In most adaptive filters, only words that have been used a certain number of times are taken into consideration. For example, the original Plan for Spam algorithm ignores any word that doesn't appear over 5 times in the corpus.
As the volume of spam approaches infinity, all words will end up in the spam portion of the corpus 100 times because of this technique. The Bayesian filters will then have to start looking at higher order statistics in order to filter out any ham (pairwise usage, subject verb correlations. etc.)
to get the quality of 35mm analog film you'll need at least 10 megapixels
If you shoot using a properly focused high quality lens with the camera mounted on a tripod, enlarge to 8 by 10, and examine the print closely under good lighting, OK.
But that's a tiny percentage of actual photographs. For typical hand-held fixed or auto focused snapshots, printed without additional enlargement on 4x6's at the local drug store, and viewed under typical living room lighting at a 20" viewing distance by people with normal eyesight, a 2 megapixel digital camera might equal the perceivable quality of 35mm, or even 120.
It leaves you liable for up to $150,000 per infringment. You can also immediately get slapped with a restraining order. Any commercial case will automaticaly qualify as a felony with up to five years in prision.
...
Thus far all GPL copyright holders have been amazingly generous and agreed to settle out of court for nothing more than belated compliance with the GPL.
And why would they settle if they could easily stock the FSF fund with N * $150k and set legal precedent?
Perhaps you don't get that the copyright law is based on contract law. By distributing the derived code, they are agreeing to follow the rules of the contract, IE the GPL.
Better check all the software you've downloaded to make sure there are no fine print clauses requiring you to give up your first born child to Bill Gates...
also read up on specific performance and how often courts order it, even for violation of a signed contract.
If they distributed the derived code, they were already required to under the GPL. They MAY just be forced to follow through with the agreement THEY made when THEY distributed GPL'd code.
Where in copyright law does it say you have to agree to some sort of license just because you might be violating the copyright?
In addition, how could damages of 'free' software be assesed in terms of dollars?
Exactly. If there are no damages in dollars, then perhaps you can distribute GPL'd code without any monetary penalty (beyond the big bucks you might have to pay your lawyers). That will be an interesting issue for a court to decide.
Remember, the GPL gives you additional rights over normal copyright law.
Unless freely, publically, and widely releasing code under the GPL was considered by the courts as tantamount to placing it into the public domain, thus rendering the copyright essentially unenforceable. Then copyright law would give you more rights.
I imagine a system similar to copyright registration and escrow services, where a neutral third party would receive code checkins/snapshots that would be time-stamped, "sealed" as evidence (and compared against SCO sources, natch). Then the owner would stand on more solid ground, and even unpaid open-source developers would have a chance to protect their work. Of course, such a service would have to be highly affordable, perhaps even free, SourceForge-style; in fact, this is something SourceForge ought to support and promote.
Why not just register the entire contents of SourceForge with the PTO every 30 days? Doesn't a US copyright registration on file allow for larger damages or something?
Releasing the source code merely means they stop commiting more violations and stop increasing their liability.
But how was there any violation, since the GPL doesn't specify exactly how many days one can take to ship a copy of source code to the person requesting it? One ping round trip, one decade, what's the diff??
In addition, they could probably be made to open the code they distributed if they were found to have acted in bad faith, but that's for the courts to decide.
Where in copyright law does it say that violators have to reveal trade secrets? It looks more like any damages assesed would be in terms of dollars instead.
f you win the courte case and the GPL is found to be unenforcable then standard copyright takes over. In which case you've distributed copyrighted code without a valid licence and you'll get sued for damages.
There's also the possibility that a court would rule that the damages for this copyright violation are zero, since GPL'd software is declared as being distributable for free (in economic terms). So the voilators would have to stop, but if they didn't, maybe the damages they'd have to pay would be found to be zero.
Maybe the GPL would be stronger if it required every user to send a penny to every contributor (or their favorite charaty) as legal consideration and exchange.
First off, I don't want to have to have a credit check run on me when I just want to run a mail server for personal, non-commercial use. Second, I don't want to have to pay money for that same privilege.
There's nothing that says you have to do so. There is also nothing that says that the bandwidth which I pay for has to carry email from people who don't jump thru enough hoops to show that they are unlikely to be a professional spammer. So you can run your unidentified mailserver, and hopefully the bulk of the net will start to ignore mail sent by you and the spammers who look exactly like you as far as we can tell. Then the hubs can start to charge extra to carry this stuff as a value added service.
The way it works in the real world is that people build imperfect fences and walls to help limit access from the riff-raff who fill up the commons. But you are free to still go backpacking out in the wild if you want to see the "uncivilized" parts of the planet. The same will happen to net protocols. Most people will only read signed email certificated by their chosen set of Balkenized certification organizations (the walls); only a few nerds (the backpackers) and police tip lines (etc.) will still monitor open SMTP. They will be the ones who will end up paying for the bandwidth that the current type of spam uses.
