If you're going to be creating what is essentially a substandard driver, someone else will probably write a better driver anyway(which will likely be open source), so you may as well either do it right the first time, or just say to hell with it, and just publish the hardware specs so someone else can easily write the driver that they'll end up writing anyway. I think this makes the whole legal issue unimportant.
You seem to have missed the stipulation; "(EULAs) that limit rights". If it doesn't limit rights, it's perfectly legal. Bear in mind your "rights" are determined by fair use policy, constitutional rights, and a few other miscellaneous inalienable rights. If I understand the goals of the bill properly, this is only supposed to stop the "we can access anything and everything on your computer cause we say so" EULAs(which limit your right to privacy) and similarly nasty clauses. It's not saying EULAs are evil, down with EULAs. You're absolutely right that EULAs are useful, if not a necessity, but they currently have no defined limit. That's just a bit too dangerous.
I've actually played with this concept quite extensively with friends of mine. Bear in mind that invisibility is all about "perception", and the way human vision works. If you look at the way current camoflauge works, and why, then you'll see just how little you need to do to have a sizeable effect. There's a certain resolution that matters at a certain distance. At 10 feet(or was it meters) if an invisibility suit had "emitters" spaced roughly an inch appart, it would be barely noticeable(Based on 20/20 vision, your mileage may vary). The problem of viewing angle can be dealt with fairly easily, by using something as simple as a little geodesic prism on both sides of the object being "cloaked"(one per emitter/sensor). Assuming you're going for one inch spacing, you've now got a much less formidable manufacturing task. The only concerns from here are, 1) The simple method is to have simple circuits that read light on one side, and output it on the other, with intensity compensation(fairly easy), the *good* way is to incorporate a little anti-aliasing, which on say a person, is tricky due to the viewing angle problem(mainly due to you moving), and raw processing power required to work it out real time 2) Put on IR goggles, and you're still right there. 3) Occlusion of emmitters with other emitters. i.e. lets say your arm is in front of your chest. If your suit is perfect, there will be little effect, but for lower "resolution" suits, you'll get really wacky visual artifacts.
I only touched briefly on a few things which were fairly well covered in other comments, so if some of this doesn't make sense, or is a little vague, it may help to read some of the previous stuff.
And yes, I spent way too much time in high school plotting to become an evil genius.
How accurate do you want to test?
on
How to Test Your T1?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
To be specific, if you want to know if you have a T1 line, as others have pointed out, get it in writing from your ISP. If you want to know what your total throughput is on average, do you want to know the "real world condition" throughput, or the to-backbone throughput? If you just want to make sure you're getting fairly close to normal bandwidth(and not avery bit you can just cause), check out a web-based bandwidth meter. It's not super accurate, but it's not bad. Check out www.toast.net. They've got multiple test sites, so you can get an average based on proximity to your location, etc. If you really want to maximize the accuracy of your results, you'll want to be the only computer on the line, and check your MTU, TTL, etc. settings, just for the hell of it(though it might be overkill for a test that's this loose to begin with).
I'm glad someone said it! Not to attract flames from the DDR crowd (no really) but I have to agree. I'm glad some people like this game and all, but I for one would like to moderate this entire submission as "off topic". I mean seriously? We might as well start talking about the virtues of pokemon. Guilty pleasure of many, but definitely not "Stuff that Matters".
Based on an average of 5 Megs a song, and a rough conversion of 8 Mb per MB, the transfer rate(assuming my math is right) is roughly 1.4Mb/sec(each) assuming they were downloading 24/7(or 24/2 as the case may be). More reasonable is 8 hours/day, which makes 4.2 Mb/sec. Still within the realm of reason, if you're not on campus(I didn't catch the details of their location). On campus however, good luck getting anything close to even 1.4 Mb/sec. Can we say not F***ing likely?
There is a lot of truth in what he says though, much though I hate to admit it. It first sounds like he's saying "don't expect us to fix security problems", but that's just how we view microsoft(not that that's a wholely inaccurate picture, but still). He is in fact right in that security vulnerabilities, in some way or another, will never be totally wiped out. They can be greatly minimized, but that's it. The only totally secure box is one with no monitor, keyboard, network drop, locked in a box, magnetically sheilded... you get the picture.
