While the idea is interesting, its not exactly new. I wrote about some similar capabilities in 2000 when describing Chronofile® (advanced communications technology, including permanent archival). And, the Chronofile® 1-pager refers to the 1999 book by Marc Stiegler , EarthWeb.
Back in 1994 or so I was working for a company integrating some technology from MicroStrategy into our product and we were having some trouble making parts of it work. One time when we called technical support and posed our question, the response was a quick "It works here, thanks for calling!" followed by an immediate hang-up!
The field is most generically "Technology Husbandry" for those people involved in managing technological artifacts through their life cycles (by analogy with Animal Husbandry). Among the branches of the field are Mechanical Husbandry, Electronic Husbandry, and more specifically Computer Husbandry.
The main problem I have with this latter term is that most "computers" are used more for their communication mediation capabilities rather than strictly for computation in the classical sense. But, "computer" is the term we have and use.
The management of combinations of such components into networks is Reticulture (from reticular = netlike and analogy with agriculture or horticulture). So a "network administrator" is a reticulturist.
Reading section 219a.amended for the definition of telecommunications services makes me think that this doesn't prevent VPNs. I think the telecom service providers cannot conceal their physical link ends, but I don't see where anyone using those links to operate a VPN is required to do anything special...
(In my file, this is around line 280, between the entries for "D-Link DE-650" and "DynaLink L10C Ethernet".)
2. Run 'netconf' (the network configuration part of linuxconf) and under Basic Host information add an adaptor left otherwise blank but with 'wvlan0' filled in as the interface name.
Well, if you can afford more like $9 (or cheaper through some discount places like FatBrain), you might consider my forthcoming book (from O'Reilly) the C VS Pocket Reference. Of course, I'm biased, since I'm the author. And, the book is a reference rather than a tutorial, although it does have some basic "primer" type material in the introduction.
This reminds me of the wacky dripping characters from The Matrix. Maybe the folks who designed that had played an earlier version of this... This has to be positively mind numbing when animated.
I get an itchy feeling at the base of my skull every time I see trade secrets mentioned in these discussions.
I went to look at The EFF's Announcement and they, too say that "The DVD CCA claims that the defendants are violating the association's trade secrets and other intellectual property rights...".
The distinguishing characteristic of a "trade secret" is that it is a secret! The only protections for trade secrets are that a company may require the signing of a non-disclosure agreement before giving someone access to information that contains trade secrets. All this does is provide a mechanism to penalise that signatory if by overt act or negligence on his/her/its part the information is disclosed and therefore no longer secret.
The "owner" of the secret information has a cause of action in this case against the party who violated the NDA, but it ends there. There are other mechanisms (copyright, patent) designed to allow information to be publicly disclosed but still protected. Once a company chooses to go the route of trade secrets, they have to accept that in the case of breech, they have no lasting claim on exclusive use of the information.
So, if the DVD CCA pushes this aspect of their case, they should fail miserably. As to their "other IP rights," they'd better have patents or be able to demonstrate copyright violation if they want to get traction.
A failure of the judicial system to uphold the partitioning of IP protection schemes that has been put in place (as would be the case if the DVD CCA prevails) would be a serious breech of public trust, and would have far-reaching implications for IP in the USA in general. Since much of law is based on precedent-guided interpretation, a judgement in favor of the DVD CCA would essentially destroy the old meaning of trade secret and install in its place a new tool that behaves like a trade secret until/unless illegally disclosed and then behaves like a combination of copyright/patent thereafter. Very dangerous, indeed!
I believe it was said elsewhere on Slashdot, but it bears repeating here: The only trade secret defendant the DVD CCA should be permitted to pursue is the company that did not take reasonable steps to keep the information secret (presuming that can be demonstrated).
Hmmm... I've had this idea occur to me a few times over the last couple of years, but I just put together some notes last night and earlier today. Maybe some of us should get together, spec it out and code it:
Slashdot Mirror
While the idea is interesting, its not exactly new. I wrote about some similar capabilities in 2000 when describing Chronofile® (advanced communications technology, including permanent archival). And, the Chronofile® 1-pager refers to the 1999 book by Marc Stiegler , EarthWeb.
(From the article on Gregor's World)
Back in 1994 or so I was working for a company integrating some technology from MicroStrategy into our product and we were having some trouble making parts of it work. One time when we called technical support and posed our question, the response was a quick "It works here, thanks for calling!" followed by an immediate hang-up!
The field is most generically "Technology Husbandry" for those people involved in managing technological artifacts through their life cycles (by analogy with Animal Husbandry). Among the branches of the field are Mechanical Husbandry, Electronic Husbandry, and more specifically Computer Husbandry.