All it will take is for spam to fill 90%+ of SMTP bandwidth, and then for 90%+ of (paying) email users to eventually move to some other (more secure) protocol. The bandwidth providers will then follow the money.
Or anonymous e-mail. That's where this "signed" e-mail crap is going.
There's no problem sending anonymous email. There's nothing to say that bandwidth I pay for has to carry it though. If you want it, you can pay extra for it. Maybe only police tip lines and rape crisis centers (etc.) will scan unsigned email in the future.
For one, even if there's no central authority, how would I get my mailserver approved?
You'd pay your upstream connections to approve you. The cost would cover verifying your ID at a court or escrow office, and doing a credit check, so people would know how to collect after winning a lawsuit if you violate the TOS for sending signed email. Since your assets would be on the line, you would take similar care verifying your downstream connections. Mailing lists would all move to web sites, where the only way to opt-in is set up your web browser to visit periodically (The way "opt-in" should be done.)
I think solutions like this likely do far more to Balkanize the Internet than to protect it.
That's the idea, to Balkanize internet connections to those mailservers most likely to properly police their outbound email. Legitimate users would all gradually move to one of these ISP's, leaving spammers 100% of SMTP bandwidth. Of course, then the major hubs will merely throttle SMTP connections to 0.001% of available bandwidth since there no longer would be any money in it.
Forget the spammers. Track down their clients, the ones paying for the ads.
Only if someone can figure out a way to weed out "Joe Jobs".
The only historically proven method to prevent a tragedy of the commons is via the use of weapons, and/or some mechanism which allows lawyers to make lots of money.
Don't stop drinking coffee outright. That will give you a awful headache that even ibuprofen won't help. Just taper off by about half-a-cup less a day, starting several days before you want to be off coffee. If you can taper-off completely, you're not addicted, it's just that your body is acclimatized to caffeine.
I used to do this once a year when I was working at a dot com where they had espresso machines everywhere. I'd start 2 weeks before a trip, and gradually cut back from several double espressos a day to one coffee to a small chocolate bar. Then I could go on long backpack trips; or stay at conferences at really weird places, such as Provo, Utah, where one can't get coffee on campus legally.
No, I really don't see whats so "fucked up" about Christmas or the "terrible" psychology of giving GIFTS to these improverished children. Could you please elaborate?
Tons of churches in America sermonize on the over-commercialization of the Christmas holidays and how this covers up any "true" meaning. I'm sure you can google for a few sources, both religious and non.
I suggest you take a class on persuasive argumentation beause your diatribe was netiher insightful or interesting. Until then, your thesis remains unproven.
This is Slashdot. What you find here will seldom be persuasive, but will be quite insightful if you aren't too narrow-minded and do your own research. Read up on the effects of advertising and marketing on large scale economic/cultural behavior, decide whether all this behavior is beneficial for mankind according to your system of ethics, and maybe even reflect on how much your own behavior is affected by these cultural trends.
It's hard for a fish (American consumer) to see the water (cultural marketing) about them. But one of the keys to defeating an enemy (murderous Islamic extremists, etc.) is to understand where they're coming from.
at least make it mandatory to for-profit organizations to give a certain minimum amount
Wouldn't this violate the GPL, unless eminent domain was invoked or copyright law were changed? (making free software illegal for instance... either you pay the author, or pay the government.)
However, the same can not be said of computers, for the average user. Thus, until it is easy for the average user to lockdown their computer properly, punishment should rest on the person who mis-used the computer.
The way this is typically solved is to call it a tax instead of punishment or a fine. Average users will simply be taxed for having an insecure PC on the net; smart users will purchase "tax shelters" (e.g. firewalls, virus/malware scanners, Mac's, etc.) Quite similar to how some states offer a break on auto registration fee's for vehicles using alternative power (electric, natural gas, etc.)
A book bag or soft briefcase made by a company that make rugged outdoor gear is less likely to come apart under typical use/abuse, and doesn't attract as much attention as a Logo'd laptop case. Put your laptop inside a neoprene sleve inside the soft briefcase or small backpack, add a thick magazine (Wired, etc.) on the display side, and you will have a rugged case that doesn't yell "steal me!" in crowded public spaces.
And if you need an expensive briefcase to be seen along with your Armani business suit at some client meeting, carry your laptop in the backpack and your clean shirt/underwear in the expensive case on the trip thru the airport (but this is Slashdot, so never mind...)
If they say unlimited, they better damn well mean that I have infinite, boundless bandwidth.
Nothing in the real world is unlimited, so by your interpretation, it's illegal to use that word.
