The fact is that the J2EE vendors were looking for some sort of benchmark. At least they were in the apples-to-apples comparison as they were all J2EE app servers.
MS tried to tar ALL J2EE app servers by staging the first rigged benchmark. This new round isn't much better.
The idea was to not feed the Troll. The methodology of the whole benchmark was at the very least compromised by the active participation of one side and the complete lack of participation from the other.
(MS did all the code writing and tuning for the.NET implementation. The other side was labeled App Server A and B since they couldn't even be bothered to get permission to publish benchmark results let alone have the App Server companies come and do some tuning.)
Even if the rest of their claims about "pain staking optimization" of the J2EE code is true they would have to optimize it separately for the two App Servers to be comparing apples to apples.
So, the original thought was to ignore it and hope it would go away. Obviously many people weren't ignoring it so it hit the "newsworthy" threshhold.
I think you're mistaking the fact that the final product has a time constraint versus the processing having a time constraint.
Almost every program has some time constraint involved in it. Not every program has to perform a particular cycle of steps every 10 seconds. Real time usually has to do more with interrupting things in order to meet time constraints (hence the pre-emptive kernel patch). That means that when you program something in real time and say this activity has to happen every five seconds then at that five seconds everything else will be interrupted in order for that activity to occur. (There are of course constraints based on internal timing.) A payroll system has no such constraint. While there are deadlines for people to finish or start activities in the system it doesn't pre-empt any activities.
So will we have to change the ol' phrase: "You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose......and with this script you can pick your friend's nose too.":-}
I bought a CrossPad back when they first came out. They struck me as the best interim solution until you got true portability and high resolution capture capabilities.
The thing used an RF-based pen and a table behind a pad of paper. You could store up to 50 pages of handwriting in the thing before having to upload it to a PC. (You could page forward and back if you wanted to add additional notes.) The only problem was that it didn't have an erase feature on it.
On the PC side you had IBM's Ink Manager software that handled capture, storing, and even recognition of the handwriting. To top it all off the tablet part will run for weeks on a couple of AA's.
Probably the really useful aspects of a tablet PC are being enabled by other companies. The people over at Parascript are making really huge strides in handwriting recognition.
The problem with all of these is that they're dictionary based. We got one of the ViewSonic tablets in here and I fired up IE and tried to do "http://slashdot.org" through the handwriting recognition. Needless to say it was a horrible failure.
Also, try inputing any passwords into the system? You either have to tap away at the soft keyboard or you're completely SOL.
Finally, how do you press 'Ctrl+Alt+Del' on a PC that has no keyboard? In the case of the ViewSonic tablet you couldn't even log in because the handwriting and keyboard support were in the OS and didn't start until the desktop was there.
IIRC, the IBM Linux ads were "painted" using chalk. This meant that they'd wash off after the next rain storm. I think the bigger problem was that they were sticking these things up all over the place including on stop signs and other traffic signs.
Well, with the ever increasing use of tinted windows in cars these days maybe they could have turned the corner and ran into......wait for it......the blue windscreen of death.
Campaign contributions really kick in after you get into office. They pay for the next election or to encourage the incumbent.
Also, if you look at how the money gets distributed they usually contribute to BOTH sides in the race. Disney doesn't really discriminate against Democrats or Republicans, they just want someone who will bring forth the "critical legislation" that their people write.
Meaning, any company that sells closed-source software can't use GPL'ed code in their products.
And yet, strangely enough, MS sells GPL software that works directly with Windows. (Unix Services for Windows) They don't seem to have lost IP control of Windows due to this.
Government produced work should be public domain, not GPL.
And yet a license like the BSD one only means that the initial work will remain in the public domain. Companies can take a public domain work, make cosmetic changes to it, and sell it back to us for additional money. Even better, they can try to license it so we have to pay extra to get back something we paid for in the first place.
Remember, GPL'd code CAN be licensed out under different terms by the original copyright holder. That means that government would be free to license their code implementation GPL and then sell licenses to corporations that want to use that code rather than creating their own.
Finally, the important issue in government work (especially for computer security) would be the specifications that they would create. The code would merely be a reference implementation.
From the article: Although not referring specifically to the Mallinson case, he added it may be necessary to "weed out" employees who did not live up to Microsoft's code of behaviour.
I hope Ballmer's got his resume polished. I think they'll have to use a lawnmower to accomplish that weeding.
(Then again "MS's code of behavior" could mean something else...)