The main problem I have with this latter term is that most "computers" are used more for their communication mediation capabilities rather than strictly for computation in the classical sense. But, "computer" is the term we have and use.
The management of combinations of such components into networks is Reticulture (from reticular = netlike and analogy with agriculture or horticulture). So a "network administrator" is a reticulturist.
Reading section 219a.amended for the definition of telecommunications services makes me think that this doesn't prevent VPNs. I think the telecom service providers cannot conceal their physical link ends, but I don't see where anyone using those links to operate a VPN is required to do anything special...
You can see it here.
I have the DWL-650 working. David Hinds helped me get it working. The card is a rebadged WaveLAN, and this is what it took for me:
/etc/pcmcia/conf:
1. Add some information to
card "D-Link DWL-650"
manfid 0x0156, 0x0002
bind "wvlan_cs"
(In my file, this is around line 280, between the entries for "D-Link DE-650" and "DynaLink L10C Ethernet".)
2. Run 'netconf' (the network configuration part of linuxconf) and under Basic Host information add an adaptor left otherwise blank but with 'wvlan0' filled in as the interface name.
Eric Raymond's paper The Magic Cauldron talks about reasons for being open for stuff like this.
> That water probably follows a high tide/low tide like we do
Our tides are caused by the moon. Mars' moons are small by comparison. I'd think if there were any tides there, they would be extremely small.
Well, if you can afford more like $9 (or cheaper through some discount places like FatBrain), you might consider my forthcoming book (from O'Reilly) the C VS Pocket Reference. Of course, I'm biased, since I'm the author. And, the book is a reference rather than a tutorial, although it does have some basic "primer" type material in the introduction.
I'm the original author of one of the many Perl shells out there. Recent versions are getting quite usable. Info is available via:
4 .html (appindex) / id/G/GR/GREGOR/
* http://www.focusresearch.com/gregor/psh/
* http://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=475
* http://www.freshmeat.net (generally)
* http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/08/02/93362566
* http://www.perl.com/CPAN-local/modules/by-authors
I'd be interested to know of any other Perl shells besides the ones mentioned in the POD documentation.
This reminds me of the wacky dripping characters from The Matrix. Maybe the folks who designed that had played an earlier version of this... This has to be positively mind numbing when animated.
At the Public Patent Portfoloio Consortium (P3C) there are links to a Technocrat article about this, and to OpenPatents.org.
Disclaimer: I'm not impartial. I created P3C and wrote the Technocrat article. OpenPatents.org belongs to someone else.
I get an itchy feeling at the base of my skull every time I see trade secrets mentioned in these discussions.
I went to look at The EFF's Announcement and they, too say that "The DVD CCA claims that the defendants are violating the association's trade secrets and other intellectual property rights...".
The distinguishing characteristic of a "trade secret" is that it is a secret! The only protections for trade secrets are that a company may require the signing of a non-disclosure agreement before giving someone access to information that contains trade secrets. All this does is provide a mechanism to penalise that signatory if by overt act or negligence on his/her/its part the information is disclosed and therefore no longer secret.
The "owner" of the secret information has a cause of action in this case against the party who violated the NDA, but it ends there. There are other mechanisms (copyright, patent) designed to allow information to be publicly disclosed but still protected. Once a company chooses to go the route of trade secrets, they have to accept that in the case of breech, they have no lasting claim on exclusive use of the information.
So, if the DVD CCA pushes this aspect of their case, they should fail miserably. As to their "other IP rights," they'd better have patents or be able to demonstrate copyright violation if they want to get traction.
A failure of the judicial system to uphold the partitioning of IP protection schemes that has been put in place (as would be the case if the DVD CCA prevails) would be a serious breech of public trust, and would have far-reaching implications for IP in the USA in general. Since much of law is based on precedent-guided interpretation, a judgement in favor of the DVD CCA would essentially destroy the old meaning of trade secret and install in its place a new tool that behaves like a trade secret until/unless illegally disclosed and then behaves like a combination of copyright/patent thereafter. Very dangerous, indeed!
I believe it was said elsewhere on Slashdot, but it bears repeating here: The only trade secret defendant the DVD CCA should be permitted to pursue is the company that did not take reasonable steps to keep the information secret (presuming that can be demonstrated).
... is here.
Hmmm... I've had this idea occur to me a few times over the last couple of years, but I just put together some notes last night and earlier today. Maybe some of us should get together, spec it out and code it:
/gregor/project_ideas/cvfs.html
http://www.focusresearch.com
--------------------