FSF also requires copyrights assigned to them for contributions to their projects (or certainly used to), so this requirement certainly doesn't make a project non-free*.
*unless of course you regard free as being BSD-free and GPL as less free due to it having more restrictions...
With one 1.4.2 point release (not even a minor version), all our applets suddenly became unable to load images. It looked like they changed the rules - previously you could access files beneath the codebase when running locally (ie. without web server), now it gave security violation.
In fact, it turned out that they didn't change the applet security rules, they just required code to be wrapped in a privileged block where it didn't need to be before. The new code won't work on old (eg. MS) VMs either, so now you need JVM version detection etc.
The code was standard image loading stuff (originally used Sun examples IIRC), worked fine from 1.1 through to 1.4.2, then broke completely from 1.4.2_04 (I think) onwards.
Often in smaller organisations it isn't HR drones doing the recruiting - it is (senior) tech staff.
So, let's put yourself in their position:
You already have a day job programming, you and your team are already overworked due to being understaffed (obviously), and you are probably also behind schedule and over budget. You don't want to be interrupted whilst doing the day job and you want to try to orgainse the recruitment work into particular timeslots. So, you want cvs electronic for ease of organisation (and it takes effort to empty real bins...), you want to work by email to organise things at time of your choosing, etc. etc.
So you explain things nice and easy: "send your cv, by email, don't call us we'll email or call you."
What do you get...
1. loads of cvs on paper, usually from "no agencies" (like recruitement agencies except they respond to ads which state "strictly no agencies").
2. calls from (no) agencies wanting to take you to lunch to discuss your requirements (lunch? whats that? (see above), try calling about that lunch when things are slack and you're firing not hiring and you actually might have _time_ to do lunch, and guess what... they aren't interested).
3. then, just as you have finally almost got the debugger attached to the third thread from the left which has just started to exhibit that critical but intermittent data corruption bug......some guy who can't read, phones to say "I emailed you my cv yesterday and..." [thread dies, debugger crashes]
Feeling snarky yet ?
Been there, done that. Remember, no matter how snarky you are, always get the name clearly - you need it to delete the right cv...
Seriously, reading and following the application instructions is step one of the process - if you can't do that then you are just wasting everyones time including your own.
Difficult to tell from the vague article, but my guess is they don't, and they throw the data away after analysis. They might map some kind of database schema to the incoming data and provide some form of SQL for queying, but still no real database anywhere.
So, throw out ACID (if problem domain doesn't require it) and get performance increases, wow! Probably they are now patenting it because no one had thought of that before...
First time going to the US I was meeting colleagues already out there and had no idea where we were staying. That got me a delay and a lecture about how I better have that info with me the next time...
Colleague's response was "just say you're staying at the Hilton".
Some popular file-sharing and p2p applications are new, but neither "file-sharing" or "peer-to-peer" are new by any stretch.
Usenet / nttp is clearly peer-to-peer and has been around over 20 years. Only difference I can see with the more recent p2p is peer discovery / tracking - which had to be configured manually with nntp servers (at least last time I ran one, which is a while ago).
Doesn't look to me like redistribution is required, or that it is required to be enabled by the same software (trivial to avoid otherwise - use separate client & server).
Once an internet user has used a web browser to aquire "an identical copy of the file on his or her computer" they clearly may also diseminate the file to other users connected to the network - they may just email it.
Now look at usenet. Definitely a peer-to-peer file distribution system, by any standard. In over 20 years and who knows how many thousands of lines of nntp server code, no one has figured out a resonable way to prevent warez etc. trading on it.
Ratios of infriging vs. non-infringing use is what the _current_ US cases on P2P have been considering, under existing US law.
This new law appears to criminalise any distributor of file-downloading software of any sort who fails to excercise "reasonable care in preventing use of that software to commit an unlawful act".
There is no reference to substantial non-infiringing use or anything like that.
The grandparent post is plain wrong because it cites protocols, not software. However, as far as I can see any web browser or ftp client distributed in CA is now (or will be) illegal if it doesn't have some sort of filtering built in.
Marketing pitched it against Java when it came out, but it looks a hell of a lot like it was _designed_ as a better (cleaner, more flexible, scriptable etc.) plugin API, which they already had lying around in the form of OLE. It (eventually) replaced the NS plugin API in IE.
Plugins then (as now) had no security. ActiveX still had no security but added code signing, so was arguably an improvement in that area. ActiveX also added easier (hence less secure)installation - seem to recall Netscape were supposed to be "improving" that at the time too.
Eh, Netscape ? Netscape plugins had/have _exactly_ the same security issues as activex controls (and were around before them), but without the code signing.
