Not available until after the November election, eh? How conveeeenient.
Not available until after the shredders cool down...
Actually, the time between now and December should give them lot's of time to properly purge the records. People just don't appreciate how dangerous truth and knowledge can be to a Democracy.
Of course, you are assuming that this would enable you to garner higher wages due to the smaller feild of competition. Look how nicely this theory works for MSCE's.
The other nicety of your proposal is that it would effectively protect the vendors from responsibility. The engineer would be responsible for the flaws, but would still be required to program what and how he is told to by his employer. Otherwise the employer would simply get another engineer who was willing to follow instructions. I'm not saying that this does not occur today, but at least the employee is not held responsible when he implements that Bad Idea exactly as was requested by an ignoramous "project manager" (Marketing droid who knows a little java).
Doesn't really matter if it's government mandated DRM, or if it's an industry wide agreement. Either way there is a group with a vested interest in controlling what news, ideas, and history we are exposed to controlling what we watch and what we can pass around freely.
The interest of the two groups (government and industry) are remarkably similar (they depend on each other to remain in power) and dissenting voices will be quieted no matter who is at the reigns of DRM.
I would not be surprised if the Chinese government is welcoming of this development. Government control over media content there seems to be commonplace there, and DRM appears to be a natural choice to further enforce control over the dissemination of ideas.
Atanassoff's machine was not programable, could only solve one function at a time, had to have the results of the first function fed back to the machine in order to solve a second function, and had no technologies in common with ENIAC.
Sudents from Iowa can only graduate in CS if they reject all truth in order to perpetuate a lie that the first computer was invented in thier home state.
Microsoft is aware of that work and even mentions an article from the "IBM Systems Journal, volume 35, nos 3 & 4" about the work at the Media Lab.
This patent is only for Microsoft's implementation. As much as I like to bash McSoftware and their business practices, there's nothing wrong with this patent. It references a lot of prior art, and points other developers to information that might allow them to create thier own Personal Area Network without stepping on Microsofts IP.
I still think they're greedy pigs, but apparently they do have people who are ethical and can "play nice" (thx to Lyndsay, Bill, and Steve for not trying to "Sarnoff" or "Von Neuman" this one.)
"Personal Area Networks: Near-field intrabody communication"; IBM Systems Journal, vol. 35, No. 3&4, 1996 --MIT Media Lab, 11 pages.
This article was mentioned as a reference in the patent, and is included as prior art. I guess that means that what has been already implemented at the Media Lab is excluded from the Microsoft patent.
It seems that the patent is for an actual implementation of this idea, and thus would allow you to invent your own without violating, as long as you are not using Microsoft's tech in your creation. In other words (shock, horror) it's a good patent that references previous work.
Last time I checked, 2nd Amendment didn't mention hunting.
No, but popular sentiment does support hunting (and "plinking") in a signifigant (but not majority) portion of our country.
A lot of "Liberals" (such as myself) recognise that, although handguns are used to commit crimes, they do have legitmate and non-violent/non-criminal uses that should be permitted. Overregulation of handgun ownership is akin to attempting to treat the symptoms (persons resorting to violence and using deadly force on their neighbors) without addressing the diseases that are causing them, such as the lack of quality education, poverty, few opportunities, inability or unpreparedness to deal reasonably with adverse situations, emulating the poor example presented by our leaders (such as going to war based on inadequate information and attacking a perceived and imagined threat because the real threat is immiterial and difficult to identify), etc.
Disney's lawyers are as infamous (or infamouse) as IBM's. What are they doing settling out of court for an iffy patent?
Because the existance of this (and similar) patents fits the Disney Corp's business model. I would be surprised if Disney did not find a way to get in on the action (perhaps as an investor or through a venture capital fund).
If the options are the Media Conglomerates plus the Software Giant -vs- Everyone Else, then the answer is everyone else.
The difficulty is to help Everyone Else understand how these issues affect them before they are screwed.
I would have never have said this before, but I'll say it now: next time, I vote for the ACLU.