The problem is that "useful and simple OS" has a different meaning to different people. Heck, it's even got a different meaning for you when you qualify it for the task (workstation vs server).
As long as the distros keep seperate then they'll all pick a slightly different direction and have a slightly different idea on what is a simple and useful OS. This allows all of us to pick and choose for the particular problem we're solving.
KaZaA is only a symptom of the "disease" that the [MP,RI]AA considers P2P networks.
Suppose one of my friends creates a demo tape that he wants to get out into the world to create some buzz. I could very easily publish it on the P2P networks, create a band web site, and hope it takes off. Now, it is perfectly legal (if my friend gave me permission) to use P2P to distribute this music. It would also be significantly cheaper than paying bandwidth charges to a local ISP if I hosted all of those MP3's on the web site.
So, I've now used technology for a perfectly good and legal activity. So, now I'm supposed to do without because some KaZaA users can't control themselves? If that logic had prevailed in earlier days you wouldn't have a VCR today.
Surprisingly, the RIAA's rep provided a great description of the RIAA's members: "The copyright industries around the world are not going to stand still and let other companies build businesses off the sweat of their brow simply because they're willing to set up shop in some other country," said Matt Oppenheim, a lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America.
Thanks to such legal wonders as "work for hire" these companies are building businesses off the sweat of artists' brows.
The law already provides provisions for the RIAA member companies to use the courts to seek subpoenas for the information that they want from Verizon. The DMCA put in certain provisions for an expedited subpoena process relating to certain information that ISP's have.
The ISP's are arguing that this exception does not extend to information about users who are merely using Verizon's IP pipes rather than storing an offending file on Verizon's servers (which Verizon has control over). So, Verizon wants the RIAA companies to go through the normal channel to request the subpoena. Why? Well mainly because it's more complicated, time consuming, and expensive for the RIAA companies to go through the normal channels. This means that the number of subpoenas served to Verizon is decreased and keeps them from being swamped. If the RIAA companies don't have to go through that process then they can have crawler-bots spew out subpoena demands and swamp the ISP's with information requests.
It's not a Verizon's defending the small guy or trying to be a scoff law. It's a "there's already a way to do this, follow the rules" thing. It's really a question of who has to bear the brunt of the costs of protecting these copyrights. It would seem quite logical that the ones generating the revenue should bear it.
You don't consider that an important freedom -- the ability to build a system however you want? As an engineering type, I certainly would support this. As an "engineering type" I would certainly hope that you realize that there are constraints inherint in building anything. You can't simply use balsa wood to build a bridge because it "looks nice". That's a physical constraint on a design. As a business you have to accept both physical and legal restraints when building a product.
Think, if I built my new ultra-cool OGG playing software and included a hidden feature that captured your credit card numbers and sent them back to me you could sue me for invasion of privacy and have my product taken off the market. Yet its just a "design decision" isn't it?
They were never antipiracy mechanisms. They always were intended to be price discrimination features.
Now, the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass these, but I don't really agree with the DMCA for a lot of reasons. No, the DMCA can only make circumventing these items illegal if they're for content protection. The CSS argued that these are there to protect the content.
I'm not sure that I'd support a tax on everyone to produce TV shows. I'm not a tremendous fan of TV shows, and I wouldn't really want to have to subsidize other people's entertainment. Well, if you live in the US then you're already paying taxes to produce TV shows. You're also paying for radio too.
I'm not arguing against fair use laws -- just against existing copyright violation. Well I was making a point (the xeroxing) that nothing is black and white in this debate. In addition, the continual extensions being granted to copyrighted works further distorts the situation.
Yes I can tell the difference between bootlegging (as in copying and selling) 500 Tori Amos CD's and copying sections of a textbook, but can the copyright holders do the same?
Also, say I'm teaching a comparitive music or history of Jazz course. According to the educational exemptions I should be able to create a compilation CD for my students and hand it out without violating copyright. The RIAA would maintain that I'm a pirate and is trying to create copy-protected CD's to prevent such an occurance. (Imagine if all textbooks were printed on paper like checks so that they can't copy legibly, that's the same thing.)
The issue with the good and the bad was to address the "we can do whatever we want" argument that people are putting forward.
That simply isn't true. In order to sell something as a commercial venture you accept some severe limits on your behavior.
The issue is that EULA's are a completely artificial construct created by the software companies. It has been shown that because of the way they are "executed" they are seriously lacking in power compared to normal contract law. (Heck, if they were so effective then why would all of those companies be trying to ram UCITA down our throats?)
