There are already transparent proxy servers that cache content (e.g. squid). If it hasnt already been done already, making a similar proxy server (being transparent, no change to the client PCs is needed) that blocks the content (i.e. access the blocked site, cache returns a "this site is blocked" error instead of the real content.
It might be that VIA had to release the MPEG part of the driver the way they did in order to comply with the patent licence they got from whoever owns the relavent MPEG patent(s).
Whilst I havent yet been able to hear the radio plays, I have seen the TV series (well the VHS version on 2 tapes anyway) and read all 5 books.
I understand that the movie is not a movie of the book, just another conflicting version of the whole story. But, why are things that are consistant between the book and TV show (and probobly the radio plays too I suspect) different in the movie? Why does the production design/costumes/etc differ so much from what the books (and I assume the radio plays) describe and also what is shown on the TV series? (e.g. zaphod's extra head and arm not being as prominent as the book and TV series depict, the heart of gold not being shaped like a sneaker as described in the book and shown in the TV series and so on)
Show me a graphics card with open source drivers that support all the features on the card AND that has the power to play all the latest games and I (and probobly many others here) would buy it in a heartbeat.
Someone should make an all-in-one PC diagnostic and repair solution. Something that can fix all the PC problems and keep the PC going with no user interaction required. Make it so that you just buy it, take it home, insert the CD and install it and then it does everything for you. Call it something like "PC Tune Up" and market it as being like tuneing up a car but for your computer. Or call it something like "PC Doctor" and market it as something that will make your PC healthy again. Either way, joe sixpack will understand what it is and why they should buy and use it.
It should contiain: Anti-Virus with solid protection (to detect trojans, viruses, worms and such) including protection to scan emails and stuff even before they get into the inbox (preventing the cluless n00bs from being able to open the email with the script attachment and getting infected). It should also be set up to scan preiodically (e.g. once a week).
Andi-spyware to remove spyware. Like the anti-virus, this should be comprehensive and dead easy to use (joe sixpack doesnt care what "Gator" is but if you tell them "Gator" is bad and is making your computer run slower and using up your internet bandwidth and such, they will understand why having it on their systems is a bad idea). Said anti-spyware would also be configured to check things like ActiveX controls when they get installed so that the controls can be blocked if they are known to be spyware.
The background processes for the virus and spyware checkers should combine the features found in the norton anti-virus background processes and in the Spybot Search And Destroy background protection process.
General system health checks (like what Norton WinDoctor does) to make sure things like your registry are free of the issues that can cause problems.
Disk check programs to check your disks to make sure they dont contain errors.
And a tool that will "lock down" Windows by turning on the various security items like the windows Firewall (as many as can be turned on without changing what the user sees or experiences) and turning off insecure items like Windows File Sharing (again only things that dont change what the user sees or experiences).
All the components should be dead simple to use with no options or settings that would confuse the cluless. Preiodic scans should be conducted so that its clear from the scan exactly what is going on (something like "Scanning system for problems" and "Fixing problems" might work) and should also contain things so people dont just say "why is this "Virus Scanner Tool" running and taking up all my system resources" and then close it. Also, it should update automatically with no user input required so it is always ready to detect the latest threats and problems.
Such a program (if made easy enough to use and if marketed right) would mean that joe sixpack can could "give his PC a tune-up" and make it run better just as easily as he can take his car to a mechanic for a regular service and make it run better.
The cluless users wouldnt need to know what "Spyware" is or what "Gator" is or what a "Trojan" is or what "W32.Blaster.6@mm" is, they just know that their computer has something bad on it that needs to be removed and that removing it will make their computer run better.
Also (AFAIK), IBM tends not to file patents if they dont think they will hold up in court. And they dont do nasty tricks (like submarine patents). Plus, they did just give a whole bunch of patents (microprocessor and chipset related I think) to the Open Source community. And remember that IBM is not just a software company (they do make computers, microprocessors and other stuff too) and that IBMs patents cover those areas as well as their software development.
On the other hand, some (like Microsoft) patent anything and everything just because the patent system is so screwed up that they can.
By far the biggest supporters of the current stuffed system would have to be Microsoft (who are tyring to find something they can use to bring down Open Source Software like the Linux kernel, Apache, GCC etc that wont get them in anti-trust hot-water) and Sun (who want too let people mess with Solaris so that sun can get a better operating system out of it but who dont want all the "good bits" or "patented bits" ending up in projects like the Linux Kernel)
For cases like that where building a model may be cost-prohibitive (or unfesable for other reasons), require a blueprint or something. Even if you cant actually afford to build the new thing you have invented and want to patent, if you dont at least have some kind of blueprints, schematics or designs then you probobly shouldnt get the patent. At minumum, such a proposal would mean that you are showing the patent exact steps to build/make whatever it is you want to patent.