The ACLU is an easy target because they often champion unpopular causes (Free Speach for nazis, right to publish for pornographers, etc). It's important to always remember that our civil liberties are only gauranteed if we are willing to defend the rights of those with whom we disagree. Liberty is a strabge beast in that it is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Here's a link to that photo plus some historical context, government documentation, and a breif history of the US history of support of Saddam Hussein through the 1980s.
Re:I know a man who had this in the Eighties...
on
RF-Blocking Wallpaper
·
· Score: 1
Would this wi-fi blocking stuff work against Van Eck Phreaking?
That's exactly what it was for, but I never learned the term until I read an article on/. a few years ago.
I'm not sure that it was possible during the eighties, but there were definately some people who beleived that it was.
I know a man who had this in the Eighties...
on
RF-Blocking Wallpaper
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The computer room (floor, walls, and ceiling) was lined with akluminized wallpaper, the window had an aluminum screen. His own home-built faraday cage.
As he did not have wi-fi, I beleive that he was more concerned with preventing eavesdropping of his CRTs rf feild. There were other CS guys (from the uni) who did the same thing.
As he my first real programming teacher, I always assumed that the tech to "tempest" a CRT was available then. Tapping WiFi is undoubtably a magnitude simpler.
I would be surprised if the military was not encrypting the traffic as well. Even if you do have the link encrypted, it is still better if "the enemy" does not know that a message was passed in the first place.
Not to detract from the importance of OPen Source in tax-funded development, but the federal government has been producing GPLed code for some time now.
I had two userIDs booted from the site due to posting evidence contrary to previous post's allegations (from government documents no less) before I realized that their definition of "free" is the freedom to lie, spin, eliminate opposing viewpoints, and hide evidence to the contrary of a revisionist conservative political platform.
At least on the so-called "liberal" sites, a little debate is always welcome, and unpopular viewpoints are moderarated fairly if they are argued appropriately and grounded in fact.
This doesn't count the fact of people finding *LEGIT* security flaws in his other software *ahem qmail*, and he refuses to admit it.
Got a link?
I've been searching all night to find this "security flaw" that's been mentioned in several posts by a few posters here on/.
All I've found is a method to crash an smtp session, but qmail keeps running and the remote gets disconnected (haven't tried it yet myself), and none of the reporting posts claimed or implied that the flaw in any way makes qmail any less secure.
The guy may rub a few people the wrong way, but he's one of the top 1% of programmers. His implementations might be unusual, but they work, are reliable and secure, and you can freely use and modify them (by patching). What else can you ask for?
The mentioning of U.S. interests is done in the context that the "book" is intended for U.S. Leaders.
Everything that AdTI produces is "intended for U.S. Leaders". They are a neoconservative lobbying group that pretends to champion "Liberal Causes" while pushing for neoconservative style privatization (putting our tax dollars directly into the hands of private corporations without any oversight while pushing for deregulation of those same industries).
AdTIs board (google cache link due to AdTI removing this information from thier website) consist mainly of Washington based political party insiders. There is more at stake here than just Linux,
They are not playing the public for Microsoft, rather they are tapping Microsoft (who will and does benefit from thier agenda) in order to attract funding for thier political platform.
I think part of the problem is people assume a PHD = genius. It doesn't.
An even greater problem is the belief that "genius" = "willing to do whatever crap that you ask for". It doesn't.
1. One does not hire a researcher (ie: PhD) to direct a bunch of programmers working on production code, you get an Engineer for that. You don't hire him to have "people skills", you hire a sales dick or management stooge for that. You hire a PhD because you have a problem that need be solved that his expertise is appropriate for, or you hire him to address old problems in a new manner.
2. Why the hell would you seek a PhD to port a game, other than the rediculous ego boost that business types get from saying they've got a PhD on staff. If you need code monkeys, you hire code monkeys. If you need project managers, you hire project managers.
If you hire the PhD to impress the venture capital, then pay him what he asks and trot him out at parties to impress the investors and let him work on his own shit the rest of the time. If you're hiring him to inflate your own ego ("look at me, I've got two PhDs on my payroll!"), forget it. You're bound to be disappointed, they'll not make you any money, and you'll look like the dumbass, not them.
