How in the hell did this get modded up to "5, Insightful"? The parent poster clearly has "-5, No Fucking Clue About Network Design".
What the AC is describing is not, in fact, Network Address Translation, but Port Address Translation, which is only a subset of NAT. I have absolutely no problems running multiple hosts behind NAT using the one-to-one address translation, which generally reduces the need for publicly-valid IP addresses to the number of hosts that need to be publicly-available, plus one for a PAT channel for internal hosts to get outside. That number can be even further reduced by using PAT in combination.
There is no reason for every host attached to the Internet to have a publicly-valid IP address, thanks to the magic of NAT, which is an extremely valuable security tool in the hands of a competent network designer. I have personally (and practically single-handedly) built Metropolitan Area Networks servicing thousands of users that did not need to use more than a handful of public addresses, with no loss of service to the end users, or the public, for that matter.
The big problem with NAT is that practically every manufacturer of routing or firewall gear uses different terminology and different implementation methodology, such that knowledge gained on one platform is frequently not transferable to others. Compounding this is the tendency for manufacturers of affordable routers to leave out vast swaths of NAT/PAT functionality in order to get you to buy more expensive routers, not to mention the tendency for ISPs to assume cluelessness on the part of the end user. There's also no good reason why routers and firewall devices that support NAT properly continue to cost such large amounts of money, other than manufacturer greed.
Yes, I know that this can be done with a host machine, but I prefer dedicated hardware devices with a minimum of moving parts for my network gear.
To paraphrase, what do have against NAT that a well-written, full implementation wouldn't fix?
And BTW, NAT is not a replacement for a proper stateful firewall, but all on it's own can provide a large amount of security for an organization. If nothing else, it can remove a large amount of the load from said firewall.
And how much does all that musical equipment cost? Who's being taken to the cleaners here?
Ouch. That hurt.
But seriously, my collection of fine musical instruments is likely to appreciate in value dramatically over time. I wish I could say the same of my fine collection of iPods and Macintoshes...
Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS.
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 2, Informative
1. BeOS was not a multi-user system. This, in my opinion, is the critical technical issue that killed BeOS.
2. NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP already had important developers on the platform (like Adobe, Aldus, etc.) in markets that were critical to Apple's user base. The only really cool application I remember seeing running on BeOS from a major company was Steinberg's Nuendo.
3. The NeXT system had a proven track record of success in heavy-duty custom application development, thanks to the superior development tools (Interface Builder, etc.) and development toolkits (WebObjects, etc.). Be had no equivalence here.
4. This is not really an issue of OS quality, but OpenSTEP did not compete directly against Microsoft products. In fact, OpenSTEP ran *on* Windows NT (as well as Solaris). Be's attempt to break Microsoft's stranglehold on hardware OEM's caused Microsoft to leverage their monopoly to wither any such deals.
5. The selection of NeXT rather than Be allowed Apple to leverage their experiences with MkLinux and the knowledge base of all the *NIX developers in the world. Going with Be would not have provided this opportunity.
6. Steve Jobs (There is no Rule Six). Granted, I would have like to see Gasse/Sakoman/etc. back at Apple, but I'd rather have Jobs.
Of course, the only way that this would make sense is if the developer release is time-limited. Let's face it, Apple is not ready to take on Microsoft head-to-head right now; it would be suicide for Apple to allow an easily-hacked version of Mac OS X that could run on cheap-ass hardware out the door.
Now, assuming that the dev kit *will* time-bomb, this would be a brilliant move. Of course, it might still be hacked, but the fact of the matter is that only a very, very small subset of the potential market will bother will figuring out the hack to keep it running.
As I've said before, the only negative impacts I see of Apple moving to Intel are:
1. (Temporarily) Increased costs for current Apple hardware/software owners. 2. Decreased competition in the desktop CPU marketplace.
Other than these two items, this whole thing is a net plus for the entire world, even Microsoft, who will surely benefit from direct competition with Apple in the future. Dell could possibly turn out to suffer some losses from this, eventually, but Michael Dell is an arrogant ass who deserves being taken down a notch.
Which of course, is not to say that Steve Jobs isn't arrogant at times, as well, but at least Steve is a consistently proven innovator who constantly (and relentlessly) pushes the technology industry forward, whereas Dell is, and always will be, just a cloner.
