The transflective displays to a really good job with energy efficiency. The display is ALWAYS the biggest power hog in handhelds (unless it has Wi-Fi).
To get REALLY excellent run-time though, they need to do some VERY AGGRESSIVE caching on disc usage.
Seriously, Sony are the gods of handheld/portable devices. I'm very surprised that it's taken them this long to lay down the gauntlet and challenge Nintendo.
I'm not sure that an organization that "gives stuff away for free" can criticize ANOTHER organization that "gives stuff away for free". The fact that Microsoft is trying to slow open-source adoption is besides the point.
Other for profit organizations, do have reason to bitch given Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
If non-profits are getting some freeware, than that's good. The fact that they're not getting YOUR free software is really no reason to bitch.
If open-source has the effect of keeping prices low and getting Microsoft to behave in a more philanthropic fashion, than it is STILL a success.
In the web-server area, nothing can stop Linux taking over a rather DUHHHH task from both Microsoft AND Sun.
This seems to be a question of "effective measures." Did you do enough to keep other peoples intellectual property out of your code. I think it's a really interesting question, and honestly I think it will haunt GPL folks a hell of a lot more than it will non-GPL companies.
However, in this case, SCO distributed their code in Linux knowingly under the GPL license. They still own the copyright, and SCO Unix is NOT compromised since they still own the copyright to THEIR OWN work and can license it how they choose. But, the portions of code that they DID license through GPL are available to the world under the conditions of the GPL.
GPL is a license, not a transfer of copyright ownerwhip. Since SCO's contribution is not a derivative of open-source work, they CAN include it in their own for-profit SCO Unix. Any internal derivative of that work does NOT apply to GPL since SCO can license the code for it's own use however it deems fitting.
Basically what I'm saying is that you can have IP and license it to one party under one condition and to another party under other conditions. In this case, SCO could still license their code to another for-profit company who intends to use it in for-profit software. It does not violate GPL licensing because the original owner can grant AS MANY licenses they like on whatever terms they deem fitting.
If SCO assests are sold off in say a liquidation (which they will SOON be) the copyright transfers to the new owners but licensees still retain their rights.
Back to open source. The open source community is MUCH MORE vulnerable to these types of Trojans. Indirect, third-party inclusion of GPL code in Open Source could very well wreck it. I wouldn't put it beyond Microsoft to try this intentionally.
If SCO hadn't knowingly published those pieces under GPL, Linux could've been in SERIOUS trouble. In general, it will be MUCH HARDER for open-source to check against this type of TrojanIP code than it would be for Microsoft since Open Sourcers generally DONT have access to proprietary code bases.
The notion of the virus GPL is really a misnomer. The proprietary stuff is far more virulant and has WAY more protection under the law.
SCO is arguing that because they never released their code under the GPL, and because nobody else could do so legally, then the code was never covered by the GPL. Therefore all subsequent distribution was unlawful, except of course that done by SCO itself because they owned the copyrights in question.
The fundamental problem is that SCO CONTINUED distribution of Linux as GPL code AFTER they allegedly discovered the inclusion of their Intellectual Property. Effectively they knowingly STAMPED THEIR code contained within Linux as GPL.
Had they notified all parties immediately AND included disclaimers and warnings that certain portions WERE NOT covered by GPL as they were stolen than SCO would be fine.
Remember Linux and GPL stole NOTHING from SCO. A third party did the deed and THEY are indeed actionable for damages. However, SCO distributed their IP knowingly and published it under General Public License knowingly. This is an EXPLICIT transfer of license for any code within that they MAY have had had claims to.
That code now belongs to the GPL collectively and all it's users. Irregardless of their intent, the screwed up and knowingly (by all admissions) branded their code as GPL. SCO owned the copyright, and SCO published that copyrighted work KNOWINGLY under GPL therefore giving EVERYONE permission to do with it as they please so long as the result is a GPL work.
Somebody then took a copy of that work and created a derived work, and then I distributed that derived work. Did I wrong them? NO! Because they never should have created their derived works in the first place, because I held the exclusive right to do that (unbeknownst to them). So anything anybody does with those derived works is an offense against ME, not against the people who created them based on my work in the first place.
That doesn't GIVE you the right to print THEIR derived work. It only stops them from publishing the derived work (this is typically resolved through licensing).
SCO was under NO obligation to distribute that code under the GPL. In fact, it was under their power to remove the code and distribute Linux under GPL (since only THEY know what code it is).
The fact that they did NOT insert it is moot. They knew and they distributed it under GPL. They did NOT modify it after they discovered AND announced that their intellectual property was contained in Linux. This would imply that that they have released the affected portion (not the entirety of SCO Linux) as open source.
Let me ask this. After SCO discovered the problem. SCO Linux COULD HAVE distributed Linux and STILL kept their IP rights... HOW? Well before and after the GPL they could have written the following.
Portions of this Linux release have been found to potntially contain proprietary source code from SCO Unix. SCO is distributing Linux in it's entirety but DOES NOT implicitely or explicitely transfer copyright or patents to General Public License by releasing Linux which is available free online.
By using this code, you affirm that SCO retains ALL intellectual property rights to code that may have been inserted illegaly by a third party.
Such a notice would ALSO have to be sent to all their customers that either bought a boxed SCO Linux or downloaded a SCO Linux. This would satisfy any requirements for notification.
Beyond that, the licensing would put everyone on notice that their were portions of the code that are subject to litigation. Irregardless of the legality of a modified license, they would not be telling people "This is GPL licensed code, have fun, modify and publish whatever you want under GPL" Which they did.
