"The federal court stated, that there is "no way to deduce from Copyright a right to control distribution channels.""
But copyright IS a right to control distribution channels!
Only for the first sale.
After the copyright owner sold one copy, the new owner of that copy can resell it, unless the is bound by other contracts. And the EULA is not a contract, since it was not signed. (I'm not a lawyer, check the ruling for the exact wordening and details. And remember that this was a German court.)
In the US, some courts accepted EULAs as contracts, but IIRC the refund clause was a central point the the courts arguments why it was a valid contract.
How long can a given OS sustain a given data rate, under different conditions? (eg: Many processes running, non-interruptable events, miltiple processors, etc.)
For hours. Linux pipes are basically memcopy between processes.
memcopy(kernel_buffer, user_buffer, len);
<switch from writer thread to reader thread>
memcopy(user_buffer, kernel_buffer, len);
--- lather, rinse, repeat.
I assume the windows implementation will be similar.
What kind of resources are consumed, per pipe, per unit of data, per unit time? Do any of the OS' allow/use smoothing, to reduce system load?
Resources are cpu time and a small buffer. The cpu time could be controlled with the normal SetThreadPriority, or with nice.
This is not to diss IBM, or even to suggest Windows XP/2000 would even win in such a battle, although I suspect they would for massive SMP arrays, simply because Linux doesn't handle those as well.
I must answer that in 2 parts:
* test 1 (one thread reads/writes up to 4 kB) is perfectly threaded, I would expect linear scaling with the number of cpus. I think there isn't a single variable that's shared between different processes in the whole codepath.
* test 2 (2 threads send each other large messages) might overload the scheduler, perhaps HP's patch helps in that case. > 150.000 thread switches/sec during bw_pipe runs:-(
Btw, the FreeBSD pipe implementation is much faster than the current Linux implementation. They avoid overloading the scheduler, and they don't need to double buffer.
Patches to fix for Linux that already exist, they will be included into 2.5.
They could encrypt their content, their ActiveX
control could decrypt it, and hacking IE to kill the popups would be illegal.
I'm not sure if removing adds from a page is legal, even without the DCMA.
The author wrote a page with an add, and a filter app modifies the page and removes the add picture, without a permission from the author.
But modification is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
Selling an app that's only purpose is to remove adverts from web pages could infringe the authors rights.
The legal basis for restrictive EULAs is that
you have to make a copy of the software (in your computer's RAM) in order to use it. Copying is prohibited without explicit permission, and so, therefore, is use.
And if you read a book you must make a copy of the letters on your retina.
Let's wait until you must agree to an EULA before you open a book.
I'm aware that the "copy into RAM" is the legal reasoning why you need a license for using computer software, but nevertheless it is ridiculous. (i.e. it only works if you have much more money that the person who makes the copy.)
Perhaps I should write a script to exploit the root-hack and shut down
the affected machines so that the local cable circuit won't be clogged with that crap.
Shutting down the affected machines is virtually guaranteed to bring you into jail, don't do that.
What about something less intrusive?
Pop up a message box with a notice that someone broke into the computer, perhaps with a message beep every minute?
I wouldn't use such an app myself, but probably an ISP could use that in his own local loop.
I'm interested in seeing what all these idiots are sending me (call me nosy; I also look at car wrecks when I drive by). What's the safest way to open these attachments on a Windows 98 machine that is not running Outlook?
Save the file on your harddisk, then remove the first 137216 bytes. You need a hex editor to do that.
Rename it to the actual file type and open it.
Do not double click it, instead open it from the correct app (just in case you didn't remove the virus properly - Word doesn't open windows executables)
In addition, the error-correction codes on the CD, which would normally correct such errors, are distorted.
That would make the CD more susceptible to small scratches. Intentionally selling a damaged product (with a reduced lifetime, to ensure that the consumer must by another CD soon)?
I'm not a lawyer, but it could violate consumer protection laws.
> > they need a powerful reactor. They energy
> > density must be far higher than the reactors
> > currently in use. There was a project in the
> > 1960'ies, and they came to the conclusion that
> > they need a 2000-3000 times higher energy
> > density.
>
> THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I am shouting because you are absolutely nuts. The power densities
> (energy density is *not* the right term) of NERVA reactors that were actually built and tested in
> the '60s are *multiple* orders of magnitude higher than power reactors used for electricity
> production.
No need to shout, I admit that my post was ambigious.
Any nuclear reactor suitable for rockets must have a power density that's 2000-3000 times higher that the currently in use earthbound reactors.
> This isn't very difficult for the designs which are likely to be tried. Early graphite designs
> would break up and release radioactivity easily, but it sounds (from the uranium dioxide
> reference) like they will be making the fuel elements from a tungsten-UO2 cermet. This stuff
> is *really* hard, dense and tough. You would be surprised at how little a chemical explosion
> might do to it.
Let me check that.
tungsten. Density around 19.3 g/cm^3
graphit. Density around 2.25 g/cm^3
Slightly heavier?
