Actually, patents are going to be published at 18 months now. You'll be able to send little "see what I found about your patent" notes to the corporations, if you want to spend the time. This rule change became effective November 29, 2000.
Thalia
I think the #1 reason, and the one Mr. Sterling lists as unlucky #13 is:
13. This is unlucky 13, the grand finale. Californians feel lambasted, defrauded, and bamboozled by Old Economy "pirate generators" such as (let's name names here) Reliant Energy, El Paso Energy, Dynegy, Duke Energy, AES, Southern, Calpine, and Enron. But Enron in particular is George W. Bush's favorite company in the whole wide world. James W. Baker is Enron's lawyer. The Pirate Generators own Washington. The Information Superhighway is suddenly yesterday's news, somebody else's concept, all hype and ozone. The NASDAQ is in the tank, while the utility sector is the new darling of Wall Street. Furthermore, it very much galls the new administration that the homeland of Reagan is currently run by Democrats. An economic crunch in California is the prelude to a political assault from Washington.
The deregulation of the utilities in California is the legacy of Pete Wilson. I expect the Republicans are not too appreciative of California, even though we generate a larger percentage of the GNP than any other state... but we voted for Gore. I'm investing in a generator...
You can read the settlement agreement here. The short version is that Microsoft can't use the "Java Compatible" trademark, but can continue to distribute it's version 1.1.4 of Java, for another seven years. Apparently the 1.1.4 version has been modified to pass Sun's compliance tests.
Yet another example of intellectual property rights being used to do the right thing...
Is it just me, or does this remind everyone of the tactics used by the Nazis? I know it's popular to say Nazi-something for anything that you dislike (those feminazis, and nazi-music-recording companies and so on.) But this actually does quite closely echo the actions of the Third Reich.
Specifically, the Hitlerei's policy was to train children in school to turn in their classmates, their parents, and anyone else who they believed was "subversive." It was part of the daily "civics" class. This actually worked very well for them, and was in turn adopted by the Communists in Eastern Europe. Lest you Americans feel too smug, the McCarthy-ites did this as well, using the Alert Society.
If we train kids in school now, to turn in their classmates, how long until we ask them to rat on their parents, for anti-social behavior, the use of drugs, etc.
I expect this is the Trinity attack that is described in considerably detail here by X-Force. You can find the actual article and anlysis of the Stacheldraht tool here written at the University of Washington. The author of that article claims that he wrote a program that detects Stacheldraht on a system. Of course, getting the ISPs that are sending these DDOS messages to actually use some security might be a bit difficult. By the way, this is old news, since the CERT advisory is dated June 99.
See this article which was published in the ACM. The reality is that software patents have their advantages. Which is not to say that there are no stupid software patents out there (there are plenty) but there are also patents that are worthwhile.
The real question is whether you approve of patents at all. If you do, you cannot just eliminate software patents. Why? Because software and hardware are realistically inseparable. Any competent patent attorney (or layperson for that matter) can couch a software patent in terms of memories accessed and data displayed. Then, it sounds like hardware. So there is no easy solution to outlawing software patents.
the claims. You can find the claims of this patent here.
The only independent claim states:
1. A method performed by a marketplace computer for facilitating electronic
commerce over a network between a plurality of seller and buyer computers,
the method comprising the steps of:
presenting a registration web page to a remote first seller computer over
the network;
receiving a first registration for a first product from the first seller
computer over the network, the first registration including a first
product description and a first Universal Resource Locator (URL)
indicating a first location of a first image of the first product, the
first location referencing the first seller computer or a third computer
on the network, and the first image being in one of a plurality of
predetermined source image formats;
presenting a registration web page to a remote second seller computer over
the network;
receiving a second registration for a second product from the second seller
computer over the network the second registration including a second
product description and a second URL indicating a second location of a
second image of the second product, the second location referencing the
second seller computer or a fourth computer on the network, and the second
image being in one of a plurality of predetermined source image formats;
retrieving the first image based on the received first URL;
manipulating the first image to produce a first thumbnail image of a first
predetermined size and format;
retrieving the second image based on the received second URL;
manipulating the second image to produce a second thumbnail image of a
second predetermined size and format;
creating a customized web page including the first and second thumbnail
images; and
presenting the customized web page to a buyer computer.
