Besides that, most hardware vendors WILL NOT release the details necessary to write open-source drivers.
This is a myth perpetuated by PC hardware manufacturers somehow thinking they're special. Go look at any components distributor, and you'll find ample documentation for all sorts of hardware, especially for commodity stuff.
It's not that I want to repeat anything, but there are a whole mess of hardware vendors out there that just won't release open source versions of their drivers.
No, no, no, no NO. We don't want hardware vendors to write drivers. Besides, most hardware vendors don't want to maintain drivers for Windows, MacOS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BeOS, HURD, Xen, Linux, Solaris, and each of the incompatible versions of each of them, as well as any new platforms that arise. Even if they do, whether or not they can write good quality, full-featured, secure drivers for all of these platforms is an open question.
All a vendor needs to do is to make good, solid interface documentation, and make it available without NDAs and other childish restrictions, and the drivers will not only be written, but they'll probably be shipped with the operating systems, and for the most part, just work.
Companies that specialize in PC hardware should stick to the hardware, and let the software specialists write the software.
dude you have no clue how long a million years is, never mind tens or hundreds of millions, and given your total lack of perspective about time, it's not surprising that the eye seems like it never could have evolved on its own to you.
Yes. Now take that number, and multiply it by the number of trials going on simultaneously...
Some examples: they can try forcing adult-oriented websites into.xxx 'because of all the poor children'
This is likely illegal, as forcing some group of adult sites (defined by community standards, usually) into a ghetto could be viewed as infringing on 1st ammendment rights.
It's also stupid for technical reasons (see RFC 3675), but that doesn't stop the ignorant from trying.
Sigh. Well *obviously* I'm not going to tell you how it works! Anyone with even the smallest amount of cryptographic sense knows that you *never* reveal the algorithm you're using. If you do, you're just *asking* for people with supercomputers to break your security!
Hmm... I wonder how long it will be until these people can pass the Nirut Test:
The Nirut test is a proposal for a test of a human being's capability to perform machine-like computation. Described by Nala Nirut in the 1993 paper "Computing and human intelligence", it proceeds as follows: a human mathematician engages in a conversation with two other parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the human subject is said to pass the test. In order to keep the test setting simple and universal (to explicitly test the computational capability of the human instead of his or her ability to render words into audio), the conversation is usually limited to a text-only channel such as a teletype machine as Nirut suggested or, more recently, IRC, IM, or electronic bulletin boards like Slashdot.
That certainly was not my point. I didn't even have a point; I was asking a question. The reason I asked is that I was curious to find out if contracts fell into the same sort of exceptional category as "facts" do. (IIRC, you can't copyright, for example, the ionization energy of potassium bromide.)
For the record, I think the last thing we need is a bunch of licences that look like the GPL we're all familiar with, but that are not, in fact, the GPL.
MSFT is a sinking ship, but it's a vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big ship that will take an equally long time to sink -- long enough that it might end up being repaired before it's too late.:P
I disagree. I hope this bill gets passed and that the resulting law is immediately and strictly enforced. The result will be that public awareness of stupid tech regulations will be raised, the law will be repealed, and the Bush administration might even be ousted. After that, Hollywood will stop lobbying for this crap, because no politician would dare propose something like this again.
</devilsadvocate>
Disclaimer: I live in Canada. If, for some strange reason, this bill passes (You laugh? People laughed about the DMCA.) I'll probably be able to avoid the direct consequences of it.
Assuming you haven't already, if you're against software patents, you probably want to vote for NoSoftwarePatents for the Europeans of the Year awards.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like the TLD was a good idea to begin with.
This is a myth perpetuated by PC hardware manufacturers somehow thinking they're special. Go look at any components distributor, and you'll find ample documentation for all sorts of hardware, especially for commodity stuff.
Sigh. Does anyone else see the irony in having the maker of the OS release an anti-malware program that runs in user space?
No, no, no, no NO. We don't want hardware vendors to write drivers. Besides, most hardware vendors don't want to maintain drivers for Windows, MacOS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BeOS, HURD, Xen, Linux, Solaris, and each of the incompatible versions of each of them, as well as any new platforms that arise. Even if they do, whether or not they can write good quality, full-featured, secure drivers for all of these platforms is an open question.
All a vendor needs to do is to make good, solid interface documentation, and make it available without NDAs and other childish restrictions, and the drivers will not only be written, but they'll probably be shipped with the operating systems, and for the most part, just work.
Companies that specialize in PC hardware should stick to the hardware, and let the software specialists write the software.
Yes. Now take that number, and multiply it by the number of trials going on simultaneously...
Shtarker! Zis iz KAOS! Ve don't "wah wah wah" here!
No doubt they'll screw it up by patenting it to death...
This is likely illegal, as forcing some group of adult sites (defined by community standards, usually) into a ghetto could be viewed as infringing on 1st ammendment rights.
It's also stupid for technical reasons (see RFC 3675), but that doesn't stop the ignorant from trying.
Sigh. Well *obviously* I'm not going to tell you how it works! Anyone with even the smallest amount of cryptographic sense knows that you *never* reveal the algorithm you're using. If you do, you're just *asking* for people with supercomputers to break your security!
*I* always use at *least* 1024-bit AES!
Of course. My mistake.
There is no such block.
P.S. If you're going to troll, I suggest you put a little more effort into it next time.
For the record, I think the last thing we need is a bunch of licences that look like the GPL we're all familiar with, but that are not, in fact, the GPL.
MSFT is a sinking ship, but it's a vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big ship that will take an equally long time to sink -- long enough that it might end up being repaired before it's too late. :P
Please provide references showing that Eben Moglen is a zealot.
Can contracts be copyrighted?
... until Netcraft confirms it.
Load it up in Firefox, and possibly use "View Source". The format is pretty straightforward to read.
Something similar is EntroPay.
<devilsadvocate>
I disagree. I hope this bill gets passed and that the resulting law is immediately and strictly enforced. The result will be that public awareness of stupid tech regulations will be raised, the law will be repealed, and the Bush administration might even be ousted. After that, Hollywood will stop lobbying for this crap, because no politician would dare propose something like this again.
</devilsadvocate>
Disclaimer: I live in Canada. If, for some strange reason, this bill passes (You laugh? People laughed about the DMCA.) I'll probably be able to avoid the direct consequences of it.
What does that have to do with anything? "Street-legalness" doesn't have an analogy here.
It looks like less-detailed version of the OpenBSD blowfish! ;)
Assuming you haven't already, if you're against software patents, you probably want to vote for NoSoftwarePatents for the Europeans of the Year awards.