Hopefully Caltech has a nice endowment that can help them operate GALEX, because it will not be cheap. Maybe they can help train students to be future satellite operators, and save costs that way.
I was involved in a recent decommissioning of a NASA satellite. We tried to look for a privitization route, but the private funds and the timing just didn't come together in time. Kudos to Caltech for putting this together for GALEX.
You make it sound like NASA's investment was for naught, but that's not true. GALEX operated for many years and provided great benefit to the scientific community, and to the advancement of our nation's scientific endeavors.
Caltech is already operating GALEX, and they operate the GALEX data archive. I'm not privy to the details of the agreement, but I imagine one of the stipulations is that Caltech will archive the new data just like the old data. Even if they don't, the existing data will remain in the archive forever as a legacy. It's not gone.
The satellite, which could be something everybody in America gets a chance to use, is going to become the private property of not several, not a network or a special organization devoted to the satellite, but just one single university. A very expensive university in California. Why should they get it? Why not MIT? "Why not" a hundred other universities and colleges? It shouldn't be given to Caltech.
Probably because nobody else stepped up to the plate to operate the thing.
They should wait, it's not like the thing is falling out of the sky, and somebody should set up a nonprofit organization for the purpose of utilizing the satellite.
There is no "waiting." NASA is going to de-fund this satellite, and the choices are either to decomission it or transfer it to someone else.
I would also like to add that over the past ten years, "security" has gotten much much tighter at NASA. NASA has many roles that involve interfacing with the industrial community, the scientific community, and the public community at large. It is often difficult to reconcile those roles with the additional goal of "more security!" In fact, in the interests of blanket security, I would say that NASA's ability to interact with communities, and lead through good example, have been partially stifled in the name of security.
Another thing to mention is that often-times, large institutions like NASA are dealing with legacy systems that do not have the latest security. The common knee-jerk reaction is to say, "just upgrade it!" But the reality is that there can be knock-on effects that prevent upgrading or make it cost-prohibitive. Critical systems that have been running for years often do not have the funds or staff expertise to execute a major upgrade. But as I said, this is a problem with most large institutions, it's just that "NASA" in the title of an article makes it higher profile.
"December 29, 2010: Response from MSRC confirms that these crashes are reproductible with the July 29 fuzzer; unclear why they were unable to replicate them earlier, or follow up on the case."
From someone who has worked inside of NASA for more than ten years (not manned space flight): you are right and you are wrong.
I think if you look at the portfolio of projects that NASA is doing now, including manned, earth science, space science, planetary science, robotics, aeronautics, and so on, NASA is doing way more than it did in the 1960s. The taxpayer is definitely getting more for the money now than they did then.
On the other hand, yes, the bureaucracy has grown larger as well. Basically, every time there is a mishap or accident, NASA adds another review process. So the result is that the projects are top-heavy with managers who spend all their time, either presenting "status" at various reviews, or pestering the people who actually do the work for some powerpoint slides for their next meeting. It can definitely be a drag.
It's quite possible they replaced the small auxiliary battery and not the main hybrid battery. It's similar to a regular car battery, and has a similar lifetime. Completely separate from the main hybrid battery.
Markets are more efficient when information flows freely and is accurate.
Cell phone companies apparently obscure the terms of service and costs, and consumers end up being less than ideally informed. Competition in the cell phone industry is also limited since spectrum is a limited resource, and the barriers to entry are high.
For contract phones, the companies tend to compete on features rather than costs, for example number of minutes, "friends and family." For the market segment of consumers that are conscious cost, companies do offer prepaid phones.
NPR Science Friday just had a presentation last Friday by Dr. Kay Bidle about measurements of microbial DNA in antarctic ice sheets. He found that although it was possible to revive some microbes from buried ice as old as 8 million years, the DNA became significantly degraded. The effective half-life for the DNA was about 1.1 million years, and this was for ice buried at the earth's surface, under the significant shielding effects of the atmosphere and the overburdening glacier. Cometary ice in space will be subjected to a much more intense radiation environment. The Bidle paper (appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) speculates that panspermia within our solar system may be possible, but tranfer from outside the solar system would be extremely unlikely.