I am pretty sure that ActiveX acutally pre-dated the "tying Outlook/IE/Windows together". It certainly couldn't have postdated it by "a few years" because that would put you back in windows 3.1 days.
When ActiveX came out, you could pretty much put up a link to an.exe on a website and it could be run from any browser with a couple of clicks. ActiveX was mainly a competitor for Netscape plugins and Java - billed as faster than Java (remember we are talking mid-90s hardware) and easier to run than plugins.
Guess what Netscape did - made plugins more secure because security was a big issue, right ? Nope - as I recall, they made plugins easier to install. Plugins have all the same security problems as ActiveX (and I'm not sure that they even had code signing in the early days).
Why did Netscape & MS do this ? - because easier/automatic plugin/activex installation was what people were asking for. Security was down the list (not that the risks weren't understood, just that they weren't considered important) - you could pretty much just put up a link to a.exe and the browser would run it anyway back then (that's as I recall, and it's some time ago now...)
Remember we are talking pretty much 10 years ago - the web was a hell of a lot different then.
Just turn on fast user switching - one keypress (well, chord) to switch back to login screen, then one click, type admin password, and you're admin.
No need to logout at all.
Perhaps it isn't quite as convenient as sudo in some ways (since you can't have admin windows/apps running on same desktop as ordinary user - but then arguably there is more potential for dangerous confusion that way than with two separate desktops), but it is at least as quick - since most of the time is spent typing the admin password (I mean you do have a complex admin pw, obviously...).
The cops didn't own this car, so ownership of car is not really the issue. Also the (quoted) basis of this decision is that the GPS tracker was no different to visual tracking of the vehicle.
Seems to me that in either case someone could have been paid to follow the car and report its position, but the GPS was easier / cheaper. Except in one case the GPS turns out to be not legal and in another it turns out to be legal and no different to the visual option.
It isn't clear from the article that this _is_ about a "GPS transponder that reports the position of a vehicle on a public road" or just a ordinary GPS transponder.
That doesn't mean they won't be _offered_ - at a price. Some users clearly are prepared to pay for it because Dell _DO_ offer RAID (various configs, depending on machine) as an option, even on desktops.
These days they don't tend to treat chronic / recurring _anything_ with invasive surgery involving GA (and I think tonsilectomy is usually only done under GA).
The reason is the death rates from surgery/GA. Not that they have got worse or anything - but our tolerance of deaths from "routine" surgery has reduced, and litigation has increased.
When I was a kid, UK dentists did GAs all the time - I had one to remove several teeth, because I preferred the idea to local. Now I know more I'd not do the same again, but anyway I wouldn't be able to, because now UK dentists don't do GAs (only hospitals). It was banned. Not because people started dying - they always died - but because we started to think that those deaths shouldn't be happening.
Result - you have to have local, (arguably) a much less pleasant experience, but without the risk of it killing you. Same goes for recurring tonsilitis I guess.
Bottom line is that there is a finite, not-insignificant, and unavoidable risk of dying just from the GA every time you have one. The only way to avoid that risk is: don't have one. The medical profession has basically woken up to that and now tries to avoid GAs a lot more than it used to.
Maybe, except there is no porn on the page they would have gone to.
There _is_ a big warning about what the site is about, how you should only click through if you are over 18 etc. etc.
No little kiddies with half a brain would have actually been exposed to porn as a result of this _unless_ they actually wanted to see it (and if the kiddies want to find porn on the internet they will anyway).
What they are doing is abusing the DNS (I presume that's how they did it - might be proxy I guess if they enforce one) to cover up their own mistake. They should be being fully accountable for the cock-up rather than trying to avoid it by abusing their ownership of an ISP.
I think the amazon sites in each country are heavily linked to their in-country distribution networks. So on amazon.co.uk you are specifically searching UK stock priced in GBP to be shipped from UK warehouse, and for.com it is USD, US stock, US warehouse.
If you want to order international amazon don't stop you, they just let the credit card co. handle all the currency conversion, and the shipping co. handle all the international shipping arrangements.
I think it is just the logical design for the way amazon grew / evolved, rather than avoiding this patent.
I think you'll find that amazon international sales were (are?) always priced in dollars - this patent is on a system including the step of currency selection / conversion (which amazon lets the credit card handle).
Slashdot Mirror
FSF also requires copyrights assigned to them for contributions to their projects (or certainly used to), so this requirement certainly doesn't make a project non-free*.
*unless of course you regard free as being BSD-free and GPL as less free due to it having more restrictions...
Sorry but that is just not true. Example:
With one 1.4.2 point release (not even a minor version), all our applets suddenly became unable to load images. It looked like they changed the rules - previously you could access files beneath the codebase when running locally (ie. without web server), now it gave security violation.
