Alternately, run them on a read-only mount with plenty of cache. "Read-only" as in CD-ROM or hard disk with a hardware write-protect. After all, how often do you really need to change them?
Slightly less secure but still pretty easy to spot, just mount the system directories RO. That will guarantee log entries for changes!
Certain very popular operating systems have the odd habit of requiring that the system directories be read/write, but Linux isn't one of them.
Dunno about Canada, but in the USA you can get a lot of sites' management's attention really fast by asking about disabled access. Tell 'em you depend on, say, Lynx for speech-to-text.
The reason seems to be that unlike the random noncommercial or advertising sites, banks live under Federal regs give make disabled access regulations teeth.
Any sites found by a court of competent jusridiction to meet the terms of the Act can be added to the DENY tables; obviously censorship restraint does require judicial review.
that a few years ago MICROS~1 persuaded the Customs Service to block the import of Taiwanese PCs which didn't have Windows installed. The grounds cited were that the only possible use of these machines was installation of pirated copies of MS software, and thus their importation was contributory to copyright infringment.
Since for all practical purposes all silicon design tools run exclusively on *nix, a very good starting place is the chip-design industry.
At last word Intel was hiring anything that wasn't down to room temperature, although that may have to do with their working-environment reputation. Still, there are lots of other companies that design ICs.
Since the e-mail was sent to you, that is evidence enough that the sender intended for you to read it. Using software that can understand the format cannot be construed as an attempt to violate the copyright.
No, no. This isn't a matter of copyright violation. The problem is that the software you would use to read the message was a circumvention device and the provider was trafficking in circumvention devices. Which is illegal even if every single actual use of the software happens to be legal.
If you used to work for them, I see them hard pressed to force you to sign anything, unless your contract required it, and only if those aspects of the contract are still in force after you ended your employment.
My employer, at least, has a general assignment as part of the new-employee packet. It's better to have a specific assignment, declaration, etc. but in a pinch (e.g., when a cow orker died) this seems to work.
IF, however, you feel there is any doubt whether you had a direct hand in the invention, or if you doubt that it constitutes a real innovation, get yourself a lawyer.
He has one. The patent firm dealing with the matter is his lawyer, not the former employer's. That's why they need him to sign a power of attorney. Regardless of who pays the bills, the firm's client is the applicant.
That said, patent applicants (that means YOU) have an affirmative duty to disclose prior art known to them, and this duty continues beyond the time of initial application. In other words, if you find out two days before the patent issues that the exact same invention was described in some journal the year you were born, you still must disclose this to the USPTO.
Now with that in mind, if you have have or come by any knowledge that the claimed invention is not both novel and useful, you personally have a duty to disclose that fact. Your patent agent (one hopes obviously) has more interest in a career than this one application, so you can probably count on her to Do the Right Thing.
Re:Perhaps they know a thing or two...
on
NYT On Open Source
·
· Score: 2
I do agree with his perspective that a large mass of people will simply never be able to match the work a few skilled programmers.
Conversely, a few skilled programmers will never be able to match the work of a large mass of people. Thomas Alva Edison (who arguably knew what he was talking about) had some choice words on the relationship between genius, inspiration, and perspiration.
Jim Grey earlier writings pointed out a key problem: those geniuses laboring away in a closet are all too often duplicating work that's already been done.
someone passing around a modified version of PGP which surrepetitiously compromises the security of the message in some other way?
For instance, if my system admin put an altered PGP binary on the network which passed copies of the plaintext to a logfile, I would be at least as hosed. And it would be a lot less work for the Company. Similar exploits abound; after all how many of us actually read all of our source line-for-line?
In this case, the corrupted code came from NSI. (And you decided to trust NSI, of all people, because...?)
It's true, we could turn around our product three times as fast without all of the process overhead, and I think sometimes management is tempted to go that way.
No you wouldn't. Without the detailed upfront stuff, test suites, full specs, etc. you'd be adding an extra day of coding, two days of integration, and four of testing for every upfront day you saved. If you were lucky, that is.
Been there, done that. In almost thirty years in this business the fastest projects I've ever been involved with were always the ones with the most religious observance of Best Practices. The latest and more over-budget ones were the ones that cut corners, and the time & money sinks were always in the "Gosh, maybe we should have paid more attention to that up front" category.
# WRT the impossibility of gettin one's code reviewed Hire a contractor. Seriously.
Temps are often used for development (IMHO foolish) but one thing that they can do with relatively little preparation is design reviews. They come in with no other commitments, no agendas, and plenty of focus: they are there to review, period.
The decision seems to have placed great emphasis on the economic desires of the plaintiffs to control distribution. It refers particularly to the practice of restricted distribution, although without direct reference to region coding.
Nowhere, however, in either trial testimony, the Plaintiffs' briefs, or the decision itself do I find any attempt to base the Plaintiffs' control of post-sale performance on either statutory or Constitutional law. It's just there. Nor is there any reference at all to 17 U.S.C. 109(c):
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.
How does the Court get around this one? Or is it just begging to be reversed on appeal?