For software patents, they should require that actual runnable code implementing what it is you want to patent be submitted to the patent office.
For example, if you have created a new compression algorithim for video data, you have to show something that can compress and uncompress video with your new codec. I would even go so far as to suggest that perhapst this "reference implementation" of the patented item should go on file with the patent. (although whether that is fesable would depend on what it is that has been "invented" and what the working example is/does).
If the patent makes claims over things that the submitted code doesnt implemented, the patent should be rejected (or the claims that arent present in the code should be rejected)
This requirement would not be overly harsh to those who dont have lots of money since (unlike the cost to demonstrate a new kind of sattelite or whatever), the cost to produce a working prototype implementation of a new software thing you want to patent is not huge.
Actually, there have been quite a few good australian shows.
Hey Dad was good (I so wish that it was on DVD or something:'( )
Mcleods Daughters was good untill they killed off several main characters (with that accident thing)
The New Inventors is good (on ABC)
A Country Practice is good. As is Something In The Air. Water Rats was good untill it got axed.
If using australian "presenters" on foriegn shows (e.g. sandra sully presents, mythbusters etc) wasnt counted as australian content, the networks night actually make origonal australian content (or perhaps licence from overseas, mabie 9 would finally bring back $ale Of The Century). But even australian versions of overseas shows are better (because they at least result in SOME local production) than overseas shows that get counted as australian because the networks stick an australian presenter on them (and use a loophole in the rules to get away with it)
The problem with online paid show downloads is that the TV production companies would be concerned that such a move would hurt sales of DVD sets and also hurt the chances of TV networks buying their shows (either for first-run or for repeats). The TV networks would be concerned about downloads affecting their ratings (and hence advertising dollars).
Just to follow up, we have (in most of the capital cities anyway) 3 commercial networks (channel 7, channel 9 and channel 10) plus the ABC and SBS, both government owned.
Here in australia though there is a choice of phone providers.
Telstra owns the actual cables but you can choose from a number of companies to actually run phone service over the cables (including Telstra, AAPT, Optus, Primus and others). You do have to pay line rental to get a line and a dial tone (and DSL) but you have plenty of choice who you use for phone service.
Replacing fixed-line phone with mobile phone is not an option here in australia given that mobile phone is more expensive (especially for local calls).
Broadband acceptance in australia is certainly not suffering from the requirement to pay for phone service on the DSL line.
The telcos are saying "If you want to use our copper wires for DSL (from us or anyone else), you have to pay us line rental fees (or whatever they call it) for a local phone too", right?
Why is this bad? We have the same thing in australia too...
is to offer the iTunes Music Store in Australia (and other countries where its not offered). Not having the ITMS in australia is almost certainly hurting iPod sales since people are more inclined to buy an MP3 player that works with the australian music services (which as far as I am aware all use Windows Media DRM) instead of an iPod which doesnt play any music you can legally buy from an online music store in australia. If they can offer the ITMS to the US, the UK and all the other countries where it is offered, what is so !@#$#@!@# hard about offering it to us aussies?
NOT open source windows. (for the obvious reasons already mentioned). What they SHOULD do is to Open Source some of the userland components of windows. (such as Internet Explorer)
By then taking the good patches back from the community, they get a better product without giving away the keys to the kingdom or hurting windows sales.
Although if ReactOS ever gets to a point where it is usable for joe average, Microsoft better watch out...:)
Firstly, it would only apply if the provider is in america (if the provider is overseas but the end user is in america then the provider is not covered by this law) As for encryption, you can encrypt phone calls now (with encrypting phones), how is this any different?
When was this patent granted and would all those "force feedback" effects in various arcade cabinets (e.g. Outrun I know had it) count as prior art or a violation (depending on when the patent was granted)?
Is this really a big deal
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As long as the requirements for getting a tap warrent or whatever are just as strict as they are for PSTN, this isnt a problem.
For the techincal side (given that the providers being targeted under this law all have central servers somewhere one would assume), all they need is to plug a big storage device into their network and set things up to dump the audio stream for the phonecalls they are allowed to tap as it passes through the network (either still compressed with whatever compression the phones use or totally uncompressed). Then, provide whatever piece of software is needed to uncompress and listen to the phone calls and thats all the FBI needs.
Depending on which components you consider as part of "IE", there ARE undocumented APIs used by those components. Some of them have since been documented by microsoft as part of the DOJ decree. But not all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
There are already transparent proxy servers that cache content (e.g. squid). If it hasnt already been done already, making a similar proxy server (being transparent, no change to the client PCs is needed) that blocks the content (i.e. access the blocked site, cache returns a "this site is blocked" error instead of the real content.
It might be that VIA had to release the MPEG part of the driver the way they did in order to comply with the patent licence they got from whoever owns the relavent MPEG patent(s).