They may have been held accountable by Torvalds for such a modified license. But they wouldn't be explicitely publishing their propriety code under GPL.
Ultimately, I think this whole "secret" around WHAT code it is will backfire. In the meanwhile, people are creating derived works based on code THEY published under GPL. They have rights as well. How would anyone know WHICH code is tainted, and therefore how can their derived work be a copyright infringement if they had no way of knowing WHICH code is in violation.
SCOs failure to identify the tainted code will ultimately push it into the GPL as they have an OBLIGATION to notify other parties that they are in violation and HOW they are in violation. Since ALL GPL consumers effectively OWN the license and they have NOT been notified in a timely fashion, SCOs claim to infringement are now moot.
Sun, more than ANY OTHER company is getting their ass kicked by Linux. It's simply no longer necessary to have a SunStation to drive a web server. Standardized PC hardware running Linux is MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER!!!!!
Sun's largest liability may be it's persistance in producing it's own CPU architecture. It may be VERY, VERY fast, but the marketplace for such a specialized platform is quickly evaporating.
Sun has created a sizable market for workstations in higher education environments. However, that could VERY EASILY ERODE with next generation purchasing. The push to standardize on hardware that can run EVERYTHING could very well doom Sun.
Sun needs to create an environment that their legacy scripts/software can run on PCs running Linux. Call it Solarnux if you will. That way they can sell Sun boxes that will fit easily into their traditional environments. At the same time these workstations could plausibly run Lindows to host Windows applications.
Similarly, their are lots of data centers out their that run on Sun hardware. Sheer cost decisions might force a platform switch. Linux keeps Sun in the game. The alternative is Windows2003 which puts Sun out of the ballgame. Why by a Sun box to run Windows2003?
At the higher end, Sun needs to seriously consider whether to keep making SPARC processors. A switch from SPARC to say... the new IBM PowerPC 970 may seem painful. But losing their high end business is probably EVEN MORE painful. Doing so would free up a lot of $$$ and perhaps make Sun more of an ally with IBM and perhaps even Apple.
A switch of processing platform could bring a license to allow SunPPC workstations to run OSX apps. It could also bring an alliance to provide core services to creative shops that run OSX instead of Windows. In a way their fate is kinda linked.
Regarding SGI: SGI better become a PURE SERVICES company or face certain extinction. LucasArts decision to buy Dell instead of SGI sounded the death bell for SGI. Their hardware business has been commoditized and they can no longer justify selling $25,000 workstations when a $3000 workstation with an nVidia Quadro card will do the same job.
If that was the purpose, it went completely wrong.
As you know, states can choose how to apportion their electoral votes. Most do it by the winner tak all formula. Apparently, Maine appoints electors on the basis of who wins in each congressional district.
Using the "winner take all" strategy, big states get LOADS of attention from presidential candidates. The reason is simple (as demonstrated in Florida) a few votes one way or another can sway the influence of THE ENTIRE state and push the election in your favor.
If we want to minimalize the influence of large states. We should change the system so to a more proportional scheme. Maine's scheme is a decent approach. I would propose allocating votes based on the proportion of votes a candidate receives.
The highest vote getter would take his electors first in proportion to their number. As you must round the numbers, the top vote getter gets a somewhat disproportionate share.
So if you got 52% of the vote in a state with 4 electors, you would get 3 of the electors (you round up). The next highest vote getter would get the remaining 1.
If the top vote receiver got 42% of the vote in a state with 10 electors he would receive 5 electors. If the next highest received say 25%, he would take 3 of the remaining electors (you round up). Then the next vote getter and so on.
Such a scheme would:
1) Retain the essential functions of the electoral college. We are indeed a republic and it should remain that way. States cast votes for the President not individuals. Individuals choose the electors.
This system provides a vital "rounding" effect that makes the ultimate decision pretty simple. A direct electorate in a case such as the Nixon/Kennedy race would be an IMPOSSIBLE mess.
2) Provide a pluralistic effect to the election. I live in Indiana. In Indiana voting a for a Democratic presidential candidate is effectively the same as not showing and voting (I'm sure that California Republicans feel the same way:-).
A mere statistical majority in a state does not truly represent consent of the goverened. A minority votes must have a chance to count if they are in sufficient quantity to represent a majority for a portion of electors.
Example, a minority voting 31% of the vote in a state with 3 electors would gain 1 of the 3 electors.
3) Move the OBVIOUS voting power, resources, attention, pandering, clout and graft away from the large states and disperse in amongst ALL states. Since a small move in voters no longer will influence a LARGE CHUNK of electors, the smaller states become more strategic. Gaining single electors in multiple states would be better than gaining a single elector in a large state.
Furthermore, I think such a system would truly "get the vote out" by bringing out those who feel (in many case rightfully) that their vote doesn't count. Such a system would be perfectly appropriate for house elections as well*.
*Don't give me that "I can meet my rep" crap. That worked in 1790 but not today. TV is now the handshake of choice and every rep has so many constituents that he really doesn't even care to see you (unless you have a check for him):-)
This is the BIGGEST problem. It's NOT the Supreme Court's job to interpret Florida state law.
They can evaluate it as constitutional or unconstitutional. But like any appeals court, they don't deal with issues of "fact" only consistency of legal precedent.
By precedent the Supremes should NEVER have accepted the case, especially after a Federal District court dissmissed it as groundless.