In fact, it turned out that they didn't change the applet security rules, they just required code to be wrapped in a privileged block where it didn't need to be before. The new code won't work on old (eg. MS) VMs either, so now you need JVM version detection etc.
The code was standard image loading stuff (originally used Sun examples IIRC), worked fine from 1.1 through to 1.4.2, then broke completely from 1.4.2_04 (I think) onwards.
Often in smaller organisations it isn't HR drones doing the recruiting - it is (senior) tech staff.
...some guy who can't read, phones to say "I emailed you my cv yesterday and..." [thread dies, debugger crashes]
So, let's put yourself in their position:
You already have a day job programming, you and your team are already overworked due to being understaffed (obviously), and you are probably also behind schedule and over budget. You don't want to be interrupted whilst doing the day job and you want to try to orgainse the recruitment work into particular timeslots. So, you want cvs electronic for ease of organisation (and it takes effort to empty real bins...), you want to work by email to organise things at time of your choosing, etc. etc.
So you explain things nice and easy: "send your cv, by email, don't call us we'll email or call you."
What do you get...
1. loads of cvs on paper, usually from "no agencies" (like recruitement agencies except they respond to ads which state "strictly no agencies").
2. calls from (no) agencies wanting to take you to lunch to discuss your requirements (lunch? whats that? (see above), try calling about that lunch when things are slack and you're firing not hiring and you actually might have _time_ to do lunch, and guess what... they aren't interested).
3. then, just as you have finally almost got the debugger attached to the third thread from the left which has just started to exhibit that critical but intermittent data corruption bug...
Feeling snarky yet ?
Been there, done that. Remember, no matter how snarky you are, always get the name clearly - you need it to delete the right cv...
Seriously, reading and following the application instructions is step one of the process - if you can't do that then you are just wasting everyones time including your own.
Difficult to tell from the vague article, but my guess is they don't, and they throw the data away after analysis. They might map some kind of database schema to the incoming data and provide some form of SQL for queying, but still no real database anywhere.
So, throw out ACID (if problem domain doesn't require it) and get performance increases, wow! Probably they are now patenting it because no one had thought of that before...
INS have asked me every time (all before 9/11).
First time going to the US I was meeting colleagues already out there and had no idea where we were staying. That got me a delay and a lecture about how I better have that info with me the next time...
Colleague's response was "just say you're staying at the Hilton".
Some popular file-sharing and p2p applications are new, but neither "file-sharing" or "peer-to-peer" are new by any stretch.
Usenet / nttp is clearly peer-to-peer and has been around over 20 years. Only difference I can see with the more recent p2p is peer discovery / tracking - which had to be configured manually with nntp servers (at least last time I ran one, which is a while ago).
I read it. Did you read the "may also" ?
Doesn't look to me like redistribution is required, or that it is required to be enabled by the same software (trivial to avoid otherwise - use separate client & server).
Once an internet user has used a web browser to aquire "an identical copy of the file on his or her computer" they clearly may also diseminate the file to other users connected to the network - they may just email it.
Now look at usenet. Definitely a peer-to-peer file distribution system, by any standard. In over 20 years and who knows how many thousands of lines of nntp server code, no one has figured out a resonable way to prevent warez etc. trading on it.
Ratios of infriging vs. non-infringing use is what the _current_ US cases on P2P have been considering, under existing US law.
This new law appears to criminalise any distributor of file-downloading software of any sort who fails to excercise "reasonable care in preventing use of that software to commit an unlawful act".
There is no reference to substantial non-infiringing use or anything like that.
The grandparent post is plain wrong because it cites protocols, not software. However, as far as I can see any web browser or ftp client distributed in CA is now (or will be) illegal if it doesn't have some sort of filtering built in.
Also can cause problems the other way.
If you aren't careful, person doing the registering (and who goes in as the admin contact) at a company can end up as teh registrant.
It seems that it can become impossible to even renew the domain without the authority of that individual - and if they've left the company...
Marketing pitched it against Java when it came out, but it looks a hell of a lot like it was _designed_ as a better (cleaner, more flexible, scriptable etc.) plugin API, which they already had lying around in the form of OLE. It (eventually) replaced the NS plugin API in IE.
Plugins then (as now) had no security. ActiveX still had no security but added code signing, so was arguably an improvement in that area. ActiveX also added easier (hence less secure)installation - seem to recall Netscape were supposed to be "improving" that at the time too.
Eh, Netscape ? Netscape plugins had/have _exactly_ the same security issues as activex controls (and were around before them), but without the code signing.
I am pretty sure that ActiveX acutally pre-dated the "tying Outlook/IE/Windows together". It certainly couldn't have postdated it by "a few years" because that would put you back in windows 3.1 days.