It's counterintuitive, but shielding can actually make more radiation. The problem is that when a high energy cosmic ray strikes a nucleus, it can make a whole bunch of secondary particles which still have a lot of energy. Then those particles interact again, and so on, producing a "shower" of particles that can interact with your film. Sensitive neutrino experiments go far under the earth's surface to avoid cosmic rays, and even there they get a fair number of (low interacting) muons. I helped test a large space astronomy observatory and we regularly got blatted by cosmic ray showers, even though the observatory was inside a pressure vessel with thick steel walls. Proper shielding is an art.
Burying your film underground may make things worse too... if you live in an area rich in radioactive soil or radon gas. Building materials like concrete can often also be contaminated with uranium.
Here are the official DVDCCA requests for
watermarking proposals. The proposals are due
by May 9, 2001. Some of the interesting
highlights include a serial-copy-management-like
copy protection (ie, ability for producers to
designate NO-COPY or COPY-ONCE flags); the
fact that watermarking is not a
prerequisite - other technologies will be
entertained. A preliminary selection will occur later this month. Candidates will be required to
pay for their own testing expenses (ouch!).
IDG's use of "phantom" trademarks may not be allowed. Phantom marks are those that contain elements unspecified at application time, like ".... for Dummies." Apparently trademark applicants are allowed only one trademark name per application.
I found this little tidbit in a USPTO newsletter here.
Trademark applicants may not register phantom marks: The Federal Circuit upheld the Board's refusal to register a phantom trademark in In re International Flavors, 51 USPQ2d 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A phantom trademark is "one in which an integral portion of the mark is generally represented by a blank or dashed line acting as a placeholder for a generic term or symbol that changes, depending on the use of the mark." International Flavors sought to register "LIVING XXXX FLAVORS," "LIVING XXXX FLAVOR," and "LIVING XXXX," where the "XXXX" serves to denote a specific herb, fruit, plant, or vegetable. The phantom marks would provide protection for such marks as "LIVING STRAWBERRY FLAVOR" and "LIVING CILANTRO FLAVOR." Thus, the applications sought to obtain registration of a potentially unlimited number of marks. The examining attorney refused registration of the marks, and the Board affirmed. International Flavors appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the Commissioner that under the Lanham Act and the rules pertaining to it, a trademark application may seek to register only a single mark. The court therefore saw no reason to disturb the Board's finding that International Flavors sought to register multiple marks in violation of the one-mark-per-application requirement of the Lanham Act.
The Federal Circuit further explained that federal registration benefits the market by providing constructive notice to the public of the registrant's ownership of the mark, thus preventing innocent misappropriation of the mark as a defense to an infringement charge. Phantom marks with missing elements fail to provide meaningful constructive notice to the public because they encompass too many combinations to make a thorough and effective search possible. Finally, the court also rejected International Flavors' argument that the PTO's failure to register the phantom marks denied it due process or equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.
There are still a few questions. If IDG already had their application approved by the USPTO, it may be harder for "infringers" to defend against it, even with the court ruling. Also, IDG may have legitimate claims to specific titles like "The Internet for Dummies" or even just "For Dummies," but anything "for Dummies" seems right out. As the federal court says, such phantom marks do not serve the public good, since there are too many potential infringing variations.
Re:Outlaw reverse engineering?
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 2
Software producers generally try to make an end run around copyright law. If you buy a book, you own the book. When you buy software, do you own it? No, says the software producer, you just have a license to use it. Most software sold today is actually a license transaction, where the producer allows you to use the software in exchange for you agreeing to certain terms. After all, this is how the GPL works. Licensing in itself isn't always evil.
A license is essentially a contract between the user and the producer, and thus contract law may apply instead of copyright law! As long as both parties agree, almost any terms can be binding in a contract.
Okay, so are you bound by shrinkwrap licenses? In that case, there is no explicit negotiation between merchant and purchaser. So maybe shrinkwraps are enforceable, maybe not. What if the terms aren't even on the box (as UCITA permits)? Remember the poor Toshiba owner who couldn't read the Microsoft EULA until he opened the computer box, but by doing so agreed to the EULA?! UCITA makes such practices more legimate.