After reading the link that you've so kindly provided, I still disagree with the ruling.
Many farmers reserve a portion of their crop for seed. If the neighbors crop "infects" your seed with a beneficial and patented gene, does this mean that you can no longer follow the traditional practice of saving your own seed without paying for the use of the seed? That's ubsurd! Saving your own seed is an old and respected practice. If Monsanto wishes to proffit from Round-Up Ready, they should settle for the increased sales of Round-Up, not go after farmers who simply got in the way of an IP laden gust of wind.
You may as well claim that a computer virus that contains patented code with a restrictive copyright policy can make you lible for license fees unless you purchase a new copy of your OS.
He may have known that his crop was round-up resistant, but he didn't ask for it to be, and he did not benefit from this (he did not use round-up on his feilds), so to ask him to pay for the license is pure and unadulterated bullshit. It was his canola, from his seed. The fact that "an act of god" (wind) brought the Round-Up Ready gene across the fence row should not force him to alter his farming practice.
The people behind Google Watch does not fully understand how PageRank works, and got burned because his site needs a redesign in order that the pagerank that he believes Namebase should receive on certain searches could be possible.
That said, I must admit that a lot of work has gone into making Namebase a valuable reference for people who do the kind of research that Namebase is suited to, and it offers a service that no-one else does. I use Namebase on a regular basis, about once or twice a week.
The points being made on the GoogleWatch page are mostly wrong minded (would you trust a Microsoft search engine to protect your privacy more than you'd trust google) and easily dealt with from a users point of veiw (block cookies from google if don't want them, set all cookies to expire at the end of the session if you don't like the expiration date). As far as I can tell, no-one (including myself) has really attempted to reasonably address the GoogleWatch folk about how a better pagerank can be acheived, what measures can be taken by Google users to protect their privacy (the same measures that are effective elswhere), or has bothered to link to useful searches that would help improve the PageRank for Namebase pages. Perhaps if Namebase would be willing to move beyond the concept of providing a (excelent and helpful) bibliography for researchers, then a better PageRank would be inevitable.
I good piece of art is one where you can look back on it and say "thisdepictshowpeoplewerebackthen" or something. It speaks for them.
It's nice to know that you're so capable of defining what a "good peice of art" is when so many of the masters were unable to define it themselves. I'll agree that the art may speak to the viewer, but I'll stop shy of stating that the artist has absolute control over what I (or anyone else) might get from the art.
All art is like pornography, I may not be able to tell you what art may be, but I do know it when I see it.
Fuck if my theoretical [if I paid taxes] tax dollars went to the art it should at least represent me!
If you want art that represents you, then you'll have to make it yourself. I'm rather happy that some of my tax dollar goes to supporting artists and their work. Even if most of it does nothing for me, tghere's a lot worse the money could be going to, and the few things I truly like make the rest worth suffering through.
The linked article is political bullcrap (maybe they're trying to help).
As anyone who has even a little familiarity with horticulture knows, the problem lies not with the type of fertilizer being spread, but with lack of sane agricultural practices that large (corporate) farming and chemical fertilizer use encourages.
The best method of obtaining well fertilized soil in one's feilds is not through the use of high-nitrogen fertilizer, but through the ocasional cultivation of crops that form a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen fixing bacteria. these crops can be food crops such as legumes (peas, lentils, various beans including soy, and others), or fallow crops that can be used as animal feed (such as clover or alfalfa).
The accusations that promoters of organic farming practices wish to ban meat are fud (I like my organic, anti-biotic free, black angus steaks), but are easy to beleive because the most vocal proponents do tend to come from the vegi-nazi school of ignorance.
Traditional farming is organic farming, all else is an aberration.
Slashdot Mirror
Not available until after the November election, eh? How conveeeenient.
Not available until after the shredders cool down...
Actually, the time between now and December should give them lot's of time to properly purge the records. People just don't appreciate how dangerous truth and knowledge can be to a Democracy.