There were no grounds for the "irreparable harm" argument for a stay of counting ballots. That would imply that continuing voting would take something from Bush that was his by legal right. The outcome of a recount was indeterminate and could just as likely certified Bush the winner.
There was no grounds for the "Equal Protection" argument was absoluetly farsicle. Bush had just as much right to ask for a recount Gore. The votes themselves are anonymous so their can be NO discrimination that one undervoted ballot can be treated differently than another based upon WHO CAST IT (ballots don't have rights, voters do).
The most weasly thing is that the Supreme Court never actually issued a verdict that could be used as case law. They basically published their findings informally and allowed the stay against counting to stand. They didn't have the guts to stand behind their verdict in an official way. That tells us all that they too knew that it was BS and baseless in law and precedent.
Ask an 60/70s era computer student if the computer ever spit out his punch card because their was "nothing on it". I bet he would have disagreed.
If there is a punch in on hole and one hole only on a line, then it's clearly a vote. Just because you have machines to count the chadless votes doesn't mean you have to throw out the one's with chads.
Visual inspection has ALWAYS been the ultimate benchmark for a votes value. When paper ballots were used exclusively, every vote had to be visually inspected. And they used the horse-sense methodology for determining if their was a vote and who it went to.
Regarding that "democrat". She switched parties shortly after the election. The legal issue was that she didn't PUBLISH the ballot as it was going to appear. She did not meet the legal requirement set forth by the LAW. It didn't matter whether she was a Democrat or Republican.
Concerns about the need for verifiable physical artifacts of votes are VERY WELL founded. Do are concerns that machines should be OPEN and verifiable.
Just for reference, let me point out that the paper ballot never stopped ballot stuffers. The weakest link in a security chain are the people themselves.
There is definitely a pontential for reliable, secure elections using electronic based voting machines. But the process MUST be open.
Points of order:
1) Votes must be recorded simulataneously to a secure/indelible medium. In the modern age I would suggest an array of CD drives. Each drive would record identical images. The votes themselves would be digitally signed using the location, time, machineID, as a hash.
The CDs themselves would note when they were inserted and removed and by whom (using smart Cards and fingerprints as accessors). The machines would report to a centralized database regarding all details of insertion and removal of voting CDs as well as how many voters cast their ballots on those CDs.
Vote counting would not utilize the central database. Instead, a disc from each voting set would be place in "cakebox" style stacks. The vote counter would than read the CDs, count the votes and verify the authenticity of previously reported statistics.
Lost CDs would IMMEDIATELY trigger investigations. As each CD has one or more physical signed copies, the votes should be recoverable. If the copies dissapear than those who voted in that precinct can revote.
2) After voting, the voter should be granted a small printed physical card bearing their name and when they voted along with codes for record verification. If a voter is uncertain about whether their vote WAS counted, they can check a election statistics online.
3) Machines must bear 100% Open Source digitally signed and authenticated. Voting source should be published an ENTIRE YEAR BEFORE an election. To allow for independent inspection and verification. Such source must be certified by contracted authorities to be accurate.
4) The machines themselves must accept TAMPER-PROOF modules that can INDEPENDENTLY examine the machines and authenticate the signed source.
Primary amongst our concerns should be election laws concerning PEOPLE.
1) Anyone knowingly tampering with election results should be subject to SERIOUS imprisonment. Tampering with the democratic process is worse than ANY crime murder or otherwise. Conspiracy to tamper with elections should elicit the same sentence.
2) Access to the vote should be vigorously enforced. Anyone who knowingly deprives someone of their right to vote should be sent to prison. This especially concerns bueraucrats who deprive vast numbers of voters through either malice or stupidity. Again conspiracy still applies.
3) Voting laws must stress that the speed of an election does NOT outweigh the accuracy of an election. If a re-vote is necessary, it should happen.
It's the job of the patent holder to challenge those who allegedly infringe upon it.
The patent process seriously needs a stage when concerned parties can challenge BEFORE the patent is granted.
Actually, the whole system needs to be re-done with different forms of patents for different types of inventions:
* Traditional - physical devices, unchanged * Software - much higher constraints should be applied here. It has to be mind-blowing and not an obvious one-off from a known algorithm (as Mr Bezos' latest patent is simply an indexing method). * Application - People who come up with novel applications for existing inventions or combinations of inventions deserve protection from the goliaths ready to swoop in, replicate, and annihalate any competition. The patents could be business related of software related. Basically, I would propose a 3 year head start against infringement for truly unique applications and methodologies (software, business, or otherwise).
* Research Derived Applications
- Physical Law/Fact, derived applications All those folks patenting gene X or gene Y are pretty perverse. Gene's aren't inventions, nor is discovery of a gene an invention. However, they do have a point that they plow a LOT of money into these things and have an inherent right to a cut of profits from products developed exploiting their research. This type of patent would be strictly licensing based since you cannot OWN knowledge. 15 years is still fair.
- New application. There are plenty of existing things (especially in pharma) that have new applications. However, a significant amount of research is required to prove it (as in prove it to the FDA). It's reasonable that a entity that does research that gives new life to an existing invention, even one thats passed into the public domain. For example, proving that aspirin reduces the risk of heart attack. In that case, an researching entity could be granted royalties on sales of such products paid by manufacturers provided that the discovery boosts overall sales (determined by a judge). I would suggest a 7 year window between the time the royalties are granted and the time they expire.