OTOH he probably just meant they wouldn't have to fix them if they weren't made public.;)
This little device reminds me of when I used to build "boxes". Not that I ever built anything complex(black box, saves on long distance $$$), but I wonder if this is actually in the list of existing boxes. I haven't seen boxing texts in years, and all mine are gone with a crashed HDD. *sniff*
On the note of telemarketers finding a way around this box; anyone know the DMCA thouroughly enough to tell me if "circumventing electronic measures that function to protect privacy" or something similar, is forbidden in the DMCA? Just a thought.
I can see his point, but if HTTP was a company name, they'd have the same problem. He should have chosen a better trade name, one that wasn't a command, regardless of who made it first.
As for the confusion, it's become part of the order of things. All he can do is ask for reasonable disclaimers and friendly links between sites.
Legally he needs to back his trademark or he will lose it, hence he simply needs to officially endorse the use in this case, outlining conditions, blah, blah... [insert lawyers here]
I guess everyone with a day-planner/agenda must be getting stupid too. Maybe the thicker your day-planner, the lower your I.Q. Maybe some people are looking to get a grant for useless research based on flawed theories and just trying to make them sound respectable... Sheesh!
Seriously though, this is really dumb. It seems like some technophobe propaganda more than science.
But you don't have to with Transmeta, that's the point. Intel has to drop clockspeed to compete with Transmeta's full clockspeed. Intel's power to performance still sucks compared to Transmeta.
You missed the point. The arrangement at the time of his purchasing the device was that payment for the service was separate. This being the case, legally speaking, they have no place charging his credit card. Not that it's worth making a legal sized fuss over... Admittedly his best corse of action now is probably to just tell them to cancel the subscription as you suggested, but no he didn't sign up for the service at the time, they only just made the agreement manditory, and I think he's fully justified in being pissed off.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to be creating what is essentially a substandard driver, someone else will probably write a better driver anyway(which will likely be open source), so you may as well either do it right the first time, or just say to hell with it, and just publish the hardware specs so someone else can easily write the driver that they'll end up writing anyway. I think this makes the whole legal issue unimportant.
You seem to have missed the stipulation; "(EULAs) that limit rights". If it doesn't limit rights, it's perfectly legal. Bear in mind your "rights" are determined by fair use policy, constitutional rights, and a few other miscellaneous inalienable rights. If I understand the goals of the bill properly, this is only supposed to stop the "we can access anything and everything on your computer cause we say so" EULAs(which limit your right to privacy) and similarly nasty clauses. It's not saying EULAs are evil, down with EULAs. You're absolutely right that EULAs are useful, if not a necessity, but they currently have no defined limit. That's just a bit too dangerous.
I've actually played with this concept quite extensively with friends of mine. Bear in mind that invisibility is all about "perception", and the way human vision works. If you look at the way current camoflauge works, and why, then you'll see just how little you need to do to have a sizeable effect. There's a certain resolution that matters at a certain distance. At 10 feet(or was it meters) if an invisibility suit had "emitters" spaced roughly an inch appart, it would be barely noticeable(Based on 20/20 vision, your mileage may vary). The problem of viewing angle can be dealt with fairly easily, by using something as simple as a little geodesic prism on both sides of the object being "cloaked"(one per emitter/sensor). Assuming you're going for one inch spacing, you've now got a much less formidable manufacturing task. The only concerns from here are, 1) The simple method is to have simple circuits that read light on one side, and output it on the other, with intensity compensation(fairly easy), the *good* way is to incorporate a little anti-aliasing, which on say a person, is tricky due to the viewing angle problem(mainly due to you moving), and raw processing power required to work it out real time 2) Put on IR goggles, and you're still right there. 3) Occlusion of emmitters with other emitters. i.e. lets say your arm is in front of your chest. If your suit is perfect, there will be little effect, but for lower "resolution" suits, you'll get really wacky visual artifacts.