Nowthen, in order to infringe this patent (i.e. potentially be sued by EBay) there has to be at least 2 seller computers and a buyer computer involved, in an ecommerce situation. The images must be referenced from a third location.
This claim (although not particularly deep) certainly overcomes most of the "prior art" that has been tossed around. For example, all individual photo galleries, like the one shown here reference larger images on the same site. Furthermore, they are not in the context of ecommerce. Most sites generally have thumbnails of other images on the same site. This is not the case that is protected by EBay.
Seriously, read the claim FIRST, then bitch about the scope of the patent.
You can find an excellent review of existing keyboards & suggestions for improvements here. I especially like the Alternative Keyboard Gallery which includes images and descriptions of many keyboard styles. When this data glove becomes reality, I might well spend the big bucks.
The reality is that most of us don't work at the same computer all the time. (I have at least 5 computers that I work with.) I expect that it takes installing some sort of interface to make it work. So, I'd have to either drag around a keyboard wherever I go, or install 5 of these puppies. Plus, it still wouldn't help when I used the laptop.
Also, as someone who has done the Dvorak keyboard game in college, switching back and forth is a pain.
So, nothing for me. I'm still waiting for the dataglove that I can just wear & it'll wirelessly interface with whatever computer I'm using.
Go to Thomas the Legistlative Information Site. The Bill status for this particular bill (HR 46) can be found here, and you will find that it came out of committee on the 15th, and was passed by unanimous consent (i.e. no one spoke up against it) on the same day. That, by the way, is a sign indicating that the bill was never read by most of the folks who passed it. Think about it. It's a 20 page bill, it came out of Committee, went to the Senate Floor, an amendment (adding the computer crime clauses) was put in, and it was promptly passed. I expect all of these things happened in about 20 minutes. No one has actually bothered reading this bill yet.
You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.
The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)
Actually, your statistics rely on "public data." The Russians lie. There were at least two capsules that never made it up (explosions on launch), and a fair number that died on the ground (one of which, if I recall correctly, actually took out some high level brass observing nearby.) Not to mention at least one that we heard of where the astronauts died in the capsule, because of leaks. Of course, these events never made it into the "public record." One of the advantages of working in a totalitarian system, where you can truly control the media. (I heard of them because one of my father's friends worked on their projects as an engineer.)
So far, they went through two fans, and are on the third one for the only air purification system they have on-board. It appears, although the article doesn't specifically mention this, that the two failed fans can not be repaired. (although they say that one of the fans had a "bad electrical connector" which sounds like something emminently fixable.) The question of whether they could jury-rig an alternative fan is also not addressed.
By the way, according to the story, the replacement parts "will be ferried into orbit aboard Atlantis, scheduled for launch Jan. 18, or the next Progress supply ship, currently targeted for takeoff Feb. 10." This sounds like the next supply ship (December 26th) will not have these bits.
Well, even if the air supply system truly fails, they have 14 days, and we or the Russians can certainly launch in less time than that. The US doesn't lose astronauts as easily as the Russians, I expect we'd try to save them.
There are other projects organized by Open Mind that are designed to have non-skilled users teach computers character recognition and voice recognition. The handwriting recognition system is already on the Web. By using many individuals, the computer is taught to consistently recognize items.
I think the NASA project is basically make-work. After all, after all of the users have added their time and energy, the results are thrown away. They're not used to teach computers to recognize craters in the next evolution.
As you should all by now know, patents are interpretted based on their claims. The claims of this patent have a couple of major problems.
First, the patent claims call out a central computer (server), and a plurality of remote terminal means (clients), and modems. This means that the owners of the server can at best be sued for contributory infringement which means that they, along with the users, together infringe. This is a much harder case.
Second, most computers currently used are not terminals, they are independent PCs. Therefore, BT must use the doctrine of equivalents to show infringement. This is not easy.
Third, the claims are in the "means for" format. This means that only the appartus that is actually described in the specification can infringe the patent. Now the specification (which is the body of the patent) describes a system that uses analog modems to connect to a central computer via telephone lines (no network here).
This patent really appears to be about using an index of abbreviations (like titles) which are individually unique, to request data. The unique titles refer to unique addresses, at which the data is located. This certainly is not hyperlinks, except by the most strained of interpretations.