* Pharmacy - These guys are WAY out of line in that they apply for patents on LOTS and LOTS of substances that are similar to the one's they work on. They have no idea whether these things are actually usable inventions. They do it to prevent others from doing similar research and marketing a competitor. I would propose that if you can't prove a medical efficacy or chemical effect, no patent. Plus all Pharma patents should be inherently license based effectively splitting up big Pharma into Intellectual Property/Research firms and just plain manufacturers (similar to current generic producers).
I would automatically say that dumping is illegal. However, in this case the competitor is effectively free as well. It's like the now defunct Netscape vs Internet Explorer battle. Both products were effectively free.
Where I would attack this is on grounds of equal protection. In other words, if customer A gets zero cost software, why can customer B. Basically it must be free to EVERYBODY or free to everybody who qualifies under some published standard (excluding "anybody who is switching to linux").
If Microsoft wants to beat back linux and open source, they need to lower their prices and provide easier licensing terms. They are the king that has bullied the masses around. Now the masses are rallying against them.
Fuzzy Logic is the new AI that actually works. Dozens of useful products have already been released using fuzzy logic technology.
A fatal flaw in AI is it's rooted in Computer Science. It's fatal because Computer Science is rooted in mathematics which embraces boolean logic and rejects multi-variate, multi-truth. An answer in math is correct, or not-correct. Close doesn't count.
In nature close counts since everything iterates on itself. Natural systems make guesses that are initially wrong as rain but ultimately result (through improvement) in sound solutions.
Read "Fuzzy Logic" by Bart Kosko too see how abandoning AI results in some remarkable machines with minimum lines of code.
Any language feature can be abused and used in inappropriate ways. I once knew a programmer who included comments like the following.// I'm really tired now....// Gosh gotta go to the bar...// I'll never do this again// Source control is my enemy, they'll know who writes all these stupid comments....
Obviously he wasn't using comments correctly. And sometimes would even obfuscate by not modifying comments to reflect code changes.
However, this is not a reasonable arugment for why comments should NOT be part of a higher level language. Some people actually write usable comments that add something to code.
Same thing is true with operators. The fact that some yahoos assign weird functionality to operators doesn't diminish the uses for operators AND the ability to write large volumes of code shorthand through operators.
As far as syntactic sugar goes, as long as the compiler processes it correctly, it's good. Writing the same pieces of code OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER is a waste of time (AND MONEY!!!!). It's a job better left to a compiler. If a programmer can't grasp or understand newer constructs (beyond cut and paste:-), they should question whether they're in the right field.
.net is no longer constrained to Windows only. There are two open source source projects of note.
1) mono -.net on Linux. Apparently they're kicking ass and have most everything implemented by now. I don't think there will be any question about.net functionality on linux platforms.
Beyond that they have an interpreter (no JIT compiling) available for Unix and OSX platforms.
2) GNU Portable.net - These guys are developing for EVERY platform. They report that there stuff works on OSX, Unix, and WinCE. They don't seem to be as far along as Mono is.
Beyond that there are rumors that Microsoft may port a.net run-time developed for BSD Unix to OSX.
I really don't think that.net will be considered proprietary for much longer as more platforms embrace the forthcoming flood of.net applications.
This would make an EXCELLENT substitution to running three separate wires from an analog 5.1 source to an analog input 5.1 (or 7.1) speaker set. Just wire the end pairs into standard speaker stereo mini jacks.
Though, I'm sure as digital encoders/decoders get cheaper this will no longer be a problem.
The metal enclosed space inside an air duct is so ripe with ignition sources. Beyond that, unless your pumping super-heated air through your duct-work, it's pretty safe from melting or spontaeously bursting into flame.
If it does get hot enough to burst into flame from an external fire, you've really got more serious problems and I doubt that a melted Cat-5 cable is going to add to the blazing inferno in progress.
Like, once the dry-wall and wall-studs are well ablaze, the coating on the cables are really going change the circumstances of a fire. If your not out of the house by that time, the vanilla CO2 from the fire (compared to the exotic fumes from burning CAT-5 insulation) probably would have killed you already.
I would dare speculate that it costs a LOT more to maintain an obsolete machine (little support, hard to obtain parts) then it is to maintain a modern machine.
I remember when I bought RAM for my Apple2gs I had to insert the chips one by one into sockets. The Apple2's "paddle" attachment was an chip socket on the motherboard that you had to access by taking the cover off the box.
Seriously, the Apple was the first generation of hardware that really showed off what a computer would do for an individual as opposed to a business. It was invented by people who were told they couldn't do it by IBM and other computing manufacturers (all save IBM are now extinct).
The Apple/Apple2 was more than a tool or a toy, it was a status symbol of a new culture (just like pot in the 60s). It's something their attached too and we should thank them all for it. Without Apple's invention and motivation (arguably driven by a sociopath (Jobs)) and audaciousness, Microsoft would have very little to co-opt and steal. Without Apple might be using DOS still and viewing this site over Gopher instead of HTML.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Think, TransFlective!!!!
The transflective displays to a really good job with energy efficiency. The display is ALWAYS the biggest power hog in handhelds (unless it has Wi-Fi).
To get REALLY excellent run-time though, they need to do some VERY AGGRESSIVE caching on disc usage.
Seriously, Sony are the gods of handheld/portable devices. I'm very surprised that it's taken them this long to lay down the gauntlet and challenge Nintendo.
I'm not sure that an organization that "gives stuff away for free" can criticize ANOTHER organization that "gives stuff away for free". The fact that Microsoft is trying to slow open-source adoption is besides the point.