Yes, the NEVRA reactors had the required power density, but I'm not sure that a safe reactor would still have the requrired power density. (replace graphit with tungsten, or other high density metals/cermets/whatever). As far as I know NEVRA completed a few test runs, but was never used for a real rocket.
> Stratospheric fallout is perhaps hundreds of times less threatening to the environment than
> tropospheric fallout. There's no rain up there. In the troposphere, rainout is the primary means
> that radioactivity will reach the ground - in a few days. But with no rainout, finely-divided
> stratospheric fallout remains aloft - and on the preferable side of that 7t/sq.m shield - for
> months. Fission products are mostly short lived, and a tremendous amount of decay occurs
> before they will reach the ground.
Oh, that explains why stratosphic nuclear weapon tests were totally safe and caried out over US cities.
The biggest real issue is whether the reactor contents could be adequately contained during a worst case accident. If this is possible, and I suspect it is, there is no real danger associated with this technology.
One problem is that these reactors would work without a primary/secondary cooling system.
You'd have the plutonium/uranium core, and the hydrogen flows around the core and then into the atmosphere. Together with radioactive byproducts.
The article contains a quote from an engineer:
"The idea of deliberately releasing fission products into the atmosphere, even in negligible amounts, is going to be a very hard sell."
I see 4 problems:
they need a powerful reactor. They energy density must be far higher than the reactors currently in use. There was a project in the 1960'ies, and they came to the conclusion that they need a 2000-3000 times higher energy density.
they need a conventional booster for the first 30000 feet. .
the reactor must withstand an explosion of the conventional booster
they must convince the public that the radioactive traces that are released in the upper atmosphere are negligable.
and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part."
Read the GPL and the examples given by the FSF.
Several GPL'ed tools can be used to create C code. yacc, bison, probably others. Some tools include their own source in the result ("includes the Software", and Software means Potentially Viral Software, not the Microsoft SDK). Then the output of these tools could fall under the GPL.
As far as I understand that clause you may not use viral tools to develop applications which use their SDK.
But afaik bison contains a GPL exception, so I'm unaware that if any viral tools actually exist.
FUD, but not wrong.
From their EULA: open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar
Linux is a registered trademark. Do they mention that in their EULA?
Lets keep their lawyers busy.
Were will Microsoft go tomorrow? The largest employer of lawyers in the world?
So what's the difference between linking with a DLL and forking a processes that is GPLed - you can achieve the same levels of functionality.. In Windows, the DLL and EXE file format are ?
exactly the same.
Could you try that before posting?
executables have stripped relocation tables, you can only load them to address 0x400000
even if the relocation table would be present, the OS doesn't permit loading & dynamically linking against an executable. It was originally possible, but the changed because it can cause security problem.
Obviously you could create a second process and isolate everything with appropriate marshalling. Embed it into a COM server that uses it's own process space, or use stdin/stdout for proprietary marshalling.
But you must DO THAT.
If rip chapters from someone elses book you can't claim that you would have been able to write it youself.
Or at least I doubt that this defense be successful in court.
SloMedia could have avoided the problems by creating a COM [the object model behind Visual Basic and OLE] server, and their app would use that server.
But it seems they didn't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Only for the first sale.
After the copyright owner sold one copy, the new owner of that copy can resell it, unless the is bound by other contracts. And the EULA is not a contract, since it was not signed. (I'm not a lawyer, check the ruling for the exact wordening and details. And remember that this was a German court.)
In the US, some courts accepted EULAs as contracts, but IIRC the refund clause was a central point the the courts arguments why it was a valid contract.
For hours. Linux pipes are basically memcopy between processes.
I assume the windows implementation will be similar. What kind of resources are consumed, per pipe, per unit of data, per unit time? Do any of the OS' allow/use smoothing, to reduce system load?Resources are cpu time and a small buffer. The cpu time could be controlled with the normal SetThreadPriority, or with nice.
This is not to diss IBM, or even to suggest Windows XP/2000 would even win in such a battle, although I suspect they would for massive SMP arrays, simply because Linux doesn't handle those as well.I must answer that in 2 parts: :-(
* test 1 (one thread reads/writes up to 4 kB) is perfectly threaded, I would expect linear scaling with the number of cpus. I think there isn't a single variable that's shared between different processes in the whole codepath.
* test 2 (2 threads send each other large messages) might overload the scheduler, perhaps HP's patch helps in that case. > 150.000 thread switches/sec during bw_pipe runs
Btw, the FreeBSD pipe implementation is much faster than the current Linux implementation. They avoid overloading the scheduler, and they don't need to double buffer.
Patches to fix for Linux that already exist, they will be included into 2.5.I'm not sure if removing adds from a page is legal, even without the DCMA.
The author wrote a page with an add, and a filter app modifies the page and removes the add picture, without a permission from the author.