If the license forbids you from reverse engineering or talking about how the program works, I think we would all agree that this is a violation of the spirit of copyright and patent policy. UCITA does contain an exception against abuse. However, it will be up to a judge in a court to decide that matter.
Some open source developers may not be able to afford such a court battle.
Craig
UCITA is not law, but may soon be
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 2
UCITA is not law yet. The NCCUSL has voted to forward the bill to the states, who must enact it individually. This is, incidentally, how the Uniform Commercial Code works, which governs many commercial transactions. However, it is likely that many states will pass the legislation given the rubber stamp of the NCCUSL.
It goes mostly without saying that UCITA will be bad for the consumer. It gives software makers many broad powers to limit consumer freedom. For example, shrinkwrap licenses don't even have to be on the outside of the box to be enforceable. Goodbye EULA protesters!
I disagree with those who say that UCITA will be good for open source software. Under UCITA, manufacturers may be able to enforce gag clauses that prevent you from discussing the product (including performance, etc) with others. This goes against the very nature of the open source process. Also, explicit provisions against reverse engineering may now be enforceable as well. Think of how the Samba team relies on reverse engineering to make a superior product. UCITA may allow Microsoft to forbid that practice in the future.
Many groups are opposed to UCITA, including librarians, consumer groups, the Attorneys General for almost half the states, and the Federal Trade Commission. Despite this the NCCUSL probably promoted UCITA because they have an interest in preserving states rights over federal. Cem Kaner hosts an excellent web page, Bad Software, which discusses these issues and summarizes the hurtful parts of UCITA.
It is now vitally important that citizens contact their state commissioners, governers, etc. to expresse their opposition to UCITA. It's got to be done on a state-by-state basis now.
People go around saying things like 'GPL means you can't link with non-GPL stuff' Now IANAL but I don't think it does, and the confusion is not good.
The GPL doesn't govern what you do internally with copylefted code. As it states,
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
The only question comes when you want to distribute a work based on copylefted code. Then you need to be sure that you comply with all of the modification and distribution terms of the license. The GPL thus does not prevent a person from downloading libreadline (which is licensed under the GPL) and combining it with their own non-free work, as long as they do not distribute the combined work. If they do want to distribute it, then the terms of all components must be made compatible with the GPL.
The LGPL may also be relevant. It does permit an author to distribute non-free works which link against a LGPL library. The non-free work can be distributed under the authors own terms, as long as it contains no library-derived code. As the license states,
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
Again, if the library and the program are linked, then the resulting derived work must be distributed under a compatibly free license.
Therefore, I would argue that while there are still significant responsibilities to the author when he links against GPL or LGPL code, it is incorrect to say that "you can't link [GPL code] against non-GPL stuff."
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully Caltech has a nice endowment that can help them operate GALEX, because it will not be cheap. Maybe they can help train students to be future satellite operators, and save costs that way.
I was involved in a recent decommissioning of a NASA satellite. We tried to look for a privitization route, but the private funds and the timing just didn't come together in time. Kudos to Caltech for putting this together for GALEX.
You make it sound like NASA's investment was for naught, but that's not true. GALEX operated for many years and provided great benefit to the scientific community, and to the advancement of our nation's scientific endeavors.
Caltech is already operating GALEX, and they operate the GALEX data archive. I'm not privy to the details of the agreement, but I imagine one of the stipulations is that Caltech will archive the new data just like the old data. Even if they don't, the existing data will remain in the archive forever as a legacy. It's not gone.
The satellite, which could be something everybody in America gets a chance to use, is going to become the private property of not several, not a network or a special organization devoted to the satellite, but just one single university. A very expensive university in California. Why should they get it? Why not MIT? "Why not" a hundred other universities and colleges? It shouldn't be given to Caltech.
Probably because nobody else stepped up to the plate to operate the thing.
They should wait, it's not like the thing is falling out of the sky, and somebody should set up a nonprofit organization for the purpose of utilizing the satellite.
There is no "waiting." NASA is going to de-fund this satellite, and the choices are either to decomission it or transfer it to someone else.
At least they didn't claim they were going to make it an open standard this time and then advertise heavily that it's only between Apple devices.