Other for profit organizations, do have reason to bitch given Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
If non-profits are getting some freeware, than that's good. The fact that they're not getting YOUR free software is really no reason to bitch.
If open-source has the effect of keeping prices low and getting Microsoft to behave in a more philanthropic fashion, than it is STILL a success.
In the web-server area, nothing can stop Linux taking over a rather DUHHHH task from both Microsoft AND Sun.
This seems to be a question of "effective measures." Did you do enough to keep other peoples intellectual property out of your code. I think it's a really interesting question, and honestly I think it will haunt GPL folks a hell of a lot more than it will non-GPL companies.
However, in this case, SCO distributed their code in Linux knowingly under the GPL license. They still own the copyright, and SCO Unix is NOT compromised since they still own the copyright to THEIR OWN work and can license it how they choose. But, the portions of code that they DID license through GPL are available to the world under the conditions of the GPL.
GPL is a license, not a transfer of copyright ownerwhip. Since SCO's contribution is not a derivative of open-source work, they CAN include it in their own for-profit SCO Unix. Any internal derivative of that work does NOT apply to GPL since SCO can license the code for it's own use however it deems fitting.
Basically what I'm saying is that you can have IP and license it to one party under one condition and to another party under other conditions. In this case, SCO could still license their code to another for-profit company who intends to use it in for-profit software. It does not violate GPL licensing because the original owner can grant AS MANY licenses they like on whatever terms they deem fitting.
If SCO assests are sold off in say a liquidation (which they will SOON be) the copyright transfers to the new owners but licensees still retain their rights.
Back to open source. The open source community is MUCH MORE vulnerable to these types of Trojans. Indirect, third-party inclusion of GPL code in Open Source could very well wreck it. I wouldn't put it beyond Microsoft to try this intentionally.
If SCO hadn't knowingly published those pieces under GPL, Linux could've been in SERIOUS trouble. In general, it will be MUCH HARDER for open-source to check against this type of TrojanIP code than it would be for Microsoft since Open Sourcers generally DONT have access to proprietary code bases.
The notion of the virus GPL is really a misnomer. The proprietary stuff is far more virulant and has WAY more protection under the law.
SCO is arguing that because they never released their code under the GPL, and because nobody else could do so legally, then the code was never covered by the GPL. Therefore all subsequent distribution was unlawful, except of course that done by SCO itself because they owned the copyrights in question.
The fundamental problem is that SCO CONTINUED distribution of Linux as GPL code AFTER they allegedly discovered the inclusion of their Intellectual Property. Effectively they knowingly STAMPED THEIR code contained within Linux as GPL.
Had they notified all parties immediately AND included disclaimers and warnings that certain portions WERE NOT covered by GPL as they were stolen than SCO would be fine.
Remember Linux and GPL stole NOTHING from SCO. A third party did the deed and THEY are indeed actionable for damages. However, SCO distributed their IP knowingly and published it under General Public License knowingly. This is an EXPLICIT transfer of license for any code within that they MAY have had had claims to.
That code now belongs to the GPL collectively and all it's users. Irregardless of their intent, the screwed up and knowingly (by all admissions) branded their code as GPL. SCO owned the copyright, and SCO published that copyrighted work KNOWINGLY under GPL therefore giving EVERYONE permission to do with it as they please so long as the result is a GPL work.
Somebody then took a copy of that work and created a derived work, and then I distributed that derived work. Did I wrong them? NO! Because they never should have created their derived works in the first place, because I held the exclusive right to do that (unbeknownst to them). So anything anybody does with those derived works is an offense against ME, not against the people who created them based on my work in the first place.
That doesn't GIVE you the right to print THEIR derived work. It only stops them from publishing the derived work (this is typically resolved through licensing).
However,
... HOW? Well before and after the GPL they could have written the following.
SCO was under NO obligation to distribute that code under the GPL. In fact, it was under their power to remove the code and distribute Linux under GPL (since only THEY know what code it is).
The fact that they did NOT insert it is moot. They knew and they distributed it under GPL. They did NOT modify it after they discovered AND announced that their intellectual property was contained in Linux. This would imply that that they have released the affected portion (not the entirety of SCO Linux) as open source.
Let me ask this. After SCO discovered the problem. SCO Linux COULD HAVE distributed Linux and STILL kept their IP rights
Portions of this Linux release have been found to potntially contain proprietary source code from SCO Unix. SCO is distributing Linux in it's entirety but DOES NOT implicitely or explicitely transfer copyright or patents to General Public License by releasing Linux which is available free online.
By using this code, you affirm that SCO retains ALL intellectual property rights to code that may have been inserted illegaly by a third party.
Such a notice would ALSO have to be sent to all their customers that either bought a boxed SCO Linux or downloaded a SCO Linux. This would satisfy any requirements for notification.
Beyond that, the licensing would put everyone on notice that their were portions of the code that are subject to litigation. Irregardless of the legality of a modified license, they would not be telling people "This is GPL licensed code, have fun, modify and publish whatever you want under GPL" Which they did.
They may have been held accountable by Torvalds for such a modified license. But they wouldn't be explicitely publishing their propriety code under GPL.
Ultimately, I think this whole "secret" around WHAT code it is will backfire. In the meanwhile, people are creating derived works based on code THEY published under GPL. They have rights as well. How would anyone know WHICH code is tainted, and therefore how can their derived work be a copyright infringement if they had no way of knowing WHICH code is in violation.