So, I'm not saying EULA restrictions are a "cost of incorporation" I'm saying that the "I can do whatever I want" misconception is a "cost of incorporation". After all, if that "I can do whatver I want" were true then all of the various laws like anti-trust and the whole debate about bundling wouldn't be going on.
As to the agency law, the burden is on the other side to prove that you appointed an agent to perform these actions. Frankly if the credit card company executed a contract in your name signed by someone else then they have the burden to prove that the person was acting on your behalf. (How would you like to find out 2 months later that you have a new credit card that's been being used by your kid brother without your consent (no consent for the issuing or the use of it)?)
IANAL, but I took a freshman law class. According to that, children can enter into legally binding contracts. The big differnce is that, except for necessities, they can end the contract at any time, causing a reversal.
I think I remember hearing that too. I'm sorry for being imprecise on that one. They certainly cannot enter into a contract that binds their parents. Even better, say you have a contractor stage all of your PC's for you. Are they supposed to be agreeing to all of these EULA's for you? I can't imagine you executing a power of attorney to this guy so it would certainly be a sticky wicket.
The first amendment only applies to the government. Ever hear of an NDA? NDA's are very specific in nature and can be held up to challenge on first ammendment grounds. The first ammendment doesn't only apply to the government as the powers and enforcement of this "contract" come from the government as well. I believe Atty General Spitzer (NY) is suing a few software companies over these clauses for this very reason. (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/0207nysnai.html )
As for the doctrine of first sale... that's a copyright ruling for selling a copy. True. I believe portions of that have been adjudicated (the suit by Adobe versus the resellers) in favor of first sale. Additionally, MS has attached a EULA to Windows and then refused to honor its terms when people tried to use the license language to demand a refund (look for Windows Refund Day references).
Unenforceable or illegal is merely splitting hairs. The fact is there is language in most EULA's that violate consumer rights.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is that the J2EE vendors were looking for some sort of benchmark. At least they were in the apples-to-apples comparison as they were all J2EE app servers.
MS tried to tar ALL J2EE app servers by staging the first rigged benchmark. This new round isn't much better.
The idea was to not feed the Troll. The methodology of the whole benchmark was at the very least compromised by the active participation of one side and the complete lack of participation from the other.
.NET implementation. The other side was labeled App Server A and B since they couldn't even be bothered to get permission to publish benchmark results let alone have the App Server companies come and do some tuning.)
(MS did all the code writing and tuning for the
Even if the rest of their claims about "pain staking optimization" of the J2EE code is true they would have to optimize it separately for the two App Servers to be comparing apples to apples.
So, the original thought was to ignore it and hope it would go away. Obviously many people weren't ignoring it so it hit the "newsworthy" threshhold.
I think you're mistaking the fact that the final product has a time constraint versus the processing having a time constraint.
Almost every program has some time constraint involved in it. Not every program has to perform a particular cycle of steps every 10 seconds. Real time usually has to do more with interrupting things in order to meet time constraints (hence the pre-emptive kernel patch). That means that when you program something in real time and say this activity has to happen every five seconds then at that five seconds everything else will be interrupted in order for that activity to occur. (There are of course constraints based on internal timing.) A payroll system has no such constraint. While there are deadlines for people to finish or start activities in the system it doesn't pre-empt any activities.
...they figure that by searching all the couches at their various buildings they should be able to recover $1 or $2 billion in loose change.
Extension of Finger.
...and with this script you can pick your friend's nose too." :-}
So will we have to change the ol' phrase:
"You can pick your friends,
and you can pick your nose...
I bought a CrossPad back when they first came out. They struck me as the best interim solution until you got true portability and high resolution capture capabilities.
The thing used an RF-based pen and a table behind a pad of paper. You could store up to 50 pages of handwriting in the thing before having to upload it to a PC. (You could page forward and back if you wanted to add additional notes.) The only problem was that it didn't have an erase feature on it.
On the PC side you had IBM's Ink Manager software that handled capture, storing, and even recognition of the handwriting. To top it all off the tablet part will run for weeks on a couple of AA's.
Probably the really useful aspects of a tablet PC are being enabled by other companies. The people over at Parascript are making really huge strides in handwriting recognition.
The problem with all of these is that they're dictionary based. We got one of the ViewSonic tablets in here and I fired up IE and tried to do "http://slashdot.org" through the handwriting recognition. Needless to say it was a horrible failure.
Also, try inputing any passwords into the system? You either have to tap away at the soft keyboard or you're completely SOL.