So, by all means, grab a copy, check it out. If you haven't developed for Apple hw/sw before, I think you might be pleasantly surprised enough to switch.
If Apple really works on shining up Wine (or buys out some other Wine based company - Crossover I believe?), then they can offer Windows compatibility with a certain number of apps,
And why, pray tell, would Apple need to do this when Microsoft will happily provide Mac OS X users with a copy of Virtual PC and Windows that will now, thanks to the architecture change, be capable of near-native performance?
Microsoft has nothing to fear from MacIntel, at least not yet. Michael Dell, on the other hand, should be shitting himself just about now. I do believe that this is the second step in Apple finally becoming a software-only company (the first being the x86 port of Mac OS X), but that is still a long way off and a very tricky road lies between now and then. Rest assured that when Apple finally decides to open up the OS to third-party OEM's, Dell is going to be at the bottom of the list, thanks to Michael Dell's previous comments about Apple and the Dell DJ competition with the iPod.
Look for the first licensee to be Hewlett-Packard. HP and Apple have a long history of cooperation and very little history of direct competition. I predict this will happen sometime around 2008-2009, or 12 to 24 months after Apple completes the Intel transition. I should qualify this and say that I do not see this path for Apple as an absolute--it is entirely reasonable to think that Apple may continue to be a hardware manufacturer. After all, they do a pretty good job of it, and make pretty good margins at it.
Of course, none of this is meant to suggest that Microsoft is in danger of being fragged by Apple, but once the switch to Intel is in full swing, it's only a bit flip for Apple to put themselves right in the path of the oncoming MS juggernaut.
But the scenario goes like this:
If you're in the market for a pre-built, high end PC, why would you buy Dell and be stuck with Windows when you can buy Apple (or HP, or...) and have a choice? And don't bother with the cost argument, it's never been true, and won't become true with Apple switching to Intel CPU's.
When the other shoe drops, it will sound something like this...Apple providing full support for Windows on the new Intel-based Macs. It's hard to imagine how this could be anything but a positive for Apple.
I applaud Vodafone.
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I, for one, am heartily sick and tired of the technology industry catering to the ill-informed desires of children rather than to the real needs of the adults who actually pay the bills.
I have no need or desire for a camera in my phone. I do not have the time to waste on text messaging through a cramped interface. I think that video on a cell phone is idiotic. I don't need a game on my cell phone to exercise my brain. I don't need my cell phone to play music.
What i need is:
1. A phone that is comfortable to use. 2. A phone that can be operated easily with one hand. 3. A vibrating ringer that doesn't disturb others. 4. A speakerphone for when my hands aren't free. 5. High speed IP access (preferably via a wireless connection like Bluetooth) for my PDA and laptop. 6. A simple interface. 7. Long battery life. 8. Conservative, modern styling 9. Worldwide coverage. 10. Macintosh compatibility. 11. Good customer service. 12. and a reasonable price.
Everything else is unecessary and unwanted. I'm a business person, and I want a tool that helps me do my job and stays out of my way. I'm not a child with ADHD that needs to be constantly entertained.
If you break your phone, you are S-O-L, unless you paid the exorbitant fees the provider wants for a "service plan".
OK, for the most part, I agree with you...but I used to use a Kyocera 6035 Smartphone. I've always had the insurance plan with Sprint PCS, and when I dropped my first 6035, for a $35 deductible, they sent me a brand-new 6035.
Then, when the microphone went dead on that one, they sent me a brand-new Samsung SPH-i500 ($600 retail at the time).
Mind you, I spent all of $149 on the first Kyocera, plus $70 in insurance deductible, plus 48 months or so of insurance at $4-5 per month.
I really don't think you could describe my experience as having paid "exorbitant" fees for the insurance plan. In fact, I've been so pleased that I just bought my wife an SPH-i500 (now costing $300).
All things considered, though, I'd rather have a separate PDA and phone--but that's pointless until the service providers unleash Bluetooth.