SCOs failure to identify the tainted code will ultimately push it into the GPL as they have an OBLIGATION to notify other parties that they are in violation and HOW they are in violation. Since ALL GPL consumers effectively OWN the license and they have NOT been notified in a timely fashion, SCOs claim to infringement are now moot.
Nope, it means that you must know the origin of the code you are adding.
If you write it, you know the origin. If download it, it best be distributed under GPL.
This is true. But I believe this pertains to liability, not intellectual property.
... a car.
For example, if your lowest paid employee stole pieces of equipment and then sold them to a third party, who owns the equpiment at that point?
Lets say it was
In the case of the car, the property reverts to the original owner. The thief is liable to remunerate the buyer for the amount paid.
Can you so SoLinux? How about SolarNux?????
... the new IBM PowerPC 970 may seem painful. But losing their high end business is probably EVEN MORE painful. Doing so would free up a lot of $$$ and perhaps make Sun more of an ally with IBM and perhaps even Apple.
Sun, more than ANY OTHER company is getting their ass kicked by Linux. It's simply no longer necessary to have a SunStation to drive a web server. Standardized PC hardware running Linux is MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER!!!!!
Sun's largest liability may be it's persistance in producing it's own CPU architecture. It may be VERY, VERY fast, but the marketplace for such a specialized platform is quickly evaporating.
Sun has created a sizable market for workstations in higher education environments. However, that could VERY EASILY ERODE with next generation purchasing. The push to standardize on hardware that can run EVERYTHING could very well doom Sun.
Sun needs to create an environment that their legacy scripts/software can run on PCs running Linux. Call it Solarnux if you will. That way they can sell Sun boxes that will fit easily into their traditional environments. At the same time these workstations could plausibly run Lindows to host Windows applications.
Similarly, their are lots of data centers out their that run on Sun hardware. Sheer cost decisions might force a platform switch. Linux keeps Sun in the game. The alternative is Windows2003 which puts Sun out of the ballgame. Why by a Sun box to run Windows2003?
At the higher end, Sun needs to seriously consider whether to keep making SPARC processors. A switch from SPARC to say
A switch of processing platform could bring a license to allow SunPPC workstations to run OSX apps. It could also bring an alliance to provide core services to creative shops that run OSX instead of Windows. In a way their fate is kinda linked.
Regarding SGI:
SGI better become a PURE SERVICES company or face certain extinction. LucasArts decision to buy Dell instead of SGI sounded the death bell for SGI. Their hardware business has been commoditized and they can no longer justify selling $25,000 workstations when a $3000 workstation with an nVidia Quadro card will do the same job.
If that was the purpose, it went completely wrong.
:-).
:-)
As you know, states can choose how to apportion their electoral votes. Most do it by the winner tak all formula. Apparently, Maine appoints electors on the basis of who wins in each congressional district.
Using the "winner take all" strategy, big states get LOADS of attention from presidential candidates. The reason is simple (as demonstrated in Florida) a few votes one way or another can sway the influence of THE ENTIRE state and push the election in your favor.
If we want to minimalize the influence of large states. We should change the system so to a more proportional scheme. Maine's scheme is a decent approach. I would propose allocating votes based on the proportion of votes a candidate receives.
The highest vote getter would take his electors first in proportion to their number. As you must round the numbers, the top vote getter gets a somewhat disproportionate share.
So if you got 52% of the vote in a state with 4 electors, you would get 3 of the electors (you round up). The next highest vote getter would get the remaining 1.
If the top vote receiver got 42% of the vote in a state with 10 electors he would receive 5 electors. If the next highest received say 25%, he would take 3 of the remaining electors (you round up). Then the next vote getter and so on.
Such a scheme would:
1) Retain the essential functions of the electoral college. We are indeed a republic and it should remain that way. States cast votes for the President not individuals. Individuals choose the electors.
This system provides a vital "rounding" effect that makes the ultimate decision pretty simple. A direct electorate in a case such as the Nixon/Kennedy race would be an IMPOSSIBLE mess.
2) Provide a pluralistic effect to the election. I live in Indiana. In Indiana voting a for a Democratic presidential candidate is effectively the same as not showing and voting (I'm sure that California Republicans feel the same way
A mere statistical majority in a state does not truly represent consent of the goverened. A minority votes must have a chance to count if they are in sufficient quantity to represent a majority for a portion of electors.
Example, a minority voting 31% of the vote in a state with 3 electors would gain 1 of the 3 electors.
3) Move the OBVIOUS voting power, resources, attention, pandering, clout and graft away from the large states and disperse in amongst ALL states.
Since a small move in voters no longer will influence a LARGE CHUNK of electors, the smaller states become more strategic. Gaining single electors in multiple states would be better than gaining a single elector in a large state.
Furthermore, I think such a system would truly "get the vote out" by bringing out those who feel (in many case rightfully) that their vote doesn't count. Such a system would be perfectly appropriate for house elections as well*.
*Don't give me that "I can meet my rep" crap. That worked in 1790 but not today. TV is now the handshake of choice and every rep has so many constituents that he really doesn't even care to see you (unless you have a check for him)
Aha,
This is the BIGGEST problem. It's NOT the Supreme Court's job to interpret Florida state law.
They can evaluate it as constitutional or unconstitutional. But like any appeals court, they don't deal with issues of "fact" only consistency of legal precedent.
By precedent the Supremes should NEVER have accepted the case, especially after a Federal District court dissmissed it as groundless.
There were no grounds for the "irreparable harm" argument for a stay of counting ballots. That would imply that continuing voting would take something from Bush that was his by legal right. The outcome of a recount was indeterminate and could just as likely certified Bush the winner.
