In the section discussing how several channels could be separataed from a encompassing optical flux measurement they make the assumption that all of the channels are running on a slightly different clock. They use this clock skew assumption of assist with the decode.
From several years of working at a company that developed multiport serial hardware I don't think this is a totally valid assumption. On all of our boards there was a single master clock that drove all of the UARTs.
This master clock will be divded down inside of each UART to create the baud clock. And this division will allow each channel to skew in quantums related to the baud divisor. *But* at high baud rates the divisor shrinks meaning that for 2 comingled channels instead of a 1-in-4096 chance of a clock skew you only have a 1-in-2 or 1-in-4 chance.
As a former trombone player, I'm guessing this stuff wouldn't be what you'd want. It sounds like they lay this stuff on thick enough that the slipperyness is provided by low-friction shear within their gloop. A trombone slide is a tight enough fit (at the bottom seal area anyway) that their gloop wouldn't be thick enough to contain the internal shear.
One of those silicone pastes and water is still probably the best bet for you. (Please don't tell me you're still using oil!)
If someone is brought up in front of a jury for driving a taxi without a bale of hay, or for selling film on a Sunday (still illegal in several southern states), a jury of lay people can understand the irrelevance of the charge and use their common sense instead of cheap pettifoggery of the prosecutor.
If however you are charged with "illegal circumvention of a SSSCA mandated DRM device in the course of vicarious copyright infringement", the jury is going to find themselves slammed with jargon and manipulated by the state to ignore their common sense.
Unfortunately "a jury of your peers" doesn't mean "a jury of professional software and hardware developers".
OK first things first: I'm an employee of IBM, but I do not represent IBM. This is my personal viewpoint. #include "std_disclaimer.h"
I called our IP Law group about this law when it first surfaced on my radar, because a lot of the things we do when bringing up a new system would have to change. I was pleased to find out that the HQ people were already up to speed on this.
What would have to change? Like for instance on first power-on the BIOS isn't done and on-board devices aren't fully supported... Well if the SSSCA passes and our very first power-on doesn't have support for their DRM (since there's no exception in the draft SSSCA for systems development or debug) all of us engineers are now guilty of federal felonies. I'm sorry, but I'll change careers and/or countries before I take a job that requires me to break the law.
All of us engineers and programmers know also that hardware diagnostics frequently turn off all onboard devices except for one at a time to attempt to isolate bad devices... guess what? Won't be able to do that anymore. That means diagnostics are less effective, which means more customer downtime and higher customer support costs. Any computer company that cares about their customers will not look forward to that.
And of course, if Sen Hollings adds an exemption for systems development folks the question becomes "Who constitutes a legitimate developer?" The 14-year old down the street probably doesn't, but I know folks who have a home lab that rivals what some hardware OEMs have. And all those college students developing computers for their EE classes then become problematic too. (Since both of these groups, college students with access to.edu labs and geeks with equivalent home labs, are probably the folks this law is aimed at to begin with)
Not quite. While your point about Judicial vs Legislative is true, this case involves an out of court settlement which involves neither branch. It's more like a contract.
The Plaintiffs didn't have to roll over and accept this settlement that applies only to the Charley Pride disc. The publisher of this CD could have been required to label all of their future protected discs as a part of this settlement.
The next time there is an unlabled protected disc, we'll go through this all over again.
If you notice, everything is specific to the single instance of the Charley Pride CD. Who cares? What was really needed was an agreement like this for labeling *ALL* future discs.
Given that... I don't see how this is much of a victory; a draw at best.
My very first manager at my first real corporate job drilled into my head that you assume every email you write will be published in the paper... if you aren't comfortable with that then it shouldn't be said in email. It's a rule that's served me well...
To this day, after programming for 20 years, I still do math by hand... I think it's important to keep yourself sharp that you not use calculators for everything, and for kids it's even more important to keep them away from calculators.
Why? Doing math by hand develop and keep alive our mental "back of the envelope calculator" ability. If you mistype or the calculator misfires while doing 6.424*9 the most likely way you're going to catch it is by that little voice in the back of your head saying "I know what 6 * 9 is and I know what 7 * 9 is and neither of them is around 6400.
Nope... wouldn't happen. Her vibrator was licensed, not sold. But don't blame Bill... it's those damn vibrator manufacturers and their "per-vagina" licensing model.
Not to sound pedantic, but I don't think so. Mala is the plural of malum. The original poster's usage was: malum prohibitum and malum in se. Seems correct.
Malum prohibitum crimes are crimes that are (literally) "Evil because it's prohibited". seems correct... otherwise you get the awkward double plural "prohibited evils crimes".
Uh... simply: No. The moon doesn't revolve around the earth. Both the moon and the earth revolve around the center of mass of the earth-moon system. This center of mass is thousands of kilometers away from the center of the earth.