Two sides, same coin.
I would like to see that happen, anyone else?
Of course, you are assuming that this would enable you to garner higher wages due to the smaller feild of competition. Look how nicely this theory works for MSCE's.
The other nicety of your proposal is that it would effectively protect the vendors from responsibility. The engineer would be responsible for the flaws, but would still be required to program what and how he is told to by his employer. Otherwise the employer would simply get another engineer who was willing to follow instructions. I'm not saying that this does not occur today, but at least the employee is not held responsible when he implements that Bad Idea exactly as was requested by an ignoramous "project manager" (Marketing droid who knows a little java).
Doesn't really matter if it's government mandated DRM, or if it's an industry wide agreement. Either way there is a group with a vested interest in controlling what news, ideas, and history we are exposed to controlling what we watch and what we can pass around freely.
The interest of the two groups (government and industry) are remarkably similar (they depend on each other to remain in power) and dissenting voices will be quieted no matter who is at the reigns of DRM.
I would not be surprised if the Chinese government is welcoming of this development. Government control over media content there seems to be commonplace there, and DRM appears to be a natural choice to further enforce control over the dissemination of ideas.
Atanassoff's machine was not programable, could only solve one function at a time, had to have the results of the first function fed back to the machine in order to solve a second function, and had no technologies in common with ENIAC.
Sudents from Iowa can only graduate in CS if they reject all truth in order to perpetuate a lie that the first computer was invented in thier home state.
Microsoft is aware of that work and even mentions an article from the "IBM Systems Journal, volume 35, nos 3 & 4" about the work at the Media Lab.
This patent is only for Microsoft's implementation. As much as I like to bash McSoftware and their business practices, there's nothing wrong with this patent. It references a lot of prior art, and points other developers to information that might allow them to create thier own Personal Area Network without stepping on Microsofts IP.
I still think they're greedy pigs, but apparently they do have people who are ethical and can "play nice" (thx to Lyndsay, Bill, and Steve for not trying to "Sarnoff" or "Von Neuman" this one.)
"Personal Area Networks: Near-field intrabody communication"; IBM Systems Journal, vol. 35, No. 3&4, 1996 --MIT Media Lab, 11 pages.
This article was mentioned as a reference in the patent, and is included as prior art. I guess that means that what has been already implemented at the Media Lab is excluded from the Microsoft patent.
It seems that the patent is for an actual implementation of this idea, and thus would allow you to invent your own without violating, as long as you are not using Microsoft's tech in your creation. In other words (shock, horror) it's a good patent that references previous work.
Last time I checked, 2nd Amendment didn't mention hunting.
No, but popular sentiment does support hunting (and "plinking") in a signifigant (but not majority) portion of our country.
A lot of "Liberals" (such as myself) recognise that, although handguns are used to commit crimes, they do have legitmate and non-violent/non-criminal uses that should be permitted. Overregulation of handgun ownership is akin to attempting to treat the symptoms (persons resorting to violence and using deadly force on their neighbors) without addressing the diseases that are causing them, such as the lack of quality education, poverty, few opportunities, inability or unpreparedness to deal reasonably with adverse situations, emulating the poor example presented by our leaders (such as going to war based on inadequate information and attacking a perceived and imagined threat because the real threat is immiterial and difficult to identify), etc.
Disney's lawyers are as infamous (or infamouse) as IBM's. What are they doing settling out of court for an iffy patent?
Because the existance of this (and similar) patents fits the Disney Corp's business model. I would be surprised if Disney did not find a way to get in on the action (perhaps as an investor or through a venture capital fund).
Maybe Comcast will go the same route.
So the question is: who has deeper pockets?
If the options are the Media Conglomerates plus the Software Giant -vs- Everyone Else, then the answer is everyone else.
The difficulty is to help Everyone Else understand how these issues affect them before they are screwed.
I would have never have said this before, but I'll say it now: next time, I vote for the ACLU.