Don't expect this case to change the world of patents. Maybe, expect this case to be settled, if BT is asking for less than a lawyer would charge (if the licensing fee is under $100,000, it's just simpler to pay up... a standard patent lawsuit costs $1.5M or more.) Or, expect this patent go away when at the Markman hearing it is interpretted to not cover hyperlinks.
In general, you are correct, reverse engineering may be used to discover trade secrets. In this case, the MPAA's assertion is that reverse engineering is prohibited by license. Since to acquire a player, one must agree to the license (apparently it shows up before you can play anything, or it's in the box or something), you can not legitimately obtain a copy of the player without having agreed to this license. Therefore, the reverse engineering, generally acceptable, is prohibited.
Anyway, this decision is really about jurisdiction only, and whether the overburdened California courts are willing to take on cases which must be decided under laws of other states.
I must admit, I've never read a license that comes with a DVD. However, if it is the standard license, it probably does have a clause to the effect that "Purchaser agrees to submit to jurisdiction in the Courts of California." In that case, the California courts would probably be forced to deal with the case. But, California courts are notoriously overburdened, and would love to chuck out this case, to lighten their dockets. So, maybe the defendants have a chance on this basis.
Thalia
This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.
The real place for the white, or colored LEDs is in locations where replacing the light is a pain in the *ss. Think about it. If you need to replace a traffic light, you need to turn off the light, put a cop there, and drag out the truck and the guys to replace the bulb. Instead of incandescent, by using LEDs you can have replacements every 5+ years (because you'll have 40+ LED's and a few burned out ones won't be a problem). This makes perfect sense, and makes the added cost of the LEDs an excellent investment. (trust me, traffic cops on overtime make way more for the hour plus it takes to replace a bulb than the cost of 50 green LEDs.) This is why in the Bay Area, almost all red lights are already LEDs, and more and more yellows and greens are being changed.
Similarly, think about lights in places where they are difficult to replace. Embedded lights in offices come to mind. Anywhere were work has to stop to replace a light, it makes sense to pay $30 for a bulb. In the home, on the other hand, the cost of replacement is negligible. So, LEDs probably won't take over until they are almost as cheap as standard bulbs. On the other hand, I'd love to replace the pool lights with LEDs, because I have to lower the water level, which is a complete pain, to replace those lights.
If you are interested, this page has most of the known hacks for the WebPlayer.
If you feel left out, because the co-op is out of WebPlayers, check out ebay which has some WebPlayers for sale. Some of them are even less than the $110 offered by the co-op.
I'm planning on taking my WebPlayer apart, not reprogramming it. If you're into that as well, check out this page.
E-mail is a much less formal/traditional method of communication than the other examples provided by the authors of this story. This is borne out by the original messages sent.
The first message sent by telegram -- used to communicate only emergency and important messages -- was "What hath god wrought!" The first message sent by telephone -- used for quick person-to-person communication -- was "Mr. Watson, come here; I want you." The first message sent by email -- used to send garbage messages in circles -- was QWERTIOP. I think that says it all.
I agree with the concept that NSI should be forced to give up those domain names. And I do think that joining is a good idea. Although, if you join a class action, the likely recovery is in the pennies, while all the money is received by the named plaintiff and the attorneys, so keep that in mind.
But, on reading the complaint, I found a fairly major problem. In order to have an actual case, the plaintiffs have to prove that an action or lack of action by the defendant caused them harm, and that the defendant had a duty to act to prevent this harm. I see proof of harm, and that defendant (NSI) caused the harm. But this complaint does not allege a duty on NSI's part to give up those domain names.
The closest it comes is by stating: "NSI is restraining trade... despite the fact that NSI disclaims rights in domain names." (Statement of Facts, Paragraph 44). This is not enough to establish that the NSI has a duty to release those names. I expect that NSI's answer, which is not available online as far as I can tell, focuses on the fact that they have no duty to be prompt, or to release domain names.
I do think that a case could be made by the other registrars that the NSI's actions is an interference with their business. But it is much harder for an individual to take on the NSI, and somehow prove the obligation to release domain names.
Thalia
This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.