You nailed it on the head. There are multiple tons of debugged Fortran code for solving all sorts of engineering problems. The people using this code are looking to solve problems, not write neato computer code to solve problems and so there is actually a disincentive to write new code.
Remember these folks are concerned with the elegance of the resulting bridge... not with the code that tells them said bridge will survive.:-)
*This* type of scam is exactly what I'm concerned about OpenWATCOM pulling. Again let me remind folks that after over a year the OpenWATCOM folks have yet to release anything other than a binary patch (that requires the paid version).
I hope the people that contributed to those guys don't get shafted.
Who the hell is moderating this stuff? A 2 for this paranoid dribble? Who is going to claim responsibility for an attack like this knowing it was going to provoke a global game of Whack-A-Mole?
Besides if you had listened to the news today you would have heard Osama's videotaped statement where he virtually claimed credit for the WTC attacks.
What you're saying is that we can't win even if we didn't strike back at all. And perhaps you're right... but maybe you're wrong and this is a situation we could win. Let's build a matrix:
I worked at Galacticomm from '90 to '92 doing development. I dragged them kicking and screaming into the world of "286 or better required" when I based version 6 on the PharLap extender. Those were the days.
Tim Strkyer, the owner, was a... um... "unique" individual. His first company, Strkyer Pipes, failed. The product? A modular water bong (do a patent search on Delphion some time for "Smoker's Pipe" by Timothy Stryker of Danbury, Conn.) His children? Named Asia (like the continent), Ace Terran (like the playing card and Earth), and Mars (like the planet).
Tim committed suicide back in '95... to rephrase the song "Internet killed the BBS star".
I'm a firmware developer at a large *large* computer company. When attempting to get a brand new system to boot we'll frequently turn off or disable portions of the hardware... you know: minimize the variables we have to deal with.
Guess what? Under this law I'd be a felon because I'd be disabling this stuff. And the fact I'm working for a computer company developing a new system wouldn't shield me from criminal prosecution. If this goes through, I'll be looking to change to a safer job... developing children's applications perhaps (since that's the level this country is coming to).:-(
The point, for those of you too dull to figure it out: If this were Microsoft asking for payment up front for a future piece of software that may or may not actually ever ship, all of the Slashdotters would be screaming bloody murder. But because these folks aren't a big corporation it's OK for them to scam people out of donations.
The whole mention to the WTC was solely to point out the contrast between giving a donation towards things that have actually happened, versus panhandleing on the promise that something good may happen in the future.
If I'm not misreading things, all of the developers working on the alleged future release are all under a NCA with Sybase. Sybase hasn't opened up the source yet under a license yet. So Sybase could decide to take their ball home and all of us wouldn't be able to play with it.
Now why you ask would Sybase seek to abuse Open Source Developers? Fine, let me throw up a hypothetical situation:
Sybase bought Watcom not for their compilers, but for their other products. Fine, so they can ditch the compilers, right? Wrong. Because all of Watcom's *other* products are built using the compiler. If they can't build their SQL product, they can't sell it.
So Sybase needs to have the compiler maintained, maybe some bugfixes, maybe they want that Linux port so they can migrate their products to Linux. But they don't want to pay for the development... What to do... What to do... I know! We'll lure some Open Source developers in to do the work... we'll put them under NCA so that they can't compete with us when it's done and we'll have them do the hard lifting. Once it's done, we tell them that the lawyers won't let us open source it (you know... all those other people's source code... *we'd* open source it if we could) and then we'll have our SQL product supported and we might even have a Linux compiler we can sell further on down the road.
Let's see... I could donate to the Sept 11 Fund to help out the families of the Firemen who died while actually saveing people *OR* I could give to a group of unknowns who have done nothing but delivered vaporware.
Let's hear it for our Vermont and New Hampshire residents! I include New Hampshire because any state with the motto "Live Free or Die" has the right idea about our rights.
Re:USB2 is not meant to replace 1394
on
USB 2.0 For Linux
·
· Score: 1
Umm... let's look at that list:
Compaq: in the ditch
HP: halfway into the ditch (with Compaq now pulling)
Lucent: the water in the bottom of the ditch
NEC: what do they actually make again?
Philips: Anything that sells their components. (i.e. Philips had near 0 marketshare in the sound card chip business. Change the target to "USB speakers" and now Phillips can leverage their chip making expertise (see I2C designs) to equal the footing with entrenched sound card competitors)
Slashdot Mirror
In the section discussing how several channels could be separataed from a encompassing optical flux measurement they make the assumption that all of the channels are running on a slightly different clock. They use this clock skew assumption of assist with the decode.