We can only hope that Oracle sees the light and opens CorporateTime. Back when Netscape was licensing the (then) CS&T product (which eventually became Steltor CorporateTime) for use as "Netscape Calendar Server", the combination of Netscape Communicator and Calendar Server was the *only* product on the market capable of doing what Exchange does...unfortunately, as we all know, Netscape dropped the ball.
I've commented in the past on the limitations of Sunbird, so I won't rehash that here.
I still can't believe that Apple didn't buy Netscape when they had the opportunity.
I was confused by your usage of the term "property" in this context. I certainly agree that the "limited monopoly" is not the exact same thing as the sort of rights attaching to "real property", or even those attaching to "physical property", and although in certain situations they may be effectively similar, there are important differences. This in itself, does not, however, lessen the importance of that "limited monopoly".
Ultimately, though, I believe the idea in question (that is, the specific actions of Nikon), is a battle between competing intellectual rights, not necessarily one between "property" and "intellectual property".
Perhaps we should choose the term "intellectual rights" rather than "intellectual property", but I despair of my ability as a singular entity to effect this change in society's common usage.
I think here you have hit the crux of the matter. While, as an Author myself, I am a strong supporter of the Copyright (and its associated brethren), it is truly unfortunate that many people, including various Members of Congress, seem to have blinded themselves to the true function and proper place of so-called "intellectual property" in a free society and/or economy. As a result, it is becoming increasing difficult for the public as a whole to distinguish the two. Although I have argued that the two are functionally similar, there are distinct differences.
Actually, the software contained by the camera cannot be disassociated from the intended and actual function of the camera. As a result, it is difficult to justify the legitimacy of any associated software license that may restrict my ability to use the camera in its normal function, an idea which is clearly opposed to the doctrine of "first sale".
Actually, I find even more disturbing the strange notion that our esteemed leaders seem to have developed that only corporate entities can possibly or conceivably be "Authors". In doing so, they have stacked the legal and economic decks against those of us who are individual artists, be it of the traditional sort or the technological sort.
You are missing the most relevant point. As an Author, it is my right to dispose of my creations (any images in question) as I see fit, whether that means using Nikon's software, or some other method of my choosing. Anything Nikon does to obstruct my natural right as an Author is wrong. Nikon's provision of suitable software for access does not in any way satisfy this condition.
Also, it has not been demonstrated that "any third party can also get at that data, as we all know now, by using Nikon's SDK". Nikon reserves the right to deny any "third party", including the Author, access to that SDK.
It is not enough to suggest that the Author use a differing brand of equipment, as I have outlined elsewhere in these comments.
The term "intellectual property" is nothing more than a convenient phrase to describe a certain class of Ideas. Although the term itself is, admittedly, of "relatively recent tradition", the concept itself is not. You should not quote the Constitution out of context--the entire relevant clause found in Article I, Section 8 is:
The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This concept was apparently so important to the Framers that it was included in the original text of the Constitution, rather than being included in the various Amendments.
By your own admission, you object to "certain classes of 'stuff' being recently classed as property, and (as such) removed from the public domain for the exclusive benefit of a limited number of individuals", however, you fail to recognize that the "classification" of said "stuff" as "property" is nothing more or less than a convenient fiction to describe the peculiar nature of that "stuff" in a term which the general public can easily comprehend. Also, note both the Framers' and your own usage of the word exclusive.
Finally, you say:
Your due process argument is unconvincing -- it depends on one already accepting such things as "property", which (obviously) we disagree on.
I think that, if you were to read the opinions of the Framers, you would find that they believed the concept of "Property" to be inseparable from the concept of "Liberty". It matters not, legally, whether you "accept such things", or not.
As I said before, you should be precise in your terminology to avoid misconstruction of your comments.
Well, now you're talking about three different things..."intellectual property", "property", and "real property".
The subject of the parent post wasn't "overly expansive 'IP' laws", it was the equation of IP with "physical property".
Intellectual property is indeed treated by society and the legal system similarly to physical property. I would be interested to hear you quote an example where the two are not effectively equivalent, other than the fact that some forms of IP eventually revert to the public domain (though of course, this is less and less true for copyright as time goes by).
BTW, that wasn't an attack, it was an observation. The attack was the question which followed...but it could only be construed as an attack in that the question only allowed for two possibilities---namely that one might either be Richard Stallman, or a non-creator. It was simplistic, I admit, but really only meant rhetorically.