The ACLU is an easy target because they often champion unpopular causes (Free Speach for nazis, right to publish for pornographers, etc). It's important to always remember that our civil liberties are only gauranteed if we are willing to defend the rights of those with whom we disagree. Liberty is a strabge beast in that it is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Here's a link to that photo plus some historical context, government documentation, and a breif history of the US history of support of Saddam Hussein through the 1980s.
Would this wi-fi blocking stuff work against Van Eck Phreaking?
/. a few years ago.
That's exactly what it was for, but I never learned the term until I read an article on
I'm not sure that it was possible during the eighties, but there were definately some people who beleived that it was.
The computer room (floor, walls, and ceiling) was lined with akluminized wallpaper, the window had an aluminum screen. His own home-built faraday cage.
As he did not have wi-fi, I beleive that he was more concerned with preventing eavesdropping of his CRTs rf feild. There were other CS guys (from the uni) who did the same thing.
As he my first real programming teacher, I always assumed that the tech to "tempest" a CRT was available then. Tapping WiFi is undoubtably a magnitude simpler.
I would be surprised if the military was not encrypting the traffic as well. Even if you do have the link encrypted, it is still better if "the enemy" does not know that a message was passed in the first place.
What about SELinux?
And Don Becker's ethernet drivers. (of NASA)
And the Beowulf software. (Also from NASA)
Not to detract from the importance of OPen Source in tax-funded development, but the federal government has been producing GPLed code for some time now.
This is typical of freep.
I had two userIDs booted from the site due to posting evidence contrary to previous post's allegations (from government documents no less) before I realized that their definition of "free" is the freedom to lie, spin, eliminate opposing viewpoints, and hide evidence to the contrary of a revisionist conservative political platform.
At least on the so-called "liberal" sites, a little debate is always welcome, and unpopular viewpoints are moderarated fairly if they are argued appropriately and grounded in fact.
This doesn't count the fact of people finding *LEGIT* security flaws in his other software *ahem qmail*, and he refuses to admit it.
/.
Got a link?
I've been searching all night to find this "security flaw" that's been mentioned in several posts by a few posters here on
All I've found is a method to crash an smtp session, but qmail keeps running and the remote gets disconnected (haven't tried it yet myself), and none of the reporting posts claimed or implied that the flaw in any way makes qmail any less secure.
The guy may rub a few people the wrong way, but he's one of the top 1% of programmers. His implementations might be unusual, but they work, are reliable and secure, and you can freely use and modify them (by patching). What else can you ask for?
The mentioning of U.S. interests is done in the context that the "book" is intended for U.S. Leaders.
Everything that AdTI produces is "intended for U.S. Leaders". They are a neoconservative lobbying group that pretends to champion "Liberal Causes" while pushing for neoconservative style privatization (putting our tax dollars directly into the hands of private corporations without any oversight while pushing for deregulation of those same industries).
AdTIs board (google cache link due to AdTI removing this information from thier website) consist mainly of Washington based political party insiders. There is more at stake here than just Linux,
They are not playing the public for Microsoft, rather they are tapping Microsoft (who will and does benefit from thier agenda) in order to attract funding for thier political platform.
Tailpipe.
Done.
I think part of the problem is people assume a PHD = genius. It doesn't.
An even greater problem is the belief that "genius" = "willing to do whatever crap that you ask for". It doesn't.
1. One does not hire a researcher (ie: PhD) to direct a bunch of programmers working on production code, you get an Engineer for that. You don't hire him to have "people skills", you hire a sales dick or management stooge for that. You hire a PhD because you have a problem that need be solved that his expertise is appropriate for, or you hire him to address old problems in a new manner.
2. Why the hell would you seek a PhD to port a game, other than the rediculous ego boost that business types get from saying they've got a PhD on staff. If you need code monkeys, you hire code monkeys. If you need project managers, you hire project managers.
If you hire the PhD to impress the venture capital, then pay him what he asks and trot him out at parties to impress the investors and let him work on his own shit the rest of the time. If you're hiring him to inflate your own ego ("look at me, I've got two PhDs on my payroll!"), forget it. You're bound to be disappointed, they'll not make you any money, and you'll look like the dumbass, not them.