The odd bit of the story at the Chronicle is the accompanying picture which shows that a fern has 1.6*10^11 genomes, while humans have only 3.4 * 10^9. Ferns seem considerably simpler than humans (well, except for certain politicians who shall remain nameless). It certainly kills any theory that organism complexity determines genome length.
The joy of licensing is that you can write exactly what you want into a license. The patent itself doesn't at all regulate what the license will look like. I can obtain a patent, and tell the whole world that there is a free license, but only if they paint my house. No matter how ridiculous the terms, I can try to sell it to people. Similarly, there are already folks who offer a free license to patents. This type of license looks like freeware or the GPL, "use the patented technology, but follow these rules."
Proposed open patent license terms:
This patent covers the following technology: ---fill in the blank.-- A worldwide, perpetual, royalty free license is available to this technology. However, any product incorporating this techology must --fill in the blank.--
The alternative, and somewhat cheaper, solution is to not file for a patent, but file a Statutory Invention Registration. This is basically a mechanism that publishes a patent application, without awarding patent rights.
The third, and even cheaper, solution is to publish the invention, with a declaration that the technology is not now, nor will it be patented. This means that no one else can patent the technology (since this is proof of your invention, and the US is a first to invent country).
There ya go, all yours.
Thalia
This does not constitute legal advice, so don't even think it.
There was a report in 1996 that said that 65% of in-house testing hacks were successful. According to this more recent article, 3% of attempts caused damage, and only 1% managed to break into unclassified systems. That's a good sign, I think. Hacks are increasing at 10% a year, and security is increasing faster.
The Pentagon is trying to protect itself from future attacks by deciding to "to carefully consider the origin of all software used in developing or upgrading information technology or national security systems." It sounds like they're mostly worried about those "foreigners" trying to put in backdoors. I'm not sure why they trust Americans more. But by using commercial software, like Microsoft and Lotus Notes, they're not only making their task impossible (anyone want to parse Win2000 to figure out which parts were written where?), but are focusing on the wrong worries. They should use smaller software packages, that can actually be reviewed, instead of huge bloatware that permits backdoors to be hidden.
Why does everyone assume that it was M$ Windows that was causing the problems? This audit was for ALL Microsoft products. Very few users (of M$ products at least) actually install their own operating system. Rather, they're more likely to have bought the M$ Office Suite, Encarta, and similar products. Although using Linux has its advantages, there isn't a Word equivalent editor, or a presentation tool like PowerPoint that could be used by any braindead city employee.
The scary part about this story is that:
"Like most software companies, Microsoft includes contracts with its merchandise that explain that the company reserves the right to ask consumers for proof of purchase and an inventory of what it uses. The rule applies not only to governments and privately owned companies but to individuals."
And it appears that no one has challenged this provision. This means that M$ could go into your house, and demand that you provide an actual inventory of what products you use, and proofs of purchase. If you've ever bought a laptop or any hardware that came with the M$ operarting system, or anything else from M$ you could be up next. Got to love those shrinkwrap licenses!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, patents are going to be published at 18 months now. You'll be able to send little "see what I found about your patent" notes to the corporations, if you want to spend the time. This rule change became effective November 29, 2000. Thalia
I think the #1 reason, and the one Mr. Sterling lists as unlucky #13 is:
13. This is unlucky 13, the grand finale. Californians feel lambasted, defrauded, and bamboozled by Old Economy "pirate generators" such as (let's name names here) Reliant Energy, El Paso Energy, Dynegy, Duke Energy, AES, Southern, Calpine, and Enron. But Enron in particular is George W. Bush's favorite company in the whole wide world. James W. Baker is Enron's lawyer. The Pirate Generators own Washington. The Information Superhighway is suddenly yesterday's news, somebody else's concept, all hype and ozone. The NASDAQ is in the tank, while the utility sector is the new darling of Wall Street. Furthermore, it very much galls the new administration that the homeland of Reagan is currently run by Democrats. An economic crunch in California is the prelude to a political assault from Washington.
The deregulation of the utilities in California is the legacy of Pete Wilson. I expect the Republicans are not too appreciative of California, even though we generate a larger percentage of the GNP than any other state... but we voted for Gore. I'm investing in a generator...
Thalia
Yet another example of intellectual property rights being used to do the right thing...