The phrase "real property" has an entirely different legal meaning. I understand that you may have meant what the parent poster described as "physical property", but in any discussion of legal matters it is best to be as precise as possible to avoid confusion (or as vague as possible to encourage it).
I do agree that "overly expansive" IP laws in fact discourage more the encourage creation, but that wasn't the point being argued.
On the surface, I would agree with this evaluation...however...
A "process" is a patentable item. Patents expire. A "software program" is a copyrightable item, as is an "artistic work" (read photographic image in this context). Copyright, thanks to the bizarre and troubling majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, effectively does not.
Now, the trouble with all of this is that I do not see where this is really creating much of a burden for photographers. Yes, Nikon can prevent its image capture software from being copied, but it cannot protect its encryption algorithms from duplication for any longer period than that prescribed by patent law. For a prime example of this idea in action, you may refer to the RSA encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms are "processes" (as are chemical development processes and recipes), and as such, ineligible for copyright protection.
So, unless the international community (or the US Government, in particular) decides to accord patents the same effectively permanent protections they have granted to copyrightable works, the encryption algorithms in use in Nikon's format will eventualy be free for all to use or deconstruct (which has, in fact, already happened).
The interesting thing in this particular case is that Nikon's algorithms are being used to potentially deny the creator of an artistic work the ability to dispose of that work as he sees fit, which we can all agree is a natural right. The case hinges upon the interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, whose wording includes the phrase "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Now, the clear intention of the DMCA was to block circumvention of a mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copies of a protected work, not to allow companies to arbitrarily deny a creator the ability to dispose of his own work as he sees fit--but the text of the law was written in such a fashion as to seeming allow such an action, unless you make an argument based upon subsection 1201.a.3:
(3) As used in this subsection--
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Now we need to ascertain the meaning of "copyright owner" in this subsection. The copyright owner of the encryption software, or the copyright owner of the image so encrypted? Which "work" is pre-eminent? Arguments could be either way, although I believe that the copyright of the creator of the image is clearly superior.
Then of course, we need to examine the effect of 1201.a.3.b on existing patent law. How can the DMCA be effective if the "technological measure" relys upon the "application of...a process or a treatment" which has clearly fallen into the public domain? Curiouser and curiouser...
I am a Nikon user. Professionally, I have used nothing but Nikon cameras. I may not continue to do so as a result of Nikon's actions described here.
Yes, the photographer will retain the right to use equipment other than Nikon's. However, the selection of Nikon equipment by a photographer does not give Nippon Kogaku the right to deny me the ability to dispose of my images created with their equipment as I see fit.
Just because you wish it to be so, does not make it true, legally, or morally. "Intellectual property" is indeed property (of a sort), and it has been repeatedly held to function as such by the courts of the civilised world.
It seems to me that the loudest complainants against the concept of intellectual property are either RMS, or people who do not actually create any IP of their own.
I think it's interesting that when I brought up the idea of Apple releasing an x86 version of Mac OS X, several people jumped on the idea as if I were talking about a version of Mac OS X that would run on your garden-variety WinTel PC...
What I mean, to be more clear, is that there is nothing that would prevent Apple from building Macintosh computers with x86 processors rather than PowerPC processors. Intel processor != WinTel PC.
Apple could very easily build x86-based Mac hardware that is completely and utterly incompatible with Windows. I don't actually see this happening any time soon, but once the Intel-based world finally gets rid of the antiquated BIOS and settles on a 64-bit standard, things might get interesting for Apple.
Believe me, Apple is keeping their options open. The PowerPC stuff is fairly nifty, but it remains to be seen what will take the place of the 2.5GHz G5. It might not be what you think.
Can I name one? I could, but certain of my clients might be a bit upset by that...as a consultant, I deal with many different types of organizations that use relatively large numbers of Macintosh systems, from small to medium-sized companies that use primarily Macs to large education clients whose Mac populations number in the low five figures range.
Even a company with 50 or so Macs needs to think very carefully about a new OS upgrade. They may not have the same requirements as a large school district with over 10,000 Macs to support, but if those 50 machines are their bread-and-butter tools, things need to be handled judiciously.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, Mr. Carver, for proving quite capably that there are at least two people who understand networking posting to Slashdot.
