks anonymizer.com entirely there's no way for them to stop you from viewing whatever you want in complete uncensored privacy.
I suspect that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case because it desperately wants to overturn the 9th Circuit Court's decision banning the pledge (and yes, despite what the/. editors say in the story heading, this actually *is* about banning the pledge altogether). The 9th Circuit's decision is wildly unpopular amongst conservatives, and they want to make it go away. It's no secret that our conservative Supreme Court despises the decision as well. They have ruled against similar cases in the past, so as soon as it hits the court it's hasta la vista to the ban.
It's too bad because I rather like the thought that kids won't have to be brainwashed by religion and false patriotism on a daily basis. If I had a religion it wouldn't involve a diety, so the pledge just seems plainly inappropriate. When I was a kid I mangled the words in creative ways when they made us say the pledge, and I always skipped the "under god" part.
It was the last computer I ever programmed that you could understand top to bottom. It was actually possible to know everything there is to know about it. It's amazing what you could do with such a simple computer. My watch is more complicated now.
There is only one reason I can imagine SunComm made this statement, other than bad PR avoidance (which can't be a huge part of the reason or they wouldn't be producing such an ugly product). Simply put, what they are doing breaks the DMCA just as much, if not more than, the "shift key whistle blower" did. To produce their copy protection technology, they have to do a lot of research into CD ROM hardware/software produced by other companies. That involves finding ways to break those products under certain circumstances through both experimentation and reverse engineering. In other words, they clearly violate the DMCA on a regular basis, especially under their own standards. I'm sure they don't want to be held to those standards themselves, so they can't try and hold others to them. If they have half a brain, they will steer clear of any DMCA issues lest the limelight be shone on them. Seems like they may have had an epiphany recenly.
Which futher deliniates the point, that if you are distribing the entire Linux binary, you are a derived work.
I didn't see the term "binary" in that paragraph anywhere. I'm not going to go re-read the GPL just now, but I have read it in the past. I do not recall if they distinguish "binary" from "source code" in the definition of the term "Program". But if the GPL section you quoted can be interpreted to refer to binaries, then that's pretty darn broad and probably would not stand up to a real legal challenge.
Let's say you distribute a CD ROM of software collected off the net. It has some GPL-ed software, some BSD license software, some public domain software, and perhaps even software you wrote yourself. Just because they are on the same CD, are they the same work? What if you static linked the BSD software with glibc - whose license wins? I could ask questions like this all day. The only thing that makes sense is distinct source files. If you have a source file containing any amount of GPL-ed code, the GPL virus kicks in and that source file is GPL-ed. But if you have GPL source files and non-GPL source files, clearly separate, it should not matter whether they are compiled together or not. Any other interpretation is too sticky, and would not only greatly hinder commercial Linux products, but would be a legal nightmare. Just thinking of it makes me sympathize with companies that complain about the GPL being dangerous.
I dunno, perhaps I'm totally wrong. And I'm sure you'll point it out if I am. But in that case I can think of endless instances where well known, popular, commercial products are in violation of the GPL and nobody has said or done anything about it. (One example: the Empeg car MP3 player, which has proprietary sections that may even be statically linked with glibc, and are shipped as a single package with a custom Linux boot image.)
I have little doubt that you and the others commenting here are correct that Linksys has modified the kernel in some way and are not releasing it like they should. But the evidence shown does not prove that. They could have replaced kernel object files with their own code that, of necessity, carry the "missing" symbols. Unlikely, but possible.
I'm not sure I understand why everyone's so sure they're violating the GPL. If the missing kernel modules are entirely original, why are they required to release them under the GPL? AFAIK, you are only required to release source that contains GPL-ed code, or that is based on GPL-ed code. If you write a kernel module from scratch, it is not bound by the GPL - Linux API compatibility notwithstanding.
Agreed we don't know if their code is original without seeing it. But if it's original they're not obliged to show it. That's the catch-22 of the GPL I've always found interesting.
I am a California resident, as well as an email services provider (to my household, via our in-house mail server). It's so great to know that I'll never receive another spam again! Yay! And it's even better to know that should the rare spam actually get sent to me, I can sue the sender and make myself rich.
What a perfect world we live in. No more spam, and now I can quit my job and become rich suing spammers. Thanks California!
There is so much junk in orbit I'm surprised we don't lose satellites every day. I would not be surprised if an orbiting nut or bolt or somesuch gave T4 a sound whack. Makes me think of the old Devo song "Space Junk"...