Um try again....
"We’re going to the standards bodies, starting tomorrow, and we’re going to make FaceTime an open industry standard.” (Steve Jobs, July 2010)
Guess what hasn't happened since July 2010?
I would also like to add that over the past ten years, "security" has gotten much much tighter at NASA. NASA has many roles that involve interfacing with the industrial community, the scientific community, and the public community at large. It is often difficult to reconcile those roles with the additional goal of "more security!" In fact, in the interests of blanket security, I would say that NASA's ability to interact with communities, and lead through good example, have been partially stifled in the name of security.
Another thing to mention is that often-times, large institutions like NASA are dealing with legacy systems that do not have the latest security. The common knee-jerk reaction is to say, "just upgrade it!" But the reality is that there can be knock-on effects that prevent upgrading or make it cost-prohibitive. Critical systems that have been running for years often do not have the funds or staff expertise to execute a major upgrade. But as I said, this is a problem with most large institutions, it's just that "NASA" in the title of an article makes it higher profile.
This post has my personal opinions only.
Never states?
From someone who has worked inside of NASA for more than ten years (not manned space flight): you are right and you are wrong.
I think if you look at the portfolio of projects that NASA is doing now, including manned, earth science, space science, planetary science, robotics, aeronautics, and so on, NASA is doing way more than it did in the 1960s. The taxpayer is definitely getting more for the money now than they did then.
On the other hand, yes, the bureaucracy has grown larger as well. Basically, every time there is a mishap or accident, NASA adds another review process. So the result is that the projects are top-heavy with managers who spend all their time, either presenting "status" at various reviews, or pestering the people who actually do the work for some powerpoint slides for their next meeting. It can definitely be a drag.
But overall, it can be fun and cool!
It's quite possible they replaced the small auxiliary battery and not the main hybrid battery. It's similar to a regular car battery, and has a similar lifetime. Completely separate from the main hybrid battery.
Markets are more efficient when information flows freely and is accurate.
Cell phone companies apparently obscure the terms of service and costs, and consumers end up being less than ideally informed. Competition in the cell phone industry is also limited since spectrum is a limited resource, and the barriers to entry are high.
For contract phones, the companies tend to compete on features rather than costs, for example number of minutes, "friends and family." For the market segment of consumers that are conscious cost, companies do offer prepaid phones.
NPR Science Friday just had a presentation last Friday by Dr. Kay Bidle about measurements of microbial DNA in antarctic ice sheets. He found that although it was possible to revive some microbes from buried ice as old as 8 million years, the DNA became significantly degraded. The effective half-life for the DNA was about 1.1 million years, and this was for ice buried at the earth's surface, under the significant shielding effects of the atmosphere and the overburdening glacier. Cometary ice in space will be subjected to a much more intense radiation environment. The Bidle paper (appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) speculates that panspermia within our solar system may be possible, but tranfer from outside the solar system would be extremely unlikely.
It's counterintuitive, but shielding can actually make more radiation. The problem is that when a high energy cosmic ray strikes a nucleus, it can make a whole bunch of secondary particles which still have a lot of energy. Then those particles interact again, and so on, producing a "shower" of particles that can interact with your film. Sensitive neutrino experiments go far under the earth's surface to avoid cosmic rays, and even there they get a fair number of (low interacting) muons. I helped test a large space astronomy observatory and we regularly got blatted by cosmic ray showers, even though the observatory was inside a pressure vessel with thick steel walls. Proper shielding is an art.
Burying your film underground may make things worse too... if you live in an area rich in radioactive soil or radon gas. Building materials like concrete can often also be contaminated with uranium.
Here are the official DVDCCA requests for watermarking proposals. The proposals are due by May 9, 2001. Some of the interesting highlights include a serial-copy-management-like copy protection (ie, ability for producers to designate NO-COPY or COPY-ONCE flags); the fact that watermarking is not a prerequisite - other technologies will be entertained. A preliminary selection will occur later this month. Candidates will be required to pay for their own testing expenses (ouch!).
Notice to Interest Parties (brief, general instructions)
Request for Expressions of Interest (formal instructions and requirements)
Both are PDF documents.