How in the hell did this get modded up to "5, Insightful"? The parent poster clearly has "-5, No Fucking Clue About Network Design".
What the AC is describing is not, in fact, Network Address Translation, but Port Address Translation, which is only a subset of NAT. I have absolutely no problems running multiple hosts behind NAT using the one-to-one address translation, which generally reduces the need for publicly-valid IP addresses to the number of hosts that need to be publicly-available, plus one for a PAT channel for internal hosts to get outside. That number can be even further reduced by using PAT in combination.
There is no reason for every host attached to the Internet to have a publicly-valid IP address, thanks to the magic of NAT, which is an extremely valuable security tool in the hands of a competent network designer. I have personally (and practically single-handedly) built Metropolitan Area Networks servicing thousands of users that did not need to use more than a handful of public addresses, with no loss of service to the end users, or the public, for that matter.
The big problem with NAT is that practically every manufacturer of routing or firewall gear uses different terminology and different implementation methodology, such that knowledge gained on one platform is frequently not transferable to others. Compounding this is the tendency for manufacturers of affordable routers to leave out vast swaths of NAT/PAT functionality in order to get you to buy more expensive routers, not to mention the tendency for ISPs to assume cluelessness on the part of the end user. There's also no good reason why routers and firewall devices that support NAT properly continue to cost such large amounts of money, other than manufacturer greed.
Yes, I know that this can be done with a host machine, but I prefer dedicated hardware devices with a minimum of moving parts for my network gear.
To paraphrase, what do have against NAT that a well-written, full implementation wouldn't fix?
And BTW, NAT is not a replacement for a proper stateful firewall, but all on it's own can provide a large amount of security for an organization. If nothing else, it can remove a large amount of the load from said firewall.
Yes, if you mean that they will both get you from Point A to Point B; however, so will a Kia.
Of course, with digital music players, anything other than an iPod will only lead you straight to One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA.
How many people in love with their iPods have tried other MP3 players?
Probably about as many people who are in love with their Porsches or Bentleys who have tried Kias, Hyundais, Zils, and Yugos.
Ipod is to DAPs what Google is to search. In popular culture its tough to separate the two.
;)
Yes, I agree. The iPod will soon replace LDAP...
Ouch. That hurt.
But seriously, my collection of fine musical instruments is likely to appreciate in value dramatically over time. I wish I could say the same of my fine collection of iPods and Macintoshes...
1. BeOS was not a multi-user system. This, in my opinion, is the critical technical issue that killed BeOS.
2. NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP already had important developers on the platform (like Adobe, Aldus, etc.) in markets that were critical to Apple's user base. The only really cool application I remember seeing running on BeOS from a major company was Steinberg's Nuendo.
3. The NeXT system had a proven track record of success in heavy-duty custom application development, thanks to the superior development tools (Interface Builder, etc.) and development toolkits (WebObjects, etc.). Be had no equivalence here.
4. This is not really an issue of OS quality, but OpenSTEP did not compete directly against Microsoft products. In fact, OpenSTEP ran *on* Windows NT (as well as Solaris). Be's attempt to break Microsoft's stranglehold on hardware OEM's caused Microsoft to leverage their monopoly to wither any such deals.
5. The selection of NeXT rather than Be allowed Apple to leverage their experiences with MkLinux and the knowledge base of all the *NIX developers in the world. Going with Be would not have provided this opportunity.
6. Steve Jobs (There is no Rule Six). Granted, I would have like to see Gasse/Sakoman/etc. back at Apple, but I'd rather have Jobs.
Of course, the only way that this would make sense is if the developer release is time-limited. Let's face it, Apple is not ready to take on Microsoft head-to-head right now; it would be suicide for Apple to allow an easily-hacked version of Mac OS X that could run on cheap-ass hardware out the door.
Now, assuming that the dev kit *will* time-bomb, this would be a brilliant move. Of course, it might still be hacked, but the fact of the matter is that only a very, very small subset of the potential market will bother will figuring out the hack to keep it running.
As I've said before, the only negative impacts I see of Apple moving to Intel are:
1. (Temporarily) Increased costs for current Apple hardware/software owners.