Finally, how do you press 'Ctrl+Alt+Del' on a PC that has no keyboard? In the case of the ViewSonic tablet you couldn't even log in because the handwriting and keyboard support were in the OS and didn't start until the desktop was there.
Well if they're like the ol' Chicago voters then death won't stop a Democrat from voting either. :-D
IIRC, the IBM Linux ads were "painted" using chalk. This meant that they'd wash off after the next rain storm. I think the bigger problem was that they were sticking these things up all over the place including on stop signs and other traffic signs.
That's the big no-no.
Well, with the ever increasing use of tinted windows in cars these days maybe they could have turned the corner and ran into... ...wait for it... ...the blue windscreen of death.
Sorry.
Nah, they were screaming
Give up to us! Whooooo hooooo!
Campaign contributions really kick in after you get into office. They pay for the next election or to encourage the incumbent.
Also, if you look at how the money gets distributed they usually contribute to BOTH sides in the race. Disney doesn't really discriminate against Democrats or Republicans, they just want someone who will bring forth the "critical legislation" that their people write.
Meaning, any company that sells closed-source software can't use GPL'ed code in their products.
And yet, strangely enough, MS sells GPL software that works directly with Windows. (Unix Services for Windows) They don't seem to have lost IP control of Windows due to this.
Government produced work should be public domain, not GPL.
And yet a license like the BSD one only means that the initial work will remain in the public domain. Companies can take a public domain work, make cosmetic changes to it, and sell it back to us for additional money. Even better, they can try to license it so we have to pay extra to get back something we paid for in the first place.
Remember, GPL'd code CAN be licensed out under different terms by the original copyright holder. That means that government would be free to license their code implementation GPL and then sell licenses to corporations that want to use that code rather than creating their own.
Finally, the important issue in government work (especially for computer security) would be the specifications that they would create. The code would merely be a reference implementation.
...SlashDot as prior art!
and recreational audio-visual programs to the home, school or office
Recreational audio-visual programs?!? Well looks like everyone on slashdot is gonna get a letter from PanIP's lawyers...
From the article:
Although not referring specifically to the Mallinson case, he added it may be necessary to "weed out" employees who did not live up to Microsoft's code of behaviour.
I hope Ballmer's got his resume polished. I think they'll have to use a lawnmower to accomplish that weeding.
(Then again "MS's code of behavior" could mean something else...)
1. Launch Lance Bass into space.
2. Abort launch over Hillary Rosen's house.
3. This is NOOOO Step 3
4. Celebrate (and download).
The problem is that "useful and simple OS" has a different meaning to different people. Heck, it's even got a different meaning for you when you qualify it for the task (workstation vs server).
As long as the distros keep seperate then they'll all pick a slightly different direction and have a slightly different idea on what is a simple and useful OS. This allows all of us to pick and choose for the particular problem we're solving.
KaZaA is only a symptom of the "disease" that the [MP,RI]AA considers P2P networks.
Suppose one of my friends creates a demo tape that he wants to get out into the world to create some buzz. I could very easily publish it on the P2P networks, create a band web site, and hope it takes off. Now, it is perfectly legal (if my friend gave me permission) to use P2P to distribute this music. It would also be significantly cheaper than paying bandwidth charges to a local ISP if I hosted all of those MP3's on the web site.
So, I've now used technology for a perfectly good and legal activity. So, now I'm supposed to do without because some KaZaA users can't control themselves? If that logic had prevailed in earlier days you wouldn't have a VCR today.
Surprisingly, the RIAA's rep provided a great description of the RIAA's members:
"The copyright industries around the world are not going to stand still and let other companies build businesses off the sweat of their brow simply because they're willing to set up shop in some other country," said Matt Oppenheim, a lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America.
Thanks to such legal wonders as "work for hire" these companies are building businesses off the sweat of artists' brows.
The law already provides provisions for the RIAA member companies to use the courts to seek subpoenas for the information that they want from Verizon. The DMCA put in certain provisions for an expedited subpoena process relating to certain information that ISP's have.
The ISP's are arguing that this exception does not extend to information about users who are merely using Verizon's IP pipes rather than storing an offending file on Verizon's servers (which Verizon has control over). So, Verizon wants the RIAA companies to go through the normal channel to request the subpoena. Why? Well mainly because it's more complicated, time consuming, and expensive for the RIAA companies to go through the normal channels. This means that the number of subpoenas served to Verizon is decreased and keeps them from being swamped. If the RIAA companies don't have to go through that process then they can have crawler-bots spew out subpoena demands and swamp the ISP's with information requests.