After reading the link that you've so kindly provided, I still disagree with the ruling.
Many farmers reserve a portion of their crop for seed. If the neighbors crop "infects" your seed with a beneficial and patented gene, does this mean that you can no longer follow the traditional practice of saving your own seed without paying for the use of the seed? That's ubsurd! Saving your own seed is an old and respected practice. If Monsanto wishes to proffit from Round-Up Ready, they should settle for the increased sales of Round-Up, not go after farmers who simply got in the way of an IP laden gust of wind.
You may as well claim that a computer virus that contains patented code with a restrictive copyright policy can make you lible for license fees unless you purchase a new copy of your OS.
He may have known that his crop was round-up resistant, but he didn't ask for it to be, and he did not benefit from this (he did not use round-up on his feilds), so to ask him to pay for the license is pure and unadulterated bullshit. It was his canola, from his seed. The fact that "an act of god" (wind) brought the Round-Up Ready gene across the fence row should not force him to alter his farming practice.
The people behind Google Watch does not fully understand how PageRank works, and got burned because his site needs a redesign in order that the pagerank that he believes Namebase should receive on certain searches could be possible.
That said, I must admit that a lot of work has gone into making Namebase a valuable reference for people who do the kind of research that Namebase is suited to, and it offers a service that no-one else does. I use Namebase on a regular basis, about once or twice a week.
The points being made on the GoogleWatch page are mostly wrong minded (would you trust a Microsoft search engine to protect your privacy more than you'd trust google) and easily dealt with from a users point of veiw (block cookies from google if don't want them, set all cookies to expire at the end of the session if you don't like the expiration date). As far as I can tell, no-one (including myself) has really attempted to reasonably address the GoogleWatch folk about how a better pagerank can be acheived, what measures can be taken by Google users to protect their privacy (the same measures that are effective elswhere), or has bothered to link to useful searches that would help improve the PageRank for Namebase pages. Perhaps if Namebase would be willing to move beyond the concept of providing a (excelent and helpful) bibliography for researchers, then a better PageRank would be inevitable.
He copies a proprietary protocol and he expects Microsoft to make sure their implementation is interoperable with his?
Since when was SMB Microsoft property. (hint: Microsoft networking is an implementation of SMB.)
It is perfectly fine to criticise a company that takes an open protocol and the attempts to make their implementation incompatible with the others.
I good piece of art is one where you can look back on it and say "this depicts how people were back then" or something. It speaks for them.
It's nice to know that you're so capable of defining what a "good peice of art" is when so many of the masters were unable to define it themselves. I'll agree that the art may speak to the viewer, but I'll stop shy of stating that the artist has absolute control over what I (or anyone else) might get from the art.
All art is like pornography, I may not be able to tell you what art may be, but I do know it when I see it.
Fuck if my theoretical [if I paid taxes] tax dollars went to the art it should at least represent me!
If you want art that represents you, then you'll have to make it yourself. I'm rather happy that some of my tax dollar goes to supporting artists and their work. Even if most of it does nothing for me, tghere's a lot worse the money could be going to, and the few things I truly like make the rest worth suffering through.
The linked article is political bullcrap (maybe they're trying to help).
As anyone who has even a little familiarity with horticulture knows, the problem lies not with the type of fertilizer being spread, but with lack of sane agricultural practices that large (corporate) farming and chemical fertilizer use encourages.
The best method of obtaining well fertilized soil in one's feilds is not through the use of high-nitrogen fertilizer, but through the ocasional cultivation of crops that form a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen fixing bacteria. these crops can be food crops such as legumes (peas, lentils, various beans including soy, and others), or fallow crops that can be used as animal feed (such as clover or alfalfa).
The accusations that promoters of organic farming practices wish to ban meat are fud (I like my organic, anti-biotic free, black angus steaks), but are easy to beleive because the most vocal proponents do tend to come from the vegi-nazi school of ignorance.
Traditional farming is organic farming, all else is an aberration.