Thalia
Is it just me, or does this remind everyone of the tactics used by the Nazis? I know it's popular to say Nazi-something for anything that you dislike (those feminazis, and nazi-music-recording companies and so on.) But this actually does quite closely echo the actions of the Third Reich.
Specifically, the Hitlerei's policy was to train children in school to turn in their classmates, their parents, and anyone else who they believed was "subversive." It was part of the daily "civics" class. This actually worked very well for them, and was in turn adopted by the Communists in Eastern Europe. Lest you Americans feel too smug, the McCarthy-ites did this as well, using the Alert Society.
If we train kids in school now, to turn in their classmates, how long until we ask them to rat on their parents, for anti-social behavior, the use of drugs, etc.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Thalia
I believe the difference between your settings and mine may only be that I have the following two set to yes:
Legal Notices
User Agreement Changes
Receive notice from eBay if the current User
Agreement changes.
Privacy Policy Changes
Receive notice from eBay if the current Privacy
Policy changes.
I want to know if their policies change in either of those two areas. I don't want any other junkmail. And I didn't get one of those letters.
But it is certainly odd that they'd assume it was an "error" especially if you've had these settings for some months.
Thalia
I expect this is the Trinity attack that is described in considerably detail here by X-Force. You can find the actual article and anlysis of the Stacheldraht tool here written at the University of Washington. The author of that article claims that he wrote a program that detects Stacheldraht on a system. Of course, getting the ISPs that are sending these DDOS messages to actually use some security might be a bit difficult. By the way, this is old news, since the CERT advisory is dated June 99.
Thalia
Thalia
Sometimes differentiating between reality and fantasy takes all my energy.
to paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson.
The real question is whether you approve of patents at all. If you do, you cannot just eliminate software patents. Why? Because software and hardware are realistically inseparable. Any competent patent attorney (or layperson for that matter) can couch a software patent in terms of memories accessed and data displayed. Then, it sounds like hardware. So there is no easy solution to outlawing software patents.
Thalia
The only independent claim states:
1. A method performed by a marketplace computer for facilitating electronic commerce over a network between a plurality of seller and buyer computers, the method comprising the steps of:
presenting a registration web page to a remote first seller computer over the network;
receiving a first registration for a first product from the first seller computer over the network, the first registration including a first product description and a first Universal Resource Locator (URL) indicating a first location of a first image of the first product, the first location referencing the first seller computer or a third computer on the network, and the first image being in one of a plurality of predetermined source image formats;
presenting a registration web page to a remote second seller computer over the network;
receiving a second registration for a second product from the second seller computer over the network the second registration including a second product description and a second URL indicating a second location of a second image of the second product, the second location referencing the second seller computer or a fourth computer on the network, and the second image being in one of a plurality of predetermined source image formats;
retrieving the first image based on the received first URL;
manipulating the first image to produce a first thumbnail image of a first predetermined size and format;
retrieving the second image based on the received second URL;
manipulating the second image to produce a second thumbnail image of a second predetermined size and format;
creating a customized web page including the first and second thumbnail images; and
presenting the customized web page to a buyer computer.
Nowthen, in order to infringe this patent (i.e. potentially be sued by EBay) there has to be at least 2 seller computers and a buyer computer involved, in an ecommerce situation. The images must be referenced from a third location.
This claim (although not particularly deep) certainly overcomes most of the "prior art" that has been tossed around. For example, all individual photo galleries, like the one shown here reference larger images on the same site. Furthermore, they are not in the context of ecommerce. Most sites generally have thumbnails of other images on the same site. This is not the case that is protected by EBay.
Seriously, read the claim FIRST, then bitch about the scope of the patent.
Thalia
Thalia
The reality is that most of us don't work at the same computer all the time. (I have at least 5 computers that I work with.) I expect that it takes installing some sort of interface to make it work. So, I'd have to either drag around a keyboard wherever I go, or install 5 of these puppies. Plus, it still wouldn't help when I used the laptop.
Also, as someone who has done the Dvorak keyboard game in college, switching back and forth is a pain.
So, nothing for me. I'm still waiting for the dataglove that I can just wear & it'll wirelessly interface with whatever computer I'm using.
Thalia
You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.