It's not a Verizon's defending the small guy or trying to be a scoff law. It's a "there's already a way to do this, follow the rules" thing. It's really a question of who has to bear the brunt of the costs of protecting these copyrights. It would seem quite logical that the ones generating the revenue should bear it.
You don't consider that an important freedom -- the ability to build a system however you want? As an engineering type, I certainly would support this.
As an "engineering type" I would certainly hope that you realize that there are constraints inherint in building anything. You can't simply use balsa wood to build a bridge because it "looks nice". That's a physical constraint on a design. As a business you have to accept both physical and legal restraints when building a product.
Think, if I built my new ultra-cool OGG playing software and included a hidden feature that captured your credit card numbers and sent them back to me you could sue me for invasion of privacy and have my product taken off the market. Yet its just a "design decision" isn't it?
They were never antipiracy mechanisms. They always were intended to be price discrimination features.
Now, the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass these, but I don't really agree with the DMCA for a lot of reasons.
No, the DMCA can only make circumventing these items illegal if they're for content protection. The CSS argued that these are there to protect the content.
I'm not sure that I'd support a tax on everyone to produce TV shows. I'm not a tremendous fan of TV shows, and I wouldn't really want to have to subsidize other people's entertainment.
Well, if you live in the US then you're already paying taxes to produce TV shows. You're also paying for radio too.
I'm not arguing against fair use laws -- just against existing copyright violation.
Well I was making a point (the xeroxing) that nothing is black and white in this debate. In addition, the continual extensions being granted to copyrighted works further distorts the situation.
Yes I can tell the difference between bootlegging (as in copying and selling) 500 Tori Amos CD's and copying sections of a textbook, but can the copyright holders do the same?
Also, say I'm teaching a comparitive music or history of Jazz course. According to the educational exemptions I should be able to create a compilation CD for my students and hand it out without violating copyright. The RIAA would maintain that I'm a pirate and is trying to create copy-protected CD's to prevent such an occurance. (Imagine if all textbooks were printed on paper like checks so that they can't copy legibly, that's the same thing.)
The issue with the good and the bad was to address the "we can do whatever we want" argument that people are putting forward.
That simply isn't true. In order to sell something as a commercial venture you accept some severe limits on your behavior.
The issue is that EULA's are a completely artificial construct created by the software companies. It has been shown that because of the way they are "executed" they are seriously lacking in power compared to normal contract law. (Heck, if they were so effective then why would all of those companies be trying to ram UCITA down our throats?)
So, I'm not saying EULA restrictions are a "cost of incorporation" I'm saying that the "I can do whatever I want" misconception is a "cost of incorporation". After all, if that "I can do whatver I want" were true then all of the various laws like anti-trust and the whole debate about bundling wouldn't be going on.
As to the agency law, the burden is on the other side to prove that you appointed an agent to perform these actions. Frankly if the credit card company executed a contract in your name signed by someone else then they have the burden to prove that the person was acting on your behalf. (How would you like to find out 2 months later that you have a new credit card that's been being used by your kid brother without your consent (no consent for the issuing or the use of it)?)
IANAL, but I took a freshman law class. According to that, children can enter into legally binding contracts. The big differnce is that, except for necessities, they can end the contract at any time, causing a reversal.
l )
I think I remember hearing that too. I'm sorry for being imprecise on that one. They certainly cannot enter into a contract that binds their parents. Even better, say you have a contractor stage all of your PC's for you. Are they supposed to be agreeing to all of these EULA's for you? I can't imagine you executing a power of attorney to this guy so it would certainly be a sticky wicket.
The first amendment only applies to the government. Ever hear of an NDA?
NDA's are very specific in nature and can be held up to challenge on first ammendment grounds. The first ammendment doesn't only apply to the government as the powers and enforcement of this "contract" come from the government as well. I believe Atty General Spitzer (NY) is suing a few software companies over these clauses for this very reason. (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/0207nysnai.htm
As for the doctrine of first sale... that's a copyright ruling for selling a copy.
True. I believe portions of that have been adjudicated (the suit by Adobe versus the resellers) in favor of first sale. Additionally, MS has attached a EULA to Windows and then refused to honor its terms when people tried to use the license language to demand a refund (look for Windows Refund Day references).
Unenforceable or illegal is merely splitting hairs. The fact is there is language in most EULA's that violate consumer rights.