From several years of working at a company that developed multiport serial hardware I don't think this is a totally valid assumption. On all of our boards there was a single master clock that drove all of the UARTs.
This master clock will be divded down inside of each UART to create the baud clock. And this division will allow each channel to skew in quantums related to the baud divisor. *But* at high baud rates the divisor shrinks meaning that for 2 comingled channels instead of a 1-in-4096 chance of a clock skew you only have a 1-in-2 or 1-in-4 chance.
As a former trombone player, I'm guessing this stuff wouldn't be what you'd want. It sounds like they lay this stuff on thick enough that the slipperyness is provided by low-friction shear within their gloop. A trombone slide is a tight enough fit (at the bottom seal area anyway) that their gloop wouldn't be thick enough to contain the internal shear.
One of those silicone pastes and water is still probably the best bet for you. (Please don't tell me you're still using oil!)
But there's an important distinction here...
If someone is brought up in front of a jury for driving a taxi without a bale of hay, or for selling film on a Sunday (still illegal in several southern states), a jury of lay people can understand the irrelevance of the charge and use their common sense instead of cheap pettifoggery of the prosecutor.
If however you are charged with "illegal circumvention of a SSSCA mandated DRM device in the course of vicarious copyright infringement", the jury is going to find themselves slammed with jargon and manipulated by the state to ignore their common sense.
Unfortunately "a jury of your peers" doesn't mean "a jury of professional software and hardware developers".
OK first things first: I'm an employee of IBM, but I do not represent IBM. This is my personal viewpoint. #include "std_disclaimer.h"
.edu labs and geeks with equivalent home labs, are probably the folks this law is aimed at to begin with)
I called our IP Law group about this law when it first surfaced on my radar, because a lot of the things we do when bringing up a new system would have to change. I was pleased to find out that the HQ people were already up to speed on this.
What would have to change? Like for instance on first power-on the BIOS isn't done and on-board devices aren't fully supported... Well if the SSSCA passes and our very first power-on doesn't have support for their DRM (since there's no exception in the draft SSSCA for systems development or debug) all of us engineers are now guilty of federal felonies. I'm sorry, but I'll change careers and/or countries before I take a job that requires me to break the law.
All of us engineers and programmers know also that hardware diagnostics frequently turn off all onboard devices except for one at a time to attempt to isolate bad devices... guess what? Won't be able to do that anymore. That means diagnostics are less effective, which means more customer downtime and higher customer support costs. Any computer company that cares about their customers will not look forward to that.
And of course, if Sen Hollings adds an exemption for systems development folks the question becomes "Who constitutes a legitimate developer?" The 14-year old down the street probably doesn't, but I know folks who have a home lab that rivals what some hardware OEMs have. And all those college students developing computers for their EE classes then become problematic too. (Since both of these groups, college students with access to
Who knows where this will end? (sigh)
Not quite. While your point about Judicial vs Legislative is true, this case involves an out of court settlement which involves neither branch. It's more like a contract.
The Plaintiffs didn't have to roll over and accept this settlement that applies only to the Charley Pride disc. The publisher of this CD could have been required to label all of their future protected discs as a part of this settlement.
The next time there is an unlabled protected disc, we'll go through this all over again.
If you notice, everything is specific to the single instance of the Charley Pride CD. Who cares? What was really needed was an agreement like this for labeling *ALL* future discs.
Given that... I don't see how this is much of a victory; a draw at best.
My very first manager at my first real corporate job drilled into my head that you assume every email you write will be published in the paper... if you aren't comfortable with that then it shouldn't be said in email. It's a rule that's served me well...
To this day, after programming for 20 years, I still do math by hand... I think it's important to keep yourself sharp that you not use calculators for everything, and for kids it's even more important to keep them away from calculators.
Why? Doing math by hand develop and keep alive our mental "back of the envelope calculator" ability. If you mistype or the calculator misfires while doing 6.424*9 the most likely way you're going to catch it is by that little voice in the back of your head saying "I know what 6 * 9 is and I know what 7 * 9 is and neither of them is around 6400.
Nope... wouldn't happen. Her vibrator was licensed, not sold. But don't blame Bill... it's those damn vibrator manufacturers and their "per-vagina" licensing model.
Not to sound pedantic, but I don't think so. Mala is the plural of malum. The original poster's usage was:
d =1202&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
malum prohibitum and malum in se. Seems correct.
Malum prohibitum crimes are crimes that are (literally) "Evil because it's prohibited". seems correct... otherwise you get the awkward double plural "prohibited evils crimes".
Check out http://ecclesia.org/lawgiver/M.asp or perhaps http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selecte
No no no... Wasn't Einstein the guy that shot the apple off his kid's head?
In any case, it was nice to learn why birds can fly... where's my damn feather suit?