Has anyone connected to the film ever said why they didnt do the whole "deamons from hell on the moons of mars" bit like the games?
Whilst I havent yet been able to hear the radio plays, I have seen the TV series (well the VHS version on 2 tapes anyway) and read all 5 books.
I understand that the movie is not a movie of the book, just another conflicting version of the whole story. But, why are things that are consistant between the book and TV show (and probobly the radio plays too I suspect) different in the movie?
Why does the production design/costumes/etc differ so much from what the books (and I assume the radio plays) describe and also what is shown on the TV series? (e.g. zaphod's extra head and arm not being as prominent as the book and TV series depict, the heart of gold not being shaped like a sneaker as described in the book and shown in the TV series and so on)
Show me a graphics card with open source drivers that support all the features on the card AND that has the power to play all the latest games and I (and probobly many others here) would buy it in a heartbeat.
Someone should make an all-in-one PC diagnostic and repair solution. Something that can fix all the PC problems and keep the PC going with no user interaction required. Make it so that you just buy it, take it home, insert the CD and install it and then it does everything for you. Call it something like "PC Tune Up" and market it as being like tuneing up a car but for your computer.
Or call it something like "PC Doctor" and market it as something that will make your PC healthy again. Either way, joe sixpack will understand what it is and why they should buy and use it.
It should contiain:
Anti-Virus with solid protection (to detect trojans, viruses, worms and such) including protection to scan emails and stuff even before they get into the inbox (preventing the cluless n00bs from being able to open the email with the script attachment and getting infected). It should also be set up to scan preiodically (e.g. once a week).
Andi-spyware to remove spyware. Like the anti-virus, this should be comprehensive and dead easy to use (joe sixpack doesnt care what "Gator" is but if you tell them "Gator" is bad and is making your computer run slower and using up your internet bandwidth and such, they will understand why having it on their systems is a bad idea). Said anti-spyware would also be configured to check things like ActiveX controls when they get installed so that the controls can be blocked if they are known to be spyware.
The background processes for the virus and spyware checkers should combine the features found in the norton anti-virus background processes and in the Spybot Search And Destroy background protection process.
General system health checks (like what Norton WinDoctor does) to make sure things like your registry are free of the issues that can cause problems.
Disk check programs to check your disks to make sure they dont contain errors.
And a tool that will "lock down" Windows by turning on the various security items like the windows Firewall (as many as can be turned on without changing what the user sees or experiences) and turning off insecure items like Windows File Sharing (again only things that dont change what the user sees or experiences).
All the components should be dead simple to use with no options or settings that would confuse the cluless. Preiodic scans should be conducted so that its clear from the scan exactly what is going on (something like "Scanning system for problems" and "Fixing problems" might work) and should also contain things so people dont just say "why is this "Virus Scanner Tool" running and taking up all my system resources" and then close it.
Also, it should update automatically with no user input required so it is always ready to detect the latest threats and problems.
Such a program (if made easy enough to use and if marketed right) would mean that joe sixpack can could "give his PC a tune-up" and make it run better just as easily as he can take his car to a mechanic for a regular service and make it run better.
The cluless users wouldnt need to know what "Spyware" is or what "Gator" is or what a "Trojan" is or what "W32.Blaster.6@mm" is, they just know that their computer has something bad on it that needs to be removed and that removing it will make their computer run better.
Lower the cost of the DVDs of the thing to a price normal people can afford :)
Also (AFAIK), IBM tends not to file patents if they dont think they will hold up in court. And they dont do nasty tricks (like submarine patents). Plus, they did just give a whole bunch of patents (microprocessor and chipset related I think) to the Open Source community. And remember that IBM is not just a software company (they do make computers, microprocessors and other stuff too) and that IBMs patents cover those areas as well as their software development.
On the other hand, some (like Microsoft) patent anything and everything just because the patent system is so screwed up that they can.
By far the biggest supporters of the current stuffed system would have to be Microsoft (who are tyring to find something they can use to bring down Open Source Software like the Linux kernel, Apache, GCC etc that wont get them in anti-trust hot-water) and Sun (who want too let people mess with Solaris so that sun can get a better operating system out of it but who dont want all the "good bits" or "patented bits" ending up in projects like the Linux Kernel)
For cases like that where building a model may be cost-prohibitive (or unfesable for other reasons), require a blueprint or something. Even if you cant actually afford to build the new thing you have invented and want to patent, if you dont at least have some kind of blueprints, schematics or designs then you probobly shouldnt get the patent.
At minumum, such a proposal would mean that you are showing the patent exact steps to build/make whatever it is you want to patent.
For software patents, they should require that actual runnable code implementing what it is you want to patent be submitted to the patent office.