IDG's use of "phantom" trademarks may not be allowed. Phantom marks are those that contain elements unspecified at application time, like ".... for Dummies." Apparently trademark applicants are allowed only one trademark name per application.
I found this little tidbit in a USPTO newsletter here.
There are still a few questions. If IDG already had their application approved by the USPTO, it may be harder for "infringers" to defend against it, even with the court ruling. Also, IDG may have legitimate claims to specific titles like "The Internet for Dummies" or even just "For Dummies," but anything "for Dummies" seems right out. As the federal court says, such phantom marks do not serve the public good, since there are too many potential infringing variations.
Software producers generally try to make an end run around copyright law. If you buy a book, you own the book. When you buy software, do you own it? No, says the software producer, you just have a license to use it. Most software sold today is actually a license transaction, where the producer allows you to use the software in exchange for you agreeing to certain terms. After all, this is how the GPL works. Licensing in itself isn't always evil.
A license is essentially a contract between the user and the producer, and thus contract law may apply instead of copyright law! As long as both parties agree, almost any terms can be binding in a contract.
Okay, so are you bound by shrinkwrap licenses? In that case, there is no explicit negotiation between merchant and purchaser. So maybe shrinkwraps are enforceable, maybe not. What if the terms aren't even on the box (as UCITA permits)? Remember the poor Toshiba owner who couldn't read the Microsoft EULA until he opened the computer box, but by doing so agreed to the EULA?! UCITA makes such practices more legimate.
If the license forbids you from reverse engineering or talking about how the program works, I think we would all agree that this is a violation of the spirit of copyright and patent policy. UCITA does contain an exception against abuse. However, it will be up to a judge in a court to decide that matter.
Some open source developers may not be able to afford such a court battle.
Craig
UCITA is not law yet. The NCCUSL has voted to forward the bill to the states, who must enact it individually. This is, incidentally, how the Uniform Commercial Code works, which governs many commercial transactions. However, it is likely that many states will pass the legislation given the rubber stamp of the NCCUSL.
It goes mostly without saying that UCITA will be bad for the consumer. It gives software makers many broad powers to limit consumer freedom. For example, shrinkwrap licenses don't even have to be on the outside of the box to be enforceable. Goodbye EULA protesters!
I disagree with those who say that UCITA will be good for open source software. Under UCITA, manufacturers may be able to enforce gag clauses that prevent you from discussing the product (including performance, etc) with others. This goes against the very nature of the open source process. Also, explicit provisions against reverse engineering may now be enforceable as well. Think of how the Samba team relies on reverse engineering to make a superior product. UCITA may allow Microsoft to forbid that practice in the future.
Many groups are opposed to UCITA, including librarians, consumer groups, the Attorneys General for almost half the states, and the Federal Trade Commission. Despite this the NCCUSL probably promoted UCITA because they have an interest in preserving states rights over federal. Cem Kaner hosts an excellent web page, Bad Software, which discusses these issues and summarizes the hurtful parts of UCITA.
It is now vitally important that citizens contact their state commissioners, governers, etc. to expresse their opposition to UCITA. It's got to be done on a state-by-state basis now.
CraigPeople go around saying things like 'GPL means you can't link with non-GPL stuff' Now IANAL but I don't think it does, and the confusion is not good.
The GPL doesn't govern what you do internally with copylefted code. As it states,
The only question comes when you want to distribute a work based on copylefted code. Then you need to be sure that you comply with all of the modification and distribution terms of the license. The GPL thus does not prevent a person from downloading libreadline (which is licensed under the GPL) and combining it with their own non-free work, as long as they do not distribute the combined work. If they do want to distribute it, then the terms of all components must be made compatible with the GPL.
The LGPL may also be relevant. It does permit an author to distribute non-free works which link against a LGPL library. The non-free work can be distributed under the authors own terms, as long as it contains no library-derived code. As the license states,
Again, if the library and the program are linked, then the resulting derived work must be distributed under a compatibly free license.
Therefore, I would argue that while there are still significant responsibilities to the author when he links against GPL or LGPL code, it is incorrect to say that "you can't link [GPL code] against non-GPL stuff."