2. Decreased competition in the desktop CPU marketplace.
Other than these two items, this whole thing is a net plus for the entire world, even Microsoft, who will surely benefit from direct competition with Apple in the future. Dell could possibly turn out to suffer some losses from this, eventually, but Michael Dell is an arrogant ass who deserves being taken down a notch.
Which of course, is not to say that Steve Jobs isn't arrogant at times, as well, but at least Steve is a consistently proven innovator who constantly (and relentlessly) pushes the technology industry forward, whereas Dell is, and always will be, just a cloner.
So, by all means, grab a copy, check it out. If you haven't developed for Apple hw/sw before, I think you might be pleasantly surprised enough to switch.
And why, pray tell, would Apple need to do this when Microsoft will happily provide Mac OS X users with a copy of Virtual PC and Windows that will now, thanks to the architecture change, be capable of near-native performance?
Microsoft has nothing to fear from MacIntel, at least not yet. Michael Dell, on the other hand, should be shitting himself just about now. I do believe that this is the second step in Apple finally becoming a software-only company (the first being the x86 port of Mac OS X), but that is still a long way off and a very tricky road lies between now and then. Rest assured that when Apple finally decides to open up the OS to third-party OEM's, Dell is going to be at the bottom of the list, thanks to Michael Dell's previous comments about Apple and the Dell DJ competition with the iPod.
Look for the first licensee to be Hewlett-Packard. HP and Apple have a long history of cooperation and very little history of direct competition. I predict this will happen sometime around 2008-2009, or 12 to 24 months after Apple completes the Intel transition. I should qualify this and say that I do not see this path for Apple as an absolute--it is entirely reasonable to think that Apple may continue to be a hardware manufacturer. After all, they do a pretty good job of it, and make pretty good margins at it.
Of course, none of this is meant to suggest that Microsoft is in danger of being fragged by Apple, but once the switch to Intel is in full swing, it's only a bit flip for Apple to put themselves right in the path of the oncoming MS juggernaut.
But the scenario goes like this:
If you're in the market for a pre-built, high end PC, why would you buy Dell and be stuck with Windows when you can buy Apple (or HP, or
When the other shoe drops, it will sound something like this...Apple providing full support for Windows on the new Intel-based Macs. It's hard to imagine how this could be anything but a positive for Apple.
I, for one, am heartily sick and tired of the technology industry catering to the ill-informed desires of children rather than to the real needs of the adults who actually pay the bills.
I have no need or desire for a camera in my phone. I do not have the time to waste on text messaging through a cramped interface. I think that video on a cell phone is idiotic. I don't need a game on my cell phone to exercise my brain. I don't need my cell phone to play music.
What i need is:
1. A phone that is comfortable to use.
2. A phone that can be operated easily with one hand.
3. A vibrating ringer that doesn't disturb others.
4. A speakerphone for when my hands aren't free.
5. High speed IP access (preferably via a wireless connection like Bluetooth) for my PDA and laptop.
6. A simple interface.
7. Long battery life.
8. Conservative, modern styling
9. Worldwide coverage.
10. Macintosh compatibility.
11. Good customer service.
12. and a reasonable price.
Everything else is unecessary and unwanted. I'm a business person, and I want a tool that helps me do my job and stays out of my way. I'm not a child with ADHD that needs to be constantly entertained.
If you break your phone, you are S-O-L, unless you paid the exorbitant fees the provider wants for a "service plan".
OK, for the most part, I agree with you...but I used to use a Kyocera 6035 Smartphone. I've always had the insurance plan with Sprint PCS, and when I dropped my first 6035, for a $35 deductible, they sent me a brand-new 6035.
Then, when the microphone went dead on that one, they sent me a brand-new Samsung SPH-i500 ($600 retail at the time).
Mind you, I spent all of $149 on the first Kyocera, plus $70 in insurance deductible, plus 48 months or so of insurance at $4-5 per month.
I really don't think you could describe my experience as having paid "exorbitant" fees for the insurance plan. In fact, I've been so pleased that I just bought my wife an SPH-i500 (now costing $300).
All things considered, though, I'd rather have a separate PDA and phone--but that's pointless until the service providers unleash Bluetooth.