The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)
Thalia
Actually, your statistics rely on "public data." The Russians lie. There were at least two capsules that never made it up (explosions on launch), and a fair number that died on the ground (one of which, if I recall correctly, actually took out some high level brass observing nearby.) Not to mention at least one that we heard of where the astronauts died in the capsule, because of leaks. Of course, these events never made it into the "public record." One of the advantages of working in a totalitarian system, where you can truly control the media. (I heard of them because one of my father's friends worked on their projects as an engineer.)
Thalia
So far, they went through two fans, and are on the third one for the only air purification system they have on-board. It appears, although the article doesn't specifically mention this, that the two failed fans can not be repaired. (although they say that one of the fans had a "bad electrical connector" which sounds like something emminently fixable.) The question of whether they could jury-rig an alternative fan is also not addressed.
By the way, according to the story, the replacement parts "will be ferried into orbit aboard Atlantis, scheduled for launch Jan. 18, or the next Progress supply ship, currently targeted for takeoff Feb. 10." This sounds like the next supply ship (December 26th) will not have these bits.
Well, even if the air supply system truly fails, they have 14 days, and we or the Russians can certainly launch in less time than that. The US doesn't lose astronauts as easily as the Russians, I expect we'd try to save them.
Thalia
I think the NASA project is basically make-work. After all, after all of the users have added their time and energy, the results are thrown away. They're not used to teach computers to recognize craters in the next evolution.
First, the patent claims call out a central computer (server), and a plurality of remote terminal means (clients), and modems. This means that the owners of the server can at best be sued for contributory infringement which means that they, along with the users, together infringe. This is a much harder case.
Second, most computers currently used are not terminals, they are independent PCs. Therefore, BT must use the doctrine of equivalents to show infringement. This is not easy.
Third, the claims are in the "means for" format. This means that only the appartus that is actually described in the specification can infringe the patent. Now the specification (which is the body of the patent) describes a system that uses analog modems to connect to a central computer via telephone lines (no network here).
This patent really appears to be about using an index of abbreviations (like titles) which are individually unique, to request data. The unique titles refer to unique addresses, at which the data is located. This certainly is not hyperlinks, except by the most strained of interpretations.
Don't expect this case to change the world of patents. Maybe, expect this case to be settled, if BT is asking for less than a lawyer would charge (if the licensing fee is under $100,000, it's just simpler to pay up... a standard patent lawsuit costs $1.5M or more.) Or, expect this patent go away when at the Markman hearing it is interpretted to not cover hyperlinks.
Thalia
This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.
In general, you are correct, reverse engineering may be used to discover trade secrets. In this case, the MPAA's assertion is that reverse engineering is prohibited by license. Since to acquire a player, one must agree to the license (apparently it shows up before you can play anything, or it's in the box or something), you can not legitimately obtain a copy of the player without having agreed to this license. Therefore, the reverse engineering, generally acceptable, is prohibited.
Anyway, this decision is really about jurisdiction only, and whether the overburdened California courts are willing to take on cases which must be decided under laws of other states.
I must admit, I've never read a license that comes with a DVD. However, if it is the standard license, it probably does have a clause to the effect that "Purchaser agrees to submit to jurisdiction in the Courts of California." In that case, the California courts would probably be forced to deal with the case. But, California courts are notoriously overburdened, and would love to chuck out this case, to lighten their dockets. So, maybe the defendants have a chance on this basis.
Thalia
This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.
The real place for the white, or colored LEDs is in locations where replacing the light is a pain in the *ss. Think about it. If you need to replace a traffic light, you need to turn off the light, put a cop there, and drag out the truck and the guys to replace the bulb. Instead of incandescent, by using LEDs you can have replacements every 5+ years (because you'll have 40+ LED's and a few burned out ones won't be a problem). This makes perfect sense, and makes the added cost of the LEDs an excellent investment. (trust me, traffic cops on overtime make way more for the hour plus it takes to replace a bulb than the cost of 50 green LEDs.) This is why in the Bay Area, almost all red lights are already LEDs, and more and more yellows and greens are being changed.
Similarly, think about lights in places where they are difficult to replace. Embedded lights in offices come to mind. Anywhere were work has to stop to replace a light, it makes sense to pay $30 for a bulb. In the home, on the other hand, the cost of replacement is negligible. So, LEDs probably won't take over until they are almost as cheap as standard bulbs. On the other hand, I'd love to replace the pool lights with LEDs, because I have to lower the water level, which is a complete pain, to replace those lights.