Uh... simply: No. The moon doesn't revolve around the earth. Both the moon and the earth revolve around the center of mass of the earth-moon system. This center of mass is thousands of kilometers away from the center of the earth.
(that ought to spin him up another couple hundred RPM!)
You nailed it on the head. There are multiple tons of debugged Fortran code for solving all sorts of engineering problems. The people using this code are looking to solve problems, not write neato computer code to solve problems and so there is actually a disincentive to write new code. :-)
Remember these folks are concerned with the elegance of the resulting bridge... not with the code that tells them said bridge will survive.
Very interesting!
*This* type of scam is exactly what I'm concerned about OpenWATCOM pulling. Again let me remind folks that after over a year the OpenWATCOM folks have yet to release anything other than a binary patch (that requires the paid version).
I hope the people that contributed to those guys don't get shafted.
Who the hell is moderating this stuff? A 2 for this paranoid dribble? Who is going to claim responsibility for an attack like this knowing it was going to provoke a global game of Whack-A-Mole?
Besides if you had listened to the news today you would have heard Osama's videotaped statement where he virtually claimed credit for the WTC attacks.
What you're saying is that we can't win even if we didn't strike back at all. And perhaps you're right... but maybe you're wrong and this is a situation we could win. Let's build a matrix:
______|_SitQuiet__|__ATTACK__|
Your__|___Lose____|___Lose___|
Mine__|___Lose____|____Win___|
So I'll take my chances with us striking back.
Found it!
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US04165753__
I worked at Galacticomm from '90 to '92 doing development. I dragged them kicking and screaming into the world of "286 or better required" when I based version 6 on the PharLap extender. Those were the days.
Tim Strkyer, the owner, was a... um... "unique" individual. His first company, Strkyer Pipes, failed. The product? A modular water bong (do a patent search on Delphion some time for "Smoker's Pipe" by Timothy Stryker of Danbury, Conn.) His children? Named Asia (like the continent), Ace Terran (like the playing card and Earth), and Mars (like the planet).
Tim committed suicide back in '95... to rephrase the song "Internet killed the BBS star".
I'm a firmware developer at a large *large* computer company. When attempting to get a brand new system to boot we'll frequently turn off or disable portions of the hardware... you know: minimize the variables we have to deal with.
:-(
Guess what? Under this law I'd be a felon because I'd be disabling this stuff. And the fact I'm working for a computer company developing a new system wouldn't shield me from criminal prosecution. If this goes through, I'll be looking to change to a safer job... developing children's applications perhaps (since that's the level this country is coming to).
The point, for those of you too dull to figure it out: If this were Microsoft asking for payment up front for a future piece of software that may or may not actually ever ship, all of the Slashdotters would be screaming bloody murder. But because these folks aren't a big corporation it's OK for them to scam people out of donations.
The whole mention to the WTC was solely to point out the contrast between giving a donation towards things that have actually happened, versus panhandleing on the promise that something good may happen in the future.
If I'm not misreading things, all of the developers working on the alleged future release are all under a NCA with Sybase. Sybase hasn't opened up the source yet under a license yet. So Sybase could decide to take their ball home and all of us wouldn't be able to play with it.
Now why you ask would Sybase seek to abuse Open Source Developers? Fine, let me throw up a hypothetical situation:
Sybase bought Watcom not for their compilers, but for their other products. Fine, so they can ditch the compilers, right? Wrong. Because all of Watcom's *other* products are built using the compiler. If they can't build their SQL product, they can't sell it.
So Sybase needs to have the compiler maintained, maybe some bugfixes, maybe they want that Linux port so they can migrate their products to Linux. But they don't want to pay for the development... What to do... What to do... I know! We'll lure some Open Source developers in to do the work... we'll put them under NCA so that they can't compete with us when it's done and we'll have them do the hard lifting. Once it's done, we tell them that the lawyers won't let us open source it (you know... all those other people's source code... *we'd* open source it if we could) and then we'll have our SQL product supported and we might even have a Linux compiler we can sell further on down the road.
Let's see... I could donate to the Sept 11 Fund to help out the families of the Firemen who died while actually saveing people *OR* I could give to a group of unknowns who have done nothing but delivered vaporware.
Looks like the firemen win.
Let's hear it for our Vermont and New Hampshire residents! I include New Hampshire because any state with the motto "Live Free or Die" has the right idea about our rights.
Umm... let's look at that list:
Compaq: in the ditch
HP: halfway into the ditch (with Compaq now pulling)
Lucent: the water in the bottom of the ditch
NEC: what do they actually make again?
Philips: Anything that sells their components. (i.e. Philips had near 0 marketshare in the sound card chip business. Change the target to "USB speakers" and now Phillips can leverage their chip making expertise (see I2C designs) to equal the footing with entrenched sound card competitors)