We can only hope that Oracle sees the light and opens CorporateTime. Back when Netscape was licensing the (then) CS&T product (which eventually became Steltor CorporateTime) for use as "Netscape Calendar Server", the combination of Netscape Communicator and Calendar Server was the *only* product on the market capable of doing what Exchange does...unfortunately, as we all know, Netscape dropped the ball.
I've commented in the past on the limitations of Sunbird, so I won't rehash that here.
I still can't believe that Apple didn't buy Netscape when they had the opportunity.
I was confused by your usage of the term "property" in this context. I certainly agree that the "limited monopoly" is not the exact same thing as the sort of rights attaching to "real property", or even those attaching to "physical property", and although in certain situations they may be effectively similar, there are important differences. This in itself, does not, however, lessen the importance of that "limited monopoly".
Ultimately, though, I believe the idea in question (that is, the specific actions of Nikon), is a battle between competing intellectual rights, not necessarily one between "property" and "intellectual property".
Perhaps we should choose the term "intellectual rights" rather than "intellectual property", but I despair of my ability as a singular entity to effect this change in society's common usage.
I think here you have hit the crux of the matter. While, as an Author myself, I am a strong supporter of the Copyright (and its associated brethren), it is truly unfortunate that many people, including various Members of Congress, seem to have blinded themselves to the true function and proper place of so-called "intellectual property" in a free society and/or economy. As a result, it is becoming increasing difficult for the public as a whole to distinguish the two. Although I have argued that the two are functionally similar, there are distinct differences.
Actually, the software contained by the camera cannot be disassociated from the intended and actual function of the camera. As a result, it is difficult to justify the legitimacy of any associated software license that may restrict my ability to use the camera in its normal function, an idea which is clearly opposed to the doctrine of "first sale".
Actually, I find even more disturbing the strange notion that our esteemed leaders seem to have developed that only corporate entities can possibly or conceivably be "Authors". In doing so, they have stacked the legal and economic decks against those of us who are individual artists, be it of the traditional sort or the technological sort.
You are missing the most relevant point. As an Author, it is my right to dispose of my creations (any images in question) as I see fit, whether that means using Nikon's software, or some other method of my choosing. Anything Nikon does to obstruct my natural right as an Author is wrong. Nikon's provision of suitable software for access does not in any way satisfy this condition.
Also, it has not been demonstrated that "any third party can also get at that data, as we all know now, by using Nikon's SDK". Nikon reserves the right to deny any "third party", including the Author, access to that SDK.
It is not enough to suggest that the Author use a differing brand of equipment, as I have outlined elsewhere in these comments.
This concept was apparently so important to the Framers that it was included in the original text of the Constitution, rather than being included in the various Amendments.
By your own admission, you object to "certain classes of 'stuff' being recently classed as property, and (as such) removed from the public domain for the exclusive benefit of a limited number of individuals", however, you fail to recognize that the "classification" of said "stuff" as "property" is nothing more or less than a convenient fiction to describe the peculiar nature of that "stuff" in a term which the general public can easily comprehend. Also, note both the Framers' and your own usage of the word exclusive.
Finally, you say:
I think that, if you were to read the opinions of the Framers, you would find that they believed the concept of "Property" to be inseparable from the concept of "Liberty". It matters not, legally, whether you "accept such things", or not.
As I said before, you should be precise in your terminology to avoid misconstruction of your comments.
Well, now you're talking about three different things..."intellectual property", "property", and "real property".
The subject of the parent post wasn't "overly expansive 'IP' laws", it was the equation of IP with "physical property".
Intellectual property is indeed treated by society and the legal system similarly to physical property. I would be interested to hear you quote an example where the two are not effectively equivalent, other than the fact that some forms of IP eventually revert to the public domain (though of course, this is less and less true for copyright as time goes by).
BTW, that wasn't an attack, it was an observation. The attack was the question which followed...but it could only be construed as an attack in that the question only allowed for two possibilities---namely that one might either be Richard Stallman, or a non-creator. It was simplistic, I admit, but really only meant rhetorically.
The phrase "real property" has an entirely different legal meaning. I understand that you may have meant what the parent poster described as "physical property", but in any discussion of legal matters it is best to be as precise as possible to avoid confusion (or as vague as possible to encourage it).