There was no grounds for the "Equal Protection" argument was absoluetly farsicle. Bush had just as much right to ask for a recount Gore. The votes themselves are anonymous so their can be NO discrimination that one undervoted ballot can be treated differently than another based upon WHO CAST IT (ballots don't have rights, voters do).
The most weasly thing is that the Supreme Court never actually issued a verdict that could be used as case law. They basically published their findings informally and allowed the stay against counting to stand. They didn't have the guts to stand behind their verdict in an official way. That tells us all that they too knew that it was BS and baseless in law and precedent.
Yeah,
Ask an 60/70s era computer student if the computer ever spit out his punch card because their was "nothing on it". I bet he would have disagreed.
If there is a punch in on hole and one hole only on a line, then it's clearly a vote. Just because you have machines to count the chadless votes doesn't mean you have to throw out the one's with chads.
Visual inspection has ALWAYS been the ultimate benchmark for a votes value. When paper ballots were used exclusively, every vote had to be visually inspected. And they used the horse-sense methodology for determining if their was a vote and who it went to.
Regarding that "democrat". She switched parties shortly after the election. The legal issue was that she didn't PUBLISH the ballot as it was going to appear. She did not meet the legal requirement set forth by the LAW. It didn't matter whether she was a Democrat or Republican.
Concerns about the need for verifiable physical artifacts of votes are VERY WELL founded. Do are concerns that machines should be OPEN and verifiable.
Just for reference, let me point out that the paper ballot never stopped ballot stuffers. The weakest link in a security chain are the people themselves.
There is definitely a pontential for reliable, secure elections using electronic based voting machines. But the process MUST be open.
Points of order:
1) Votes must be recorded simulataneously to a secure/indelible medium. In the modern age I would suggest an array of CD drives. Each drive would record identical images. The votes themselves would be digitally signed using the location, time, machineID, as a hash.
The CDs themselves would note when they were inserted and removed and by whom (using smart Cards and fingerprints as accessors). The machines would report to a centralized database regarding all details of insertion and removal of voting CDs as well as how many voters cast their ballots on those CDs.
Vote counting would not utilize the central database. Instead, a disc from each voting set would be place in "cakebox" style stacks. The vote counter would than read the CDs, count the votes and verify the authenticity of previously reported statistics.
Lost CDs would IMMEDIATELY trigger investigations. As each CD has one or more physical signed copies, the votes should be recoverable. If the copies dissapear than those who voted in that precinct can revote.
2) After voting, the voter should be granted a small printed physical card bearing their name and when they voted along with codes for record verification. If a voter is uncertain about whether their vote WAS counted, they can check a election statistics online.
3) Machines must bear 100% Open Source digitally signed and authenticated. Voting source should be published an ENTIRE YEAR BEFORE an election. To allow for independent inspection and verification. Such source must be certified by contracted authorities to be accurate.
4) The machines themselves must accept TAMPER-PROOF modules that can INDEPENDENTLY examine the machines and authenticate the signed source.
Primary amongst our concerns should be election laws concerning PEOPLE.
1) Anyone knowingly tampering with election results should be subject to SERIOUS imprisonment. Tampering with the democratic process is worse than ANY crime murder or otherwise. Conspiracy to tamper with elections should elicit the same sentence.
2) Access to the vote should be vigorously enforced. Anyone who knowingly deprives someone of their right to vote should be sent to prison. This especially concerns bueraucrats who deprive vast numbers of voters through either malice or stupidity. Again conspiracy still applies.
3) Voting laws must stress that the speed of an election does NOT outweigh the accuracy of an election. If a re-vote is necessary, it should happen.
Actually,
It's the job of the patent holder to challenge those who allegedly infringe upon it.
The patent process seriously needs a stage when concerned parties can challenge BEFORE the patent is granted.
Actually, the whole system needs to be re-done with different forms of patents for different types of inventions:
* Traditional - physical devices, unchanged
* Software - much higher constraints should be applied here. It has to be mind-blowing and not an obvious one-off from a known algorithm (as Mr Bezos' latest patent is simply an indexing method).
* Application - People who come up with novel applications for existing inventions or combinations of inventions deserve protection from the goliaths ready to swoop in, replicate, and annihalate any competition. The patents could be business related of software related.
Basically, I would propose a 3 year head start against infringement for truly unique applications and methodologies (software, business, or otherwise).
* Research Derived Applications
- Physical Law/Fact, derived applications
All those folks patenting gene X or gene Y are pretty perverse. Gene's aren't inventions, nor is discovery of a gene an invention. However, they do have a point that they plow a LOT of money into these things and have an inherent right to a cut of profits from products developed exploiting their research. This type of patent would be strictly licensing based since you cannot OWN knowledge. 15 years is still fair.
- New application. There are plenty of existing things (especially in pharma) that have new applications. However, a significant amount of research is required to prove it (as in prove it to the FDA). It's reasonable that a entity that does research that gives new life to an existing invention, even one thats passed into the public domain. For example, proving that aspirin reduces the risk of heart attack. In that case, an researching entity could be granted royalties on sales of such products paid by manufacturers provided that the discovery boosts overall sales (determined by a judge). I would suggest a 7 year window between the time the royalties are granted and the time they expire.