I only touched briefly on a few things which were fairly well covered in other comments, so if some of this doesn't make sense, or is a little vague, it may help to read some of the previous stuff.
And yes, I spent way too much time in high school plotting to become an evil genius.
To be specific, if you want to know if you have a T1 line, as others have pointed out, get it in writing from your ISP. If you want to know what your total throughput is on average, do you want to know the "real world condition" throughput, or the to-backbone throughput? If you just want to make sure you're getting fairly close to normal bandwidth(and not avery bit you can just cause), check out a web-based bandwidth meter. It's not super accurate, but it's not bad. Check out www.toast.net. They've got multiple test sites, so you can get an average based on proximity to your location, etc. If you really want to maximize the accuracy of your results, you'll want to be the only computer on the line, and check your MTU, TTL, etc. settings, just for the hell of it(though it might be overkill for a test that's this loose to begin with).
I'm glad someone said it! Not to attract flames from the DDR crowd (no really) but I have to agree. I'm glad some people like this game and all, but I for one would like to moderate this entire submission as "off topic". I mean seriously? We might as well start talking about the virtues of pokemon. Guilty pleasure of many, but definitely not "Stuff that Matters".
Based on an average of 5 Megs a song, and a rough conversion of 8 Mb per MB, the transfer rate(assuming my math is right) is roughly 1.4Mb/sec(each) assuming they were downloading 24/7(or 24/2 as the case may be). More reasonable is 8 hours/day, which makes 4.2 Mb/sec. Still within the realm of reason, if you're not on campus(I didn't catch the details of their location). On campus however, good luck getting anything close to even 1.4 Mb/sec. Can we say not F***ing likely?
There is a lot of truth in what he says though, much though I hate to admit it. It first sounds like he's saying "don't expect us to fix security problems", but that's just how we view microsoft(not that that's a wholely inaccurate picture, but still). He is in fact right in that security vulnerabilities, in some way or another, will never be totally wiped out. They can be greatly minimized, but that's it. The only totally secure box is one with no monitor, keyboard, network drop, locked in a box, magnetically sheilded... you get the picture.
;)
OTOH he probably just meant they wouldn't have to fix them if they weren't made public.
This little device reminds me of when I used to build "boxes". Not that I ever built anything complex(black box, saves on long distance $$$), but I wonder if this is actually in the list of existing boxes. I haven't seen boxing texts in years, and all mine are gone with a crashed HDD. *sniff*
On the note of telemarketers finding a way around this box; anyone know the DMCA thouroughly enough to tell me if "circumventing electronic measures that function to protect privacy" or something similar, is forbidden in the DMCA? Just a thought.
I can see his point, but if HTTP was a company name, they'd have the same problem. He should have chosen a better trade name, one that wasn't a command, regardless of who made it first.
As for the confusion, it's become part of the order of things. All he can do is ask for reasonable disclaimers and friendly links between sites.
Legally he needs to back his trademark or he will lose it, hence he simply needs to officially endorse the use in this case, outlining conditions, blah, blah... [insert lawyers here]
I guess everyone with a day-planner/agenda must be getting stupid too. Maybe the thicker your day-planner, the lower your I.Q. Maybe some people are looking to get a grant for useless research based on flawed theories and just trying to make them sound respectable... Sheesh!
Seriously though, this is really dumb. It seems like some technophobe propaganda more than science.
But you don't have to with Transmeta, that's the point. Intel has to drop clockspeed to compete with Transmeta's full clockspeed. Intel's power to performance still sucks compared to Transmeta.
Yes it is, but what's funnier is that the comments are almost identical as well. ;)
You missed the point. The arrangement at the time of his purchasing the device was that payment for the service was separate. This being the case, legally speaking, they have no place charging his credit card. Not that it's worth making a legal sized fuss over... Admittedly his best corse of action now is probably to just tell them to cancel the subscription as you suggested, but no he didn't sign up for the service at the time, they only just made the agreement manditory, and I think he's fully justified in being pissed off.
ASP for Apache is beink available. Check out http://www.halcyonsoft.com/
Am thinkink perhaps is AOL.