I do agree that "overly expansive" IP laws in fact discourage more the encourage creation, but that wasn't the point being argued.
A "process" is a patentable item. Patents expire.
A "software program" is a copyrightable item, as is an "artistic work" (read photographic image in this context). Copyright, thanks to the bizarre and troubling majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, effectively does not.
Now, the trouble with all of this is that I do not see where this is really creating much of a burden for photographers. Yes, Nikon can prevent its image capture software from being copied, but it cannot protect its encryption algorithms from duplication for any longer period than that prescribed by patent law. For a prime example of this idea in action, you may refer to the RSA encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms are "processes" (as are chemical development processes and recipes), and as such, ineligible for copyright protection.
So, unless the international community (or the US Government, in particular) decides to accord patents the same effectively permanent protections they have granted to copyrightable works, the encryption algorithms in use in Nikon's format will eventualy be free for all to use or deconstruct (which has, in fact, already happened).
The interesting thing in this particular case is that Nikon's algorithms are being used to potentially deny the creator of an artistic work the ability to dispose of that work as he sees fit, which we can all agree is a natural right. The case hinges upon the interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, whose wording includes the phrase "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Now, the clear intention of the DMCA was to block circumvention of a mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copies of a protected work, not to allow companies to arbitrarily deny a creator the ability to dispose of his own work as he sees fit--but the text of the law was written in such a fashion as to seeming allow such an action, unless you make an argument based upon subsection 1201.a.3:
Now we need to ascertain the meaning of "copyright owner" in this subsection. The copyright owner of the encryption software, or the copyright owner of the image so encrypted? Which "work" is pre-eminent? Arguments could be either way, although I believe that the copyright of the creator of the image is clearly superior.
Then of course, we need to examine the effect of 1201.a.3.b on existing patent law. How can the DMCA be effective if the "technological measure" relys upon the "application of...a process or a treatment" which has clearly fallen into the public domain? Curiouser and curiouser...
I am a Nikon user. Professionally, I have used nothing but Nikon cameras. I may not continue to do so as a result of Nikon's actions described here.
Yes, the photographer will retain the right to use equipment other than Nikon's. However, the selection of Nikon equipment by a photographer does not give Nippon Kogaku the right to deny me the ability to dispose of my images created with their equipment as I see fit.
Just because you wish it to be so, does not make it true, legally, or morally. "Intellectual property" is indeed property (of a sort), and it has been repeatedly held to function as such by the courts of the civilised world.
It seems to me that the loudest complainants against the concept of intellectual property are either RMS, or people who do not actually create any IP of their own.
Which one are you?
I think it's interesting that when I brought up the idea of Apple releasing an x86 version of Mac OS X, several people jumped on the idea as if I were talking about a version of Mac OS X that would run on your garden-variety WinTel PC...
What I mean, to be more clear, is that there is nothing that would prevent Apple from building Macintosh computers with x86 processors rather than PowerPC processors. Intel processor != WinTel PC.
Apple could very easily build x86-based Mac hardware that is completely and utterly incompatible with Windows. I don't actually see this happening any time soon, but once the Intel-based world finally gets rid of the antiquated BIOS and settles on a 64-bit standard, things might get interesting for Apple.
Believe me, Apple is keeping their options open. The PowerPC stuff is fairly nifty, but it remains to be seen what will take the place of the 2.5GHz G5. It might not be what you think.
Yeah, I was being lazy, and didn't feel like digging up the link...
Here you go...Mac Touch Tiger Benchmarks
Can I name one? I could, but certain of my clients might be a bit upset by that...as a consultant, I deal with many different types of organizations that use relatively large numbers of Macintosh systems, from small to medium-sized companies that use primarily Macs to large education clients whose Mac populations number in the low five figures range.
Even a company with 50 or so Macs needs to think very carefully about a new OS upgrade. They may not have the same requirements as a large school district with over 10,000 Macs to support, but if those 50 machines are their bread-and-butter tools, things need to be handled judiciously.
Ah, and here I just donated my A/UX and MkLinux books to the local library...but I kept the NeXTSTEP stuff...