As others have noted, the SDRAM/DDR/RDRAM issue is about the communication channel between the memory device and the controller, which is independent of the storage mechanism used.
DDRII (next-generation DDR) is targeted for cycle times of 2500 ps in large systems and 1250 ps in small ones. In contrast, current DDR runs 2500 in small systems (e.g., video controllers). One hopes that main memory running at 3.2 GB/s for 64-bit memory will stave off disaster for a little while. The truly greedy will just have to go to 128-bit memory.
WRT storage technology, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned FRAM. Ferroelectric RAM is nonvolatile and much denser than flash; as dimensions sink, it's even denser than regular DRAM. Which is why the big memory houses are furiously searching for a way to reliably manufacture it.
WRT CMOS leakage:
The trouble is that the transistors don't turn off completely. There are always some thermal carriers in the channel. If the transistor has a high threshold voltage, the minority carriers are extremely rare and leakage is small. As the threshold voltage goes down, the number of minority carriers increases and the leakage current rises. The ultra-small devices needed for ultrahigh density memory have to have really low threshold voltages for a lot of reasons, so they leak. A lot.
(Speaking as a transistor-level CMOS designer.)
Big whoop. The @Home AUP already prohibits connecting any servers to their network, and they go to considerable pain to make it clear that they're not just talking web, ftp, etc. If any of your computers are listening to any TCP ports you're in violation.
Since they don't (can't?) enforce this most people aren't bothered by it in the least. A few of us have hangups about making agreements with the intent to violate the terms, so we avoid @Home. Not that there aren't plenty of reasons to avoid them without ethical excuses...
So it's not like Intel is giving up on RDRAM altogether - just on the lower-end machines. If they were switching because one is better, then they would just drop RDRAM totally.
Which means that the server market (>50% of DRAM sales), the portable and low-end desktop market (>30% of DRAM sales) are conceded to DDR. Leaving only the high-end desktop (<10%) for possible RDRAM territory. With that little volume, RDRAM is a niche product with niche-product pricing, always a generation behind in design and process, etc.
Obviously, the really important thing about this brick is that MS will be selling it below cost. So when can we expect enough HW data to start cranking a Linux port?
Slashdot Mirror
Alternately, run them on a read-only mount with plenty of cache. "Read-only" as in CD-ROM or hard disk with a hardware write-protect. After all, how often do you really need to change them?
Slightly less secure but still pretty easy to spot, just mount the system directories RO. That will guarantee log entries for changes!
Certain very popular operating systems have the odd habit of requiring that the system directories be read/write, but Linux isn't one of them.
the earlier story about Wine running Excel and Word takes on new meaning.
Dunno about Canada, but in the USA you can get a lot of sites' management's attention really fast by asking about disabled access. Tell 'em you depend on, say, Lynx for speech-to-text.
The reason seems to be that unlike the random noncommercial or advertising sites, banks live under Federal regs give make disabled access regulations teeth.
Rambus has a long list of nasties. Any one of them might be annoying, but collectively they make the whole thing a house of cards. Issues:
There are other problems, but that's a good starting point.
What do you think about Nader's support of a MAXIMUM WAGE? ie. Nader wants the goverment to PROHIBIT people from earning more than $X dollars...
Isn't it amazing that the proposed max is just a bit more than his own income?
Looks to me like a DENY table will work.
Any sites found by a court of competent jusridiction to meet the terms of the Act can be added to the DENY tables; obviously censorship restraint does require judicial review.
Yes, look closely : nothing strikes you ?!?!
Zoom->in : "bringing _HER_ back"
Simpler explanation:
When something goes down, men wish it were a woman.
that a few years ago MICROS~1 persuaded the Customs Service to block the import of Taiwanese PCs which didn't have Windows installed. The grounds cited were that the only possible use of these machines was installation of pirated copies of MS software, and thus their importation was contributory to copyright infringment.
Anyone have a cite on that?
Since for all practical purposes all silicon design tools run exclusively on *nix, a very good starting place is the chip-design industry.
At last word Intel was hiring anything that wasn't down to room temperature, although that may have to do with their working-environment reputation. Still, there are lots of other companies that design ICs.
ISPs are another possiblity.
FWIW, I know these guys (without going into the relationship) and their Numero Uno software dude is a serious Linux user. Fear not.
Also, since the setup is basically just a PCI bridge it's pretty much OS transparent.
Since the e-mail was sent to you, that is evidence enough that the sender intended for you to read it. Using software that can understand the format cannot be construed as an attempt to violate the copyright.
No, no. This isn't a matter of copyright violation. The problem is that the software you would use to read the message was a circumvention device and the provider was trafficking in circumvention devices. Which is illegal even if every single actual use of the software happens to be legal.
If you used to work for them, I see them hard pressed to force you to sign anything, unless your contract required it, and only if those aspects of the contract are still in force after you ended your employment.
My employer, at least, has a general assignment as part of the new-employee packet. It's better to have a specific assignment, declaration, etc. but in a pinch (e.g., when a cow orker died) this seems to work.