In actuality, your interpretation is only relevant if you can convince a judge that it not only constitutes illegal advertising, but also trumps any abuse clauses in the TOS for which the ISP probably has your signature on file as agreeing to.
one of the best solutions (or actually work-arounds) for the current protocol is obvious, and already being used by several major ISPs... opt-in for ALL email.
This only works if email headers can't be forged so easily. If they can, then spammers will merely start collecting email address-pairs, addresses (stolen by malware/spyware, or from mailing-lists, school, work or professional directories, etc.) of people who are likely to have whitelisted each other, and then forging the From address to be someone likely to be on your opt-in/whitelist.
Besides, what possible monetary damages could there be to the GPLed project?
For software that is not dual licensed, not only could the monetary damages be held to be zero, but there still is the issue of whether a court would actually issue an injunction against the distribution of IP, for which not only are the monetary damages zero, but which is widely distributed, aggregated and is licensed for use by anybody for free with permission of the copyright owner. In other words, does copyright law allow restricting the transfer of IP between two parties who are both authorized by the copyright holder to store, view and freely use the IP?
Have you been mugged lately? Now which do you suppose your users are going to give up... Their right ear or their pin # and ibutton?
With the new model biometric eButton, which requires both a PIN and a right ear print before producing a one-time password, you get to give Guido all of the above.
Slashdot Mirror
As the volume of spam approaches infinity, all words will end up in the spam portion of the corpus 100 times because of this technique. The Bayesian filters will then have to start looking at higher order statistics in order to filter out any ham (pairwise usage, subject verb correlations. etc.)
If you shoot using a properly focused high quality lens with the camera mounted on a tripod, enlarge to 8 by 10, and examine the print closely under good lighting, OK.
But that's a tiny percentage of actual photographs. For typical hand-held fixed or auto focused snapshots, printed without additional enlargement on 4x6's at the local drug store, and viewed under typical living room lighting at a 20" viewing distance by people with normal eyesight, a 2 megapixel digital camera might equal the perceivable quality of 35mm, or even 120.
You forget about the gazillions of Kodak Brownies and Instamatics that almost every family used to own. 120, 127 and 110 film sizes mostly.
...
Thus far all GPL copyright holders have been amazingly generous and agreed to settle out of court for nothing more than belated compliance with the GPL.
And why would they settle if they could easily stock the FSF fund with N * $150k and set legal precedent?
Better check all the software you've downloaded to make sure there are no fine print clauses requiring you to give up your first born child to Bill Gates...
also read up on specific performance and how often courts order it, even for violation of a signed contract.
Where in copyright law does it say you have to agree to some sort of license just because you might be violating the copyright?
In addition, how could damages of 'free' software be assesed in terms of dollars?
Exactly. If there are no damages in dollars, then perhaps you can distribute GPL'd code without any monetary penalty (beyond the big bucks you might have to pay your lawyers). That will be an interesting issue for a court to decide.
Unless freely, publically, and widely releasing code under the GPL was considered by the courts as tantamount to placing it into the public domain, thus rendering the copyright essentially unenforceable. Then copyright law would give you more rights.
Why not just register the entire contents of SourceForge with the PTO every 30 days? Doesn't a US copyright registration on file allow for larger damages or something?
But how was there any violation, since the GPL doesn't specify exactly how many days one can take to ship a copy of source code to the person requesting it? One ping round trip, one decade, what's the diff??
Where in copyright law does it say that violators have to reveal trade secrets? It looks more like any damages assesed would be in terms of dollars instead.
There's also the possibility that a court would rule that the damages for this copyright violation are zero, since GPL'd software is declared as being distributable for free (in economic terms). So the voilators would have to stop, but if they didn't, maybe the damages they'd have to pay would be found to be zero.
Maybe the GPL would be stronger if it required every user to send a penny to every contributor (or their favorite charaty) as legal consideration and exchange.
Let's not forget restaurants, bookstores and coffee shops actually sell things.
Selling things at a loss is a worse businesss plan than not having any product at all.
There's nothing that says you have to do so. There is also nothing that says that the bandwidth which I pay for has to carry email from people who don't jump thru enough hoops to show that they are unlikely to be a professional spammer. So you can run your unidentified mailserver, and hopefully the bulk of the net will start to ignore mail sent by you and the spammers who look exactly like you as far as we can tell. Then the hubs can start to charge extra to carry this stuff as a value added service.
The way it works in the real world is that people build imperfect fences and walls to help limit access from the riff-raff who fill up the commons. But you are free to still go backpacking out in the wild if you want to see the "uncivilized" parts of the planet. The same will happen to net protocols. Most people will only read signed email certificated by their chosen set of Balkenized certification organizations (the walls); only a few nerds (the backpackers) and police tip lines (etc.) will still monitor open SMTP. They will be the ones who will end up paying for the bandwidth that the current type of spam uses.
All it will take is for spam to fill 90%+ of SMTP bandwidth, and then for 90%+ of (paying) email users to eventually move to some other (more secure) protocol. The bandwidth providers will then follow the money.