Thalia
If you feel left out, because the co-op is out of WebPlayers, check out ebay which has some WebPlayers for sale. Some of them are even less than the $110 offered by the co-op.
I'm planning on taking my WebPlayer apart, not reprogramming it. If you're into that as well, check out this page.
Thalia
E-mail is a much less formal/traditional method of communication than the other examples provided by the authors of this story. This is borne out by the original messages sent.
The first message sent by telegram -- used to communicate only emergency and important messages -- was "What hath god wrought!" The first message sent by telephone -- used for quick person-to-person communication -- was "Mr. Watson, come here; I want you." The first message sent by email -- used to send garbage messages in circles -- was QWERTIOP. I think that says it all.
Thalia
I agree with the concept that NSI should be forced to give up those domain names. And I do think that joining is a good idea. Although, if you join a class action, the likely recovery is in the pennies, while all the money is received by the named plaintiff and the attorneys, so keep that in mind. But, on reading the complaint, I found a fairly major problem. In order to have an actual case, the plaintiffs have to prove that an action or lack of action by the defendant caused them harm, and that the defendant had a duty to act to prevent this harm. I see proof of harm, and that defendant (NSI) caused the harm. But this complaint does not allege a duty on NSI's part to give up those domain names. The closest it comes is by stating: "NSI is restraining trade ... despite the fact that NSI disclaims rights in domain names." (Statement of Facts, Paragraph 44). This is not enough to establish that the NSI has a duty to release those names. I expect that NSI's answer, which is not available online as far as I can tell, focuses on the fact that they have no duty to be prompt, or to release domain names.
I do think that a case could be made by the other registrars that the NSI's actions is an interference with their business. But it is much harder for an individual to take on the NSI, and somehow prove the obligation to release domain names.
Thalia
This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.
Thalia
Proposed open patent license terms: This patent covers the following technology: ---fill in the blank.-- A worldwide, perpetual, royalty free license is available to this technology. However, any product incorporating this techology must --fill in the blank.--
The alternative, and somewhat cheaper, solution is to not file for a patent, but file a Statutory Invention Registration. This is basically a mechanism that publishes a patent application, without awarding patent rights.
The third, and even cheaper, solution is to publish the invention, with a declaration that the technology is not now, nor will it be patented. This means that no one else can patent the technology (since this is proof of your invention, and the US is a first to invent country).
There ya go, all yours.
Thalia
This does not constitute legal advice, so don't even think it.
There was a report in 1996 that said that 65% of in-house testing hacks were successful. According to this more recent article, 3% of attempts caused damage, and only 1% managed to break into unclassified systems. That's a good sign, I think. Hacks are increasing at 10% a year, and security is increasing faster.
The Pentagon is trying to protect itself from future attacks by deciding to "to carefully consider the origin of all software used in developing or upgrading information technology or national security systems." It sounds like they're mostly worried about those "foreigners" trying to put in backdoors. I'm not sure why they trust Americans more. But by using commercial software, like Microsoft and Lotus Notes, they're not only making their task impossible (anyone want to parse Win2000 to figure out which parts were written where?), but are focusing on the wrong worries. They should use smaller software packages, that can actually be reviewed, instead of huge bloatware that permits backdoors to be hidden.
Thalia
Why does everyone assume that it was M$ Windows that was causing the problems? This audit was for ALL Microsoft products. Very few users (of M$ products at least) actually install their own operating system. Rather, they're more likely to have bought the M$ Office Suite, Encarta, and similar products. Although using Linux has its advantages, there isn't a Word equivalent editor, or a presentation tool like PowerPoint that could be used by any braindead city employee.
The scary part about this story is that:
"Like most software companies, Microsoft includes contracts with its merchandise that explain that the company reserves the right to ask consumers for proof of purchase and an inventory of what it uses. The rule applies not only to governments and privately owned companies but to individuals."
And it appears that no one has challenged this provision. This means that M$ could go into your house, and demand that you provide an actual inventory of what products you use, and proofs of purchase. If you've ever bought a laptop or any hardware that came with the M$ operarting system, or anything else from M$ you could be up next. Got to love those shrinkwrap licenses!
Thalia