* Pharmacy - These guys are WAY out of line in that they apply for patents on LOTS and LOTS of substances that are similar to the one's they work on. They have no idea whether these things are actually usable inventions. They do it to prevent others from doing similar research and marketing a competitor. I would propose that if you can't prove a medical efficacy or chemical effect, no patent. Plus all Pharma patents should be inherently license based effectively splitting up big Pharma into Intellectual Property/Research firms and just plain manufacturers (similar to current generic producers).
Normally ...
I would automatically say that dumping is illegal. However, in this case the competitor is effectively free as well. It's like the now defunct Netscape vs Internet Explorer battle. Both products were effectively free.
Where I would attack this is on grounds of equal protection. In other words, if customer A gets zero cost software, why can customer B. Basically it must be free to EVERYBODY or free to everybody who qualifies under some published standard (excluding "anybody who is switching to linux").
If Microsoft wants to beat back linux and open source, they need to lower their prices and provide easier licensing terms. They are the king that has bullied the masses around. Now the masses are rallying against them.
Fuzzy Logic is the new AI that actually works. Dozens of useful products have already been released using fuzzy logic technology.
A fatal flaw in AI is it's rooted in Computer Science. It's fatal because Computer Science is rooted in mathematics which embraces boolean logic and rejects multi-variate, multi-truth. An answer in math is correct, or not-correct. Close doesn't count.
In nature close counts since everything iterates on itself. Natural systems make guesses that are initially wrong as rain but ultimately result (through improvement) in sound solutions.
Read "Fuzzy Logic" by Bart Kosko too see how abandoning AI results in some remarkable machines with minimum lines of code.
Perhaps Lucas could go back even farther and explore the evolution of the Jedi (where Yoda is the protaginist instead of a crumpled old grumpy man).
Actually, I think TV (Sci-Fi channel) would be a natural place to do some films about the new Jedi's under Luke.
There are hundreds and thousands of Prior-art cases relevant to selling used goods online.
Exhibit 1-1,000,000 All the stuff sold on usenet before http existed.
Exhibit 1,000,000-100,000,000 eBay
Any language feature can be abused and used in inappropriate ways. I once knew a programmer who included comments like the following. // I'm really tired now. ... // Gosh gotta go to the bar ... // I'll never do this again // Source control is my enemy, they'll know who writes all these stupid comments ....
:-), they should question whether they're in the right field.
Obviously he wasn't using comments correctly. And sometimes would even obfuscate by not modifying comments to reflect code changes.
However, this is not a reasonable arugment for why comments should NOT be part of a higher level language. Some people actually write usable comments that add something to code.
Same thing is true with operators. The fact that some yahoos assign weird functionality to operators doesn't diminish the uses for operators AND the ability to write large volumes of code shorthand through operators.
As far as syntactic sugar goes, as long as the compiler processes it correctly, it's good. Writing the same pieces of code OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER is a waste of time (AND MONEY!!!!). It's a job better left to a compiler. If a programmer can't grasp or understand newer constructs (beyond cut and paste
.net is no longer constrained to Windows only. There are two open source source projects of note.
.net on Linux. Apparently they're kicking ass and have most everything implemented by now. I don't think there will be any question about .net functionality on linux platforms.
.net run-time developed for BSD Unix to OSX.
.net will be considered proprietary for much longer as more platforms embrace the forthcoming flood of .net applications.
1) mono -
Beyond that they have an interpreter (no JIT compiling) available for Unix and OSX platforms.
2) GNU Portable.net - These guys are developing for EVERY platform. They report that there stuff works on OSX, Unix, and WinCE. They don't seem to be as far along as Mono is.
Beyond that there are rumors that Microsoft may port a
I really don't think that
COOL idea ....
This would make an EXCELLENT substitution to running three separate wires from an analog 5.1 source to an analog input 5.1 (or 7.1) speaker set. Just wire the end pairs into standard speaker stereo mini jacks.
Though, I'm sure as digital encoders/decoders get cheaper this will no longer be a problem.
Yeah,
The metal enclosed space inside an air duct is so ripe with ignition sources. Beyond that, unless your pumping super-heated air through your duct-work, it's pretty safe from melting or spontaeously bursting into flame.
If it does get hot enough to burst into flame from an external fire, you've really got more serious problems and I doubt that a melted Cat-5 cable is going to add to the blazing inferno in progress.
Yeah,
Like, once the dry-wall and wall-studs are well ablaze, the coating on the cables are really going change the circumstances of a fire. If your not out of the house by that time, the vanilla CO2 from the fire (compared to the exotic fumes from burning CAT-5 insulation) probably would have killed you already.
:-) heeheeheehee.... :-)
;)
Just like Steve Jobs. We they all black jeans and short sleeve turtlenecks as well?
I would dare speculate that it costs a LOT more to maintain an obsolete machine (little support, hard to obtain parts) then it is to maintain a modern machine.
:-)
I remember when I bought RAM for my Apple2gs I had to insert the chips one by one into sockets. The Apple2's "paddle" attachment was an chip socket on the motherboard that you had to access by taking the cover off the box.
Seriously, the Apple was the first generation of hardware that really showed off what a computer would do for an individual as opposed to a business. It was invented by people who were told they couldn't do it by IBM and other computing manufacturers (all save IBM are now extinct).
The Apple/Apple2 was more than a tool or a toy, it was a status symbol of a new culture (just like pot in the 60s). It's something their attached too and we should thank them all for it. Without Apple's invention and motivation (arguably driven by a sociopath (Jobs)) and audaciousness, Microsoft would have very little to co-opt and steal. Without Apple might be using DOS still and viewing this site over Gopher instead of HTML.