They've used Windows for some time. This is news?
on
Windows ATMs by 2005
·
· Score: 1
I was at an ATM once (Wells Fargo or BofA) several years ago, and it crashed with someone's card still in it. It autobooted, and lo and behold, it was a pared-down Microsoft boot sequence. Looked like NT to me. Given that some of the largest banks already seem to be using Windows in their ATMs, why is this news?
The more I thought about this, the more I realised that trees (such as the Windows filesystems) are not really ideally suited for organizing data. On UNIX-like filesystems, symbolic links allow the creation of simple graphs for organising data,
Isn't a Windows shortcut essentially just a symbolic link (though perhaps a bit less transparent?).
Make your web links to AOL actually point to another domain whose sole purpose in life is to then redirect to the appropriate AOL link. Create a new domain periodically to keep them on their toes. It's also probably possible to craft a middleman referrer page like this that avoids even sending a referer header (or perhaps sends a faked one).
virus writers are useful...he asserts that immunity is built by infection
So what he's saying is that virus writers are useful because they create viruses, which teaches us to make hardier computers that can resist viruses. This seems like a tautology to me. We should be thanking virus writers
because they teach us to fight viruses? Viruses that we wouldn't have to resist if these luzers wouldn't write them in the first place?
Seems kind of like a burglar busting into your house and cleaning you out, and you thanking him because he showed you that you need to install an alarm system.
The only spam filter that is acceptable is one that utilizes challenge-response. There are NO false positives with filters based on this. I cannot tolerate even one false positive with my email. And the only spam that gets through are those with actual real-life return addresses. These are rare, and since there's a live address on the other end I have the luxury of sending the spammer a bitch-o-gram.
Make the icons as big and fat as possible. Make them shiny and cute. Then it will all look so much less threatening to your grandma, while the rest of us just get irritated at being patronized by our computer.
How come so many network administrators at critical facilities like DMV's, train companies *nuclear* power plants, etc. are such F***ING RETARDS? It is beyond unbelievable. Jail time should be mandatory for total negligence such as this.
I automatically give PhD's a big black mark. I have found that, in general, PhD engineers are much more likely to be lacking in practical experience than your average engineer. Unless I had a job requiring research, I would likely not end up hiring one.
Why would an airline's customers know or care what operating system they used to run the business, much less request that they change it? Other than the 1 in 100,000 nosy geek, perhaps?
I'm just having a hard time imagining customers saying, "Boy, since Lufthansa switched over to running Linux, flying this airline sure is so much better! I'm so glad they listened to our request to switch over." Seems kind of absurd.
Any Prior Art even 1 second before the patent was filed (or claimed in the US) invalidates a patent.
That was the point of my message. Clearly eBay did not have prior art in this case or they would have won. Arguments that this guy was patenting stuff that eBay was already doing are specious.
In fact, the decision of the timing and feasability of any law suit is generally in the hands of an attorney
It is the company (ABC Corp., for example) that employs the lawyer, not the lawyer himself, that decides, "I'm going to sue XYZ Inc because they're ripping me off." The lawyer does the dirty work, but does not decide, "Hey ABC Corp, I'm going to sue XYZ Inc because they're ripping you off." It is up to ABC Corp to hire a lawyer to sue, and is solely their decision whether or not to do so. Perhaps their decision will be an informed one, based on lawyer's advice, but they do the decision making. Therefore if they feel pain in suing, perhaps they won't do it.
The Senate is comprised of around 50% lawyers, the House around 30%...Those same corporate lobbyists you decry tend to also be lawyers, as are many of the aides to those same congresspeople.
Certainly, but they're not acting as lawyers in the sense that they sue/defend companies in court. Lobbyists are paid by companies to push an agenda. That company owns them and tells them what to do. Therefore, the company has the influence, and it's irrelevant if their instrument, the lobbyist, is a lawyer or not. As for the legislature, it's the same deal. Lobbyists can influence the government, regardless of whether congress comprises a lot of lawyers or not (actually, lawyers are in the overall minority).
Yes, things would have to be ugly before the legal destruction caused a change in things. But sometimes that's the only thing that will ever work. And some might argue that it's already pretty ugly.
Slashdot Mirror
Apologies for this guy who is apparently trying to make it look like a rabid posting from me or something. He got the numbers right anyway, but he's wrong about women. There is no such thing as a free date.
I don't see why it wouldn't work. There's no software to download. All it takes is a browser.
This is what anonymizer.com (and others) are for. You can view any web site in complete stealth, since the data is SSL encrypted and the URLs are scrambled. Unless your company blocks anonymizer.com entirely there's no way for them to stop you from viewing whatever you want in complete uncensored privacy.