But modification is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
Selling an app that's only purpose is to remove adverts from web pages could infringe the authors rights.
And if you read a book you must make a copy of the letters on your retina.
Let's wait until you must agree to an EULA before you open a book.
I'm aware that the "copy into RAM" is the legal reasoning why you need a license for using computer software, but nevertheless it is ridiculous. (i.e. it only works if you have much more money that the person who makes the copy.)
Shutting down the affected machines is virtually guaranteed to bring you into jail, don't do that.
What about something less intrusive?
Pop up a message box with a notice that someone broke into the computer, perhaps with a message beep every minute?
I wouldn't use such an app myself, but probably an ISP could use that in his own local loop.
I'm not sure if AMD's x86 licence permits that - I think they mentioned a limit of at most 20% shipments from external fabs in the last contract.
Save the file on your harddisk, then remove the first 137216 bytes. You need a hex editor to do that.
Or with Cygwin it's
$dd if=virus.doc.pif of=clean.doc bs=1 skip=137216Rename it to the actual file type and open it.
Do not double click it, instead open it from the correct app (just in case you didn't remove the virus properly - Word doesn't open windows executables)
That would make the CD more susceptible to small scratches. Intentionally selling a damaged product (with a reduced lifetime, to ensure that the consumer must by another CD soon)?
I'm not a lawyer, but it could violate consumer protection laws.
> > they need a powerful reactor. They energy
> > density must be far higher than the reactors
> > currently in use. There was a project in the
> > 1960'ies, and they came to the conclusion that
> > they need a 2000-3000 times higher energy
> > density.
>
> THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I am shouting because you are absolutely nuts. The power densities
> (energy density is *not* the right term) of NERVA reactors that were actually built and tested in
> the '60s are *multiple* orders of magnitude higher than power reactors used for electricity
> production.
No need to shout, I admit that my post was ambigious.
Any nuclear reactor suitable for rockets must have a power density that's 2000-3000 times higher that the currently in use earthbound reactors.
> This isn't very difficult for the designs which are likely to be tried. Early graphite designs
> would break up and release radioactivity easily, but it sounds (from the uranium dioxide
> reference) like they will be making the fuel elements from a tungsten-UO2 cermet. This stuff
> is *really* hard, dense and tough. You would be surprised at how little a chemical explosion
> might do to it.
Let me check that.
tungsten. Density around 19.3 g/cm^3
graphit. Density around 2.25 g/cm^3
Slightly heavier?
Yes, the NEVRA reactors had the required power density, but I'm not sure that a safe reactor would still have the requrired power density. (replace graphit with tungsten, or other high density metals/cermets/whatever). As far as I know NEVRA completed a few test runs, but was never used for a real rocket.
> Stratospheric fallout is perhaps hundreds of times less threatening to the environment than
> tropospheric fallout. There's no rain up there. In the troposphere, rainout is the primary means
> that radioactivity will reach the ground - in a few days. But with no rainout, finely-divided
> stratospheric fallout remains aloft - and on the preferable side of that 7t/sq.m shield - for
> months. Fission products are mostly short lived, and a tremendous amount of decay occurs
> before they will reach the ground.
Oh, that explains why stratosphic nuclear weapon tests were totally safe and caried out over US cities.
One problem is that these reactors would work without a primary/secondary cooling system.
You'd have the plutonium/uranium core, and the hydrogen flows around the core and then into the atmosphere. Together with radioactive byproducts.
The article contains a quote from an engineer:
"The idea of deliberately releasing fission products into the atmosphere, even in negligible amounts, is going to be a very hard sell."
I see 4 problems:
Search for "NERVA nuclear" on google.
Read the GPL and the examples given by the FSF.
Several GPL'ed tools can be used to create C code. yacc, bison, probably others. Some tools include their own source in the result ("includes the Software", and Software means Potentially Viral Software, not the Microsoft SDK). Then the output of these tools could fall under the GPL.
As far as I understand that clause you may not use viral tools to develop applications which use their SDK.
But afaik bison contains a GPL exception, so I'm unaware that if any viral tools actually exist.
FUD, but not wrong.
open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar
Linux is a registered trademark. Do they mention that in their EULA?
Lets keep their lawyers busy.
Were will Microsoft go tomorrow? The largest employer of lawyers in the world?
Could you try that before posting?
- executables have stripped relocation tables, you can only load them to address 0x400000
- even if the relocation table would be present, the OS doesn't permit loading & dynamically linking against an executable. It was originally possible, but the changed because it can cause security problem.
Obviously you could create a second process and isolate everything with appropriate marshalling. Embed it into a COM server that uses it's own process space, or use stdin/stdout for proprietary marshalling.But you must DO THAT.
If rip chapters from someone elses book you can't claim that you would have been able to write it youself.
Or at least I doubt that this defense be successful in court.
SloMedia could have avoided the problems by creating a COM [the object model behind Visual Basic and OLE] server, and their app would use that server.
But it seems they didn't do it.