IF, however, you feel there is any doubt whether you had a direct hand in the invention, or if you doubt that it constitutes a real innovation, get yourself a lawyer.
He has one. The patent firm dealing with the matter is his lawyer, not the former employer's. That's why they need him to sign a power of attorney. Regardless of who pays the bills, the firm's client is the applicant.
Of course, IANAL.
That said, patent applicants (that means YOU) have an affirmative duty to disclose prior art known to them, and this duty continues beyond the time of initial application. In other words, if you find out two days before the patent issues that the exact same invention was described in some journal the year you were born, you still must disclose this to the USPTO.
Now with that in mind, if you have have or come by any knowledge that the claimed invention is not both novel and useful, you personally have a duty to disclose that fact. Your patent agent (one hopes obviously) has more interest in a career than this one application, so you can probably count on her to Do the Right Thing.
I do agree with his perspective that a large mass of people will simply never be able to match the work a few skilled programmers.
Conversely, a few skilled programmers will never be able to match the work of a large mass of people. Thomas Alva Edison (who arguably knew what he was talking about) had some choice words on the relationship between genius, inspiration, and perspiration.
Jim Grey earlier writings pointed out a key problem: those geniuses laboring away in a closet are all too often duplicating work that's already been done.
someone passing around a modified version of PGP which surrepetitiously compromises the security of the message in some other way?
For instance, if my system admin put an altered PGP binary on the network which passed copies of the plaintext to a logfile, I would be at least as hosed. And it would be a lot less work for the Company. Similar exploits abound; after all how many of us actually read all of our source line-for-line?
In this case, the corrupted code came from NSI. (And you decided to trust NSI, of all people, because...?)
It's true, we could turn around our product three times as fast without all of the process overhead, and I think sometimes management is tempted to go that way.
No you wouldn't. Without the detailed upfront stuff, test suites, full specs, etc. you'd be adding an extra day of coding, two days of integration, and four of testing for every upfront day you saved. If you were lucky, that is.
Been there, done that. In almost thirty years in this business the fastest projects I've ever been involved with were always the ones with the most religious observance of Best Practices. The latest and more over-budget ones were the ones that cut corners, and the time & money sinks were always in the "Gosh, maybe we should have paid more attention to that up front" category.
# WRT the impossibility of gettin one's code reviewed
Hire a contractor. Seriously.
Temps are often used for development (IMHO foolish) but one thing that they can do with relatively little preparation is design reviews. They come in with no other commitments, no agendas, and plenty of focus: they are there to review, period.
Nowhere, however, in either trial testimony, the Plaintiffs' briefs, or the decision itself do I find any attempt to base the Plaintiffs' control of post-sale performance on either statutory or Constitutional law. It's just there. Nor is there any reference at all to 17 U.S.C. 109(c):
How does the Court get around this one? Or is it just begging to be reversed on appeal?
DDRII (next-generation DDR) is targeted for cycle times of 2500 ps in large systems and 1250 ps in small ones. In contrast, current DDR runs 2500 in small systems (e.g., video controllers). One hopes that main memory running at 3.2 GB/s for 64-bit memory will stave off disaster for a little while. The truly greedy will just have to go to 128-bit memory.
WRT storage technology, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned FRAM. Ferroelectric RAM is nonvolatile and much denser than flash; as dimensions sink, it's even denser than regular DRAM. Which is why the big memory houses are furiously searching for a way to reliably manufacture it.
WRT CMOS leakage:
The trouble is that the transistors don't turn off completely. There are always some thermal carriers in the channel. If the transistor has a high threshold voltage, the minority carriers are extremely rare and leakage is small. As the threshold voltage goes down, the number of minority carriers increases and the leakage current rises. The ultra-small devices needed for ultrahigh density memory have to have really low threshold voltages for a lot of reasons, so they leak. A lot.
(Speaking as a transistor-level CMOS designer.)
IBM were to open-source NDS?
Big whoop. The @Home AUP already prohibits connecting any servers to their network, and they go to considerable pain to make it clear that they're not just talking web, ftp, etc. If any of your computers are listening to any TCP ports you're in violation.
Since they don't (can't?) enforce this most people aren't bothered by it in the least. A few of us have hangups about making agreements with the intent to violate the terms, so we avoid @Home. Not that there aren't plenty of reasons to avoid them without ethical excuses...
So it's not like Intel is giving up on RDRAM altogether - just on the lower-end machines. If they were switching because one is better, then they would just drop RDRAM totally.
Which means that the server market (>50% of DRAM sales), the portable and low-end desktop market (>30% of DRAM sales) are conceded to DDR. Leaving only the high-end desktop (<10%) for possible RDRAM territory. With that little volume, RDRAM is a niche product with niche-product pricing, always a generation behind in design and process, etc.
In other words, not viable.
Market stats courtesy of Advanced Memory International
Obviously, the really important thing about this brick is that MS will be selling it below cost. So when can we expect enough HW data to start cranking a Linux port?