I suspect that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case because it desperately wants to overturn the 9th Circuit Court's decision banning the pledge (and yes, despite what the /. editors say in the story heading, this actually *is* about banning the pledge altogether). The 9th Circuit's decision is wildly unpopular amongst conservatives, and they want to make it go away. It's no secret that our conservative Supreme Court despises the decision as well. They have ruled against similar cases in the past, so as soon as it hits the court it's hasta la vista to the ban.
It's too bad because I rather like the thought that kids won't have to be brainwashed by religion and false patriotism on a daily basis. If I had a religion it wouldn't involve a diety, so the pledge just seems plainly inappropriate. When I was a kid I mangled the words in creative ways when they made us say the pledge, and I always skipped the "under god" part.
If I ever programmed an Apple, your statement might be true. But I never did, so the C64 was the last "knowable" computer for me.
It was the last computer I ever programmed that you could understand top to bottom. It was actually possible to know everything there is to know about it. It's amazing what you could do with such a simple computer. My watch is more complicated now.
There is only one reason I can imagine SunComm made this statement, other than bad PR avoidance (which can't be a huge part of the reason or they wouldn't be producing such an ugly product). Simply put, what they are doing breaks the DMCA just as much, if not more than, the "shift key whistle blower" did. To produce their copy protection technology, they have to do a lot of research into CD ROM hardware/software produced by other companies. That involves finding ways to break those products under certain circumstances through both experimentation and reverse engineering. In other words, they clearly violate the DMCA on a regular basis, especially under their own standards. I'm sure they don't want to be held to those standards themselves, so they can't try and hold others to them. If they have half a brain, they will steer clear of any DMCA issues lest the limelight be shone on them. Seems like they may have had an epiphany recenly.
Which futher deliniates the point, that if you are distribing the entire Linux binary, you are a derived work.
I didn't see the term "binary" in that paragraph anywhere. I'm not going to go re-read the GPL just now, but I have read it in the past. I do not recall if they distinguish "binary" from "source code" in the definition of the term "Program". But if the GPL section you quoted can be interpreted to refer to binaries, then that's pretty darn broad and probably would not stand up to a real legal challenge.
Let's say you distribute a CD ROM of software collected off the net. It has some GPL-ed software, some BSD license software, some public domain software, and perhaps even software you wrote yourself. Just because they are on the same CD, are they the same work? What if you static linked the BSD software with glibc - whose license wins? I could ask questions like this all day. The only thing that makes sense is distinct source files. If you have a source file containing any amount of GPL-ed code, the GPL virus kicks in and that source file is GPL-ed. But if you have GPL source files and non-GPL source files, clearly separate, it should not matter whether they are compiled together or not. Any other interpretation is too sticky, and would not only greatly hinder commercial Linux products, but would be a legal nightmare. Just thinking of it makes me sympathize with companies that complain about the GPL being dangerous.
I dunno, perhaps I'm totally wrong. And I'm sure you'll point it out if I am. But in that case I can think of endless instances where well known, popular, commercial products are in violation of the GPL and nobody has said or done anything about it. (One example: the Empeg car MP3 player, which has proprietary sections that may even be statically linked with glibc, and are shipped as a single package with a custom Linux boot image.)
I have little doubt that you and the others commenting here are correct that Linksys has modified the kernel in some way and are not releasing it like they should. But the evidence shown does not prove that. They could have replaced kernel object files with their own code that, of necessity, carry the "missing" symbols. Unlikely, but possible.
I'm not sure I understand why everyone's so sure they're violating the GPL. If the missing kernel modules are entirely original, why are they required to release them under the GPL? AFAIK, you are only required to release source that contains GPL-ed code, or that is based on GPL-ed code. If you write a kernel module from scratch, it is not bound by the GPL - Linux API compatibility notwithstanding.
Agreed we don't know if their code is original without seeing it. But if it's original they're not obliged to show it. That's the catch-22 of the GPL I've always found interesting.
I am a California resident, as well as an email services provider (to my household, via our in-house mail server). It's so great to know that I'll never receive another spam again! Yay! And it's even better to know that should the rare spam actually get sent to me, I can sue the sender and make myself rich.
:)
What a perfect world we live in. No more spam, and now I can quit my job and become rich suing spammers. Thanks California!
For the sarcasm-impaired -->
There is so much junk in orbit I'm surprised we don't lose satellites every day. I would not be surprised if an orbiting nut or bolt or somesuch gave T4 a sound whack. Makes me think of the old Devo song "Space Junk"...