For example, if you have created a new compression algorithim for video data, you have to show something that can compress and uncompress video with your new codec. I would even go so far as to suggest that perhapst this "reference implementation" of the patented item should go on file with the patent. (although whether that is fesable would depend on what it is that has been "invented" and what the working example is/does).
If the patent makes claims over things that the submitted code doesnt implemented, the patent should be rejected (or the claims that arent present in the code should be rejected)
This requirement would not be overly harsh to those who dont have lots of money since (unlike the cost to demonstrate a new kind of sattelite or whatever), the cost to produce a working prototype implementation of a new software thing you want to patent is not huge.
Here in australia we have a channel called "Discovery Science Channel" on paytv and that is quite good with lots of stuff on it.
Actually, there have been quite a few good australian shows.
:'( )
Hey Dad was good (I so wish that it was on DVD or something
Mcleods Daughters was good untill they killed off several main characters (with that accident thing)
The New Inventors is good (on ABC)
A Country Practice is good.
As is Something In The Air.
Water Rats was good untill it got axed.
If using australian "presenters" on foriegn shows (e.g. sandra sully presents, mythbusters etc) wasnt counted as australian content, the networks night actually make origonal australian content (or perhaps licence from overseas, mabie 9 would finally bring back $ale Of The Century). But even australian versions of overseas shows are better (because they at least result in SOME local production) than overseas shows that get counted as australian because the networks stick an australian presenter on them (and use a loophole in the rules to get away with it)
Shop around.
There ARE good broadband deals out there if you know where to look.
For example, we are currently on a 512/128 deal with TPG internet and get no bandwidth caps or limits at all.
The problem with online paid show downloads is that the TV production companies would be concerned that such a move would hurt sales of DVD sets and also hurt the chances of TV networks buying their shows (either for first-run or for repeats). The TV networks would be concerned about downloads affecting their ratings (and hence advertising dollars).
Just to follow up, we have (in most of the capital cities anyway) 3 commercial networks (channel 7, channel 9 and channel 10) plus the ABC and SBS, both government owned.
They should change the rules so that this kind of crap doesnt count as "australian" anymore.
We have had commercials in australian movies for as long as I can remember.
Here in australia though there is a choice of phone providers.
Telstra owns the actual cables but you can choose from a number of companies to actually run phone service over the cables (including Telstra, AAPT, Optus, Primus and others).
You do have to pay line rental to get a line and a dial tone (and DSL) but you have plenty of choice who you use for phone service.
Replacing fixed-line phone with mobile phone is not an option here in australia given that mobile phone is more expensive (especially for local calls).
Broadband acceptance in australia is certainly not suffering from the requirement to pay for phone service on the DSL line.
The telcos are saying "If you want to use our copper wires for DSL (from us or anyone else), you have to pay us line rental fees (or whatever they call it) for a local phone too", right?
Why is this bad? We have the same thing in australia too...
is to offer the iTunes Music Store in Australia (and other countries where its not offered).
Not having the ITMS in australia is almost certainly hurting iPod sales since people are more inclined to buy an MP3 player that works with the australian music services (which as far as I am aware all use Windows Media DRM) instead of an iPod which doesnt play any music you can legally buy from an online music store in australia.
If they can offer the ITMS to the US, the UK and all the other countries where it is offered, what is so !@#$#@!@# hard about offering it to us aussies?
NOT open source windows. (for the obvious reasons already mentioned).
:)
What they SHOULD do is to Open Source some of the userland components of windows. (such as Internet Explorer)
By then taking the good patches back from the community, they get a better product without giving away the keys to the kingdom or hurting windows sales.
Although if ReactOS ever gets to a point where it is usable for joe average, Microsoft better watch out...
Firstly, it would only apply if the provider is in america (if the provider is overseas but the end user is in america then the provider is not covered by this law)
As for encryption, you can encrypt phone calls now (with encrypting phones), how is this any different?
When was this patent granted and would all those "force feedback" effects in various arcade cabinets (e.g. Outrun I know had it) count as prior art or a violation (depending on when the patent was granted)?
As long as the requirements for getting a tap warrent or whatever are just as strict as they are for PSTN, this isnt a problem.
For the techincal side (given that the providers being targeted under this law all have central servers somewhere one would assume), all they need is to plug a big storage device into their network and set things up to dump the audio stream for the phonecalls they are allowed to tap as it passes through the network (either still compressed with whatever compression the phones use or totally uncompressed). Then, provide whatever piece of software is needed to uncompress and listen to the phone calls and thats all the FBI needs.
Thankfully that cant happen in a country like Australia with REAL compeition in the phone market and REAL choice of phones.
Depending on which components you consider as part of "IE", there ARE undocumented APIs used by those components.
Some of them have since been documented by microsoft as part of the DOJ decree.
But not all of them.