Or anonymous e-mail. That's where this "signed" e-mail crap is going.
There's no problem sending anonymous email. There's nothing to say that bandwidth I pay for has to carry it though. If you want it, you can pay extra for it. Maybe only police tip lines and rape crisis centers (etc.) will scan unsigned email in the future.
You'd pay your upstream connections to approve you. The cost would cover verifying your ID at a court or escrow office, and doing a credit check, so people would know how to collect after winning a lawsuit if you violate the TOS for sending signed email. Since your assets would be on the line, you would take similar care verifying your downstream connections. Mailing lists would all move to web sites, where the only way to opt-in is set up your web browser to visit periodically (The way "opt-in" should be done.)
I think solutions like this likely do far more to Balkanize the Internet than to protect it.
That's the idea, to Balkanize internet connections to those mailservers most likely to properly police their outbound email. Legitimate users would all gradually move to one of these ISP's, leaving spammers 100% of SMTP bandwidth. Of course, then the major hubs will merely throttle SMTP connections to 0.001% of available bandwidth since there no longer would be any money in it.
Forget the spammers. Track down their clients, the ones paying for the ads.
Only if someone can figure out a way to weed out "Joe Jobs".
The only historically proven method to prevent a tragedy of the commons is via the use of weapons, and/or some mechanism which allows lawyers to make lots of money.
I used to do this once a year when I was working at a dot com where they had espresso machines everywhere. I'd start 2 weeks before a trip, and gradually cut back from several double espressos a day to one coffee to a small chocolate bar. Then I could go on long backpack trips; or stay at conferences at really weird places, such as Provo, Utah, where one can't get coffee on campus legally.
Tons of churches in America sermonize on the over-commercialization of the Christmas holidays and how this covers up any "true" meaning. I'm sure you can google for a few sources, both religious and non.
I suggest you take a class on persuasive argumentation beause your diatribe was netiher insightful or interesting. Until then, your thesis remains unproven.
This is Slashdot. What you find here will seldom be persuasive, but will be quite insightful if you aren't too narrow-minded and do your own research. Read up on the effects of advertising and marketing on large scale economic/cultural behavior, decide whether all this behavior is beneficial for mankind according to your system of ethics, and maybe even reflect on how much your own behavior is affected by these cultural trends.
It's hard for a fish (American consumer) to see the water (cultural marketing) about them. But one of the keys to defeating an enemy (murderous Islamic extremists, etc.) is to understand where they're coming from.
Wouldn't this violate the GPL, unless eminent domain was invoked or copyright law were changed? (making free software illegal for instance... either you pay the author, or pay the government.)
Virii, spyware, malware, etc. scanning the Address books and inboxes of any mutual aquaintances.
The way this is typically solved is to call it a tax instead of punishment or a fine. Average users will simply be taxed for having an insecure PC on the net; smart users will purchase "tax shelters" (e.g. firewalls, virus/malware scanners, Mac's, etc.) Quite similar to how some states offer a break on auto registration fee's for vehicles using alternative power (electric, natural gas, etc.)
A book bag or soft briefcase made by a company that make rugged outdoor gear is less likely to come apart under typical use/abuse, and doesn't attract as much attention as a Logo'd laptop case. Put your laptop inside a neoprene sleve inside the soft briefcase or small backpack, add a thick magazine (Wired, etc.) on the display side, and you will have a rugged case that doesn't yell "steal me!" in crowded public spaces.
And if you need an expensive briefcase to be seen along with your Armani business suit at some client meeting, carry your laptop in the backpack and your clean shirt/underwear in the expensive case on the trip thru the airport (but this is Slashdot, so never mind...)
Nothing in the real world is unlimited, so by your interpretation, it's illegal to use that word.
In actuality, your interpretation is only relevant if you can convince a judge that it not only constitutes illegal advertising, but also trumps any abuse clauses in the TOS for which the ISP probably has your signature on file as agreeing to.
This only works if email headers can't be forged so easily. If they can, then spammers will merely start collecting email address-pairs, addresses (stolen by malware/spyware, or from mailing-lists, school, work or professional directories, etc.) of people who are likely to have whitelisted each other, and then forging the From address to be someone likely to be on your opt-in/whitelist.
For software that is not dual licensed, not only could the monetary damages be held to be zero, but there still is the issue of whether a court would actually issue an injunction against the distribution of IP, for which not only are the monetary damages zero, but which is widely distributed, aggregated and is licensed for use by anybody for free with permission of the copyright owner. In other words, does copyright law allow restricting the transfer of IP between two parties who are both authorized by the copyright holder to store, view and freely use the IP?
With the new model biometric eButton, which requires both a PIN and a right ear print before producing a one-time password, you get to give Guido all of the above.