I was at an ATM once (Wells Fargo or BofA) several years ago, and it crashed with someone's card still in it. It autobooted, and lo and behold, it was a pared-down Microsoft boot sequence. Looked like NT to me. Given that some of the largest banks already seem to be using Windows in their ATMs, why is this news?
The more I thought about this, the more I realised that trees (such as the Windows filesystems) are not really ideally suited for organizing data. On UNIX-like filesystems, symbolic links allow the creation of simple graphs for organising data,
Isn't a Windows shortcut essentially just a symbolic link (though perhaps a bit less transparent?).
Make your web links to AOL actually point to another domain whose sole purpose in life is to then redirect to the appropriate AOL link. Create a new domain periodically to keep them on their toes. It's also probably possible to craft a middleman referrer page like this that avoids even sending a referer header (or perhaps sends a faked one).
virus writers are useful...he asserts that immunity is built by infection
So what he's saying is that virus writers are useful because they create viruses, which teaches us to make hardier computers that can resist viruses. This seems like a tautology to me. We should be thanking virus writers because they teach us to fight viruses? Viruses that we wouldn't have to resist if these luzers wouldn't write them in the first place?
Seems kind of like a burglar busting into your house and cleaning you out, and you thanking him because he showed you that you need to install an alarm system.
The only spam filter that is acceptable is one that utilizes challenge-response. There are NO false positives with filters based on this. I cannot tolerate even one false positive with my email. And the only spam that gets through are those with actual real-life return addresses. These are rare, and since there's a live address on the other end I have the luxury of sending the spammer a bitch-o-gram.
Make the icons as big and fat as possible. Make them shiny and cute. Then it will all look so much less threatening to your grandma, while the rest of us just get irritated at being patronized by our computer.
How come so many network administrators at critical facilities like DMV's, train companies *nuclear* power plants, etc. are such F***ING RETARDS? It is beyond unbelievable. Jail time should be mandatory for total negligence such as this.
I automatically give PhD's a big black mark. I have found that, in general, PhD engineers are much more likely to be lacking in practical experience than your average engineer. Unless I had a job requiring research, I would likely not end up hiring one.
Otherwise, how will they exchange documents?
Text files? Other non-proprietary standard formats?
I think they are talking about drivers
They may be talking about drivers, but I've run plenty of apps capable of crashing Windows without help from any third-party driver.
Never mind, should have read other comments here a little deeper. It's the IT branch of Lufthansa selling to other airlines.
Why would an airline's customers know or care what operating system they used to run the business, much less request that they change it? Other than the 1 in 100,000 nosy geek, perhaps?
I'm just having a hard time imagining customers saying, "Boy, since Lufthansa switched over to running Linux, flying this airline sure is so much better! I'm so glad they listened to our request to switch over." Seems kind of absurd.
Any Prior Art even 1 second before the patent was filed (or claimed in the US) invalidates a patent.
That was the point of my message. Clearly eBay did not have prior art in this case or they would have won. Arguments that this guy was patenting stuff that eBay was already doing are specious.
At the risk of belaboring the point:
In fact, the decision of the timing and feasability of any law suit is generally in the hands of an attorney
It is the company (ABC Corp., for example) that employs the lawyer, not the lawyer himself, that decides, "I'm going to sue XYZ Inc because they're ripping me off." The lawyer does the dirty work, but does not decide, "Hey ABC Corp, I'm going to sue XYZ Inc because they're ripping you off." It is up to ABC Corp to hire a lawyer to sue, and is solely their decision whether or not to do so. Perhaps their decision will be an informed one, based on lawyer's advice, but they do the decision making. Therefore if they feel pain in suing, perhaps they won't do it.
The Senate is comprised of around 50% lawyers, the House around 30%...Those same corporate lobbyists you decry tend to also be lawyers, as are many of the aides to those same congresspeople.
Certainly, but they're not acting as lawyers in the sense that they sue/defend companies in court. Lobbyists are paid by companies to push an agenda. That company owns them and tells them what to do. Therefore, the company has the influence, and it's irrelevant if their instrument, the lobbyist, is a lawyer or not. As for the legislature, it's the same deal. Lobbyists can influence the government, regardless of whether congress comprises a lot of lawyers or not (actually, lawyers are in the overall minority).
Yes, things would have to be ugly before the legal destruction caused a change in things. But sometimes that's the only thing that will ever work. And some might argue that it's already pretty ugly.