.exe on a website and it could be run from any browser with a couple of clicks. ActiveX was mainly a competitor for Netscape plugins and Java - billed as faster than Java (remember we are talking mid-90s hardware) and easier to run than plugins.
.exe and the browser would run it anyway back then (that's as I recall, and it's some time ago now...)
When ActiveX came out, you could pretty much put up a link to an
Guess what Netscape did - made plugins more secure because security was a big issue, right ? Nope - as I recall, they made plugins easier to install. Plugins have all the same security problems as ActiveX (and I'm not sure that they even had code signing in the early days).
Why did Netscape & MS do this ? - because easier/automatic plugin/activex installation was what people were asking for. Security was down the list (not that the risks weren't understood, just that they weren't considered important) - you could pretty much just put up a link to a
Remember we are talking pretty much 10 years ago - the web was a hell of a lot different then.
Just turn on fast user switching - one keypress (well, chord) to switch back to login screen, then one click, type admin password, and you're admin.
No need to logout at all.
Perhaps it isn't quite as convenient as sudo in some ways (since you can't have admin windows/apps running on same desktop as ordinary user - but then arguably there is more potential for dangerous confusion that way than with two separate desktops), but it is at least as quick - since most of the time is spent typing the admin password (I mean you do have a complex admin pw, obviously...).
The cops didn't own this car, so ownership of car is not really the issue. Also the (quoted) basis of this decision is that the GPS tracker was no different to visual tracking of the vehicle.
Seems to me that in either case someone could have been paid to follow the car and report its position, but the GPS was easier / cheaper. Except in one case the GPS turns out to be not legal and in another it turns out to be legal and no different to the visual option.
Surely that makes an argument _for_ the GPS - since he knows where she is, he can avoid being near her and unknowingly violating the order.
It isn't clear from the article that this _is_ about a "GPS transponder that reports the position of a vehicle on a public road" or just a ordinary GPS transponder.
Can you figure out what the difference is ?
So if she had "no reasonable expectation of privacy when driving her car in public", what the heck was he convicted of ?
That doesn't mean they won't be _offered_ - at a price. Some users clearly are prepared to pay for it because Dell _DO_ offer RAID (various configs, depending on machine) as an option, even on desktops.
already done, several times
M-x viper-mode
M-x vi-mode
M-x vip-mode
and probably a few more as well.
Also emacs emulations exist for tpu/edt, wordstar, and probably a whole bunch of others.
These days they don't tend to treat chronic / recurring _anything_ with invasive surgery involving GA (and I think tonsilectomy is usually only done under GA).
The reason is the death rates from surgery/GA. Not that they have got worse or anything - but our tolerance of deaths from "routine" surgery has reduced, and litigation has increased.
When I was a kid, UK dentists did GAs all the time - I had one to remove several teeth, because I preferred the idea to local. Now I know more I'd not do the same again, but anyway I wouldn't be able to, because now UK dentists don't do GAs (only hospitals). It was banned. Not because people started dying - they always died - but because we started to think that those deaths shouldn't be happening.
Result - you have to have local, (arguably) a much less pleasant experience, but without the risk of it killing you. Same goes for recurring tonsilitis I guess.
Bottom line is that there is a finite, not-insignificant, and unavoidable risk of dying just from the GA every time you have one. The only way to avoid that risk is: don't have one. The medical profession has basically woken up to that and now tries to avoid GAs a lot more than it used to.
Maybe, except there is no porn on the page they would have gone to.
There _is_ a big warning about what the site is about, how you should only click through if you are over 18 etc. etc.
No little kiddies with half a brain would have actually been exposed to porn as a result of this _unless_ they actually wanted to see it (and if the kiddies want to find porn on the internet they will anyway).
What they are doing is abusing the DNS (I presume that's how they did it - might be proxy I guess if they enforce one) to cover up their own mistake. They should be being fully accountable for the cock-up rather than trying to avoid it by abusing their ownership of an ISP.
I think the amazon sites in each country are heavily linked to their in-country distribution networks. So on amazon.co.uk you are specifically searching UK stock priced in GBP to be shipped from UK warehouse, and for .com it is USD, US stock, US warehouse.
If you want to order international amazon don't stop you, they just let the credit card co. handle all the currency conversion, and the shipping co. handle all the international shipping arrangements.
I think it is just the logical design for the way amazon grew / evolved, rather than avoiding this patent.
I think you'll find that amazon international sales were (are?) always priced in dollars - this patent is on a system including the step of currency selection / conversion (which amazon lets the credit card handle).
So amazon wouldn't be prior art, or infringe.
IR35 - see eg. http://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/