Actually, it is a spiral, which is why you have to keep the buffer full when writing to a CD. Its impossible to reposition the laser to where it last left off when the buffer runs out.
As another poster pointed out earlier, when it stops orbiting a star and starts orbiting a planet or some other body, as a result of being captured by the gravitational pull of that body.
This device will be able to whack moles faster than any traditional man-with-a-hammer technique ever could! In fact under test conditions the electrified mole whacking machine can whack up to 100 moles a minute!
Which works well until the mole-pop-up-rate reaches 101 moles a minute, or 1000 a minute or...
Of course, I'm waiting for UCITA laws to be struck down (if and when they're implemented). Seems to me that the Constitution gives Congress (and only Congress) the power to grant to authors and inventors for a limited time the exclusive rights to their creations. Since the States are denied any right given to Congress, they may no grant the authors/inventors more rights than Congress has given. Of course, there's the whole Interstate Commerce thing, which could also be used to have them struck down...
Don't quote me, but when I was in the market for high-speed access, MediaOne's information led me to believe that all they proxied was HTTP requests on port 80. They do this by transparently routing all connections on port 80 from inside to out through their collections of web proxies.
Of course, they do this to avoid paying for external bandwidth (cheap asses), and presumably it works well. In the end, I went with USWest's overpriced DSL because despite what they say, CableModem providers are not ISP's. They're content providers with give internet access. If I wanted a content provider, I'd be with AOL. I wanted Internet Service.
How many capable software engineers do you know of who would sit on a panel on a government salary? Therein lies the problem. The feds don't pay a competitive enough salary (which would have to be more to start with; who wants stock options on the government?) to get capapable engineers on the panels (this may be by design).
As for IBM pamphlets using it, I coluld (at one time, long ago) present MS-DOS 3.1 floppies, which used a windowing system for dates as far back as 1986 or so. Presumably, Unixen have been using this technique since the '70s.
Re:What is WRONG with you people?
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, especially the condition that its not warranted to work in any particular way (read: Quake I GPL is not guaranteed to be playable). There's no reason to not be able to download the shareware version and use its WADs, as a previous poster had said.
The company I work for has had a habit of splitting; the board likes to keep the price around 100-120 a share. So, the price gets up to 150 or so, they declare a 3:2 split, 200 or so gets a 2:1. Last time we were trading at about 80, they called for a 3:2. The price went up 10 that day. At the closing bell on the div-date, we traded at 300, which takes us to 200 split adjusted. We're now at 250. *
What's my point? When a split is declared, the price of the stock tends to go up, so everyone can double the number of shares they have, for the reasons mentioned in some of the other posts in this thread. Fact is, this is typical stock behavior. So, even though the actual split doesn't change the value of the stock, the calue goes up in the time preceding the split. Incidentally, we tend to take a small hit in the week or so after the split (no doubt from the people who sell off the shares they gained, in profit-taking).
As others have pointed out, making Baby Bills out of one big Bill could make that one Bill even richer than he already is. I don't think that breaking up M$ a la AT&T is thus a wise idea. Besides, how will we break up the company. Obviously, a distinction can be made between hardware and software, but M$ has done a good job of bringing together their software under 1 umbrella, for the most part. Take a look at the IE4/5 / Windows integration. So much for breaking off Internet products. But the kicker comes with the Office Suite. Will the office software company remove calls to undocumented API's? Will the OS company remove the API's to break the Office Suite? No and No. In fact what would likely happen, and be quite under the table, is that the various Baby Bills would end up conspiring in such a way that we'd have an effective monopoly. We'd break up the company to the public, but behind the curtains, it'd be one company.
Of course, something has to be done to stop M$'s anti-competitive practices. The best solution I've come across involves doing all of 2 things to M$. First, they must document all of their undocumented API's to the world outside of the Micro$oft compound. Second, they must eliminate all preferential OEM licensing on the OS and other software.
Before I get flamed, lets take a look at my solution:
1. M$ has a collection of undocumented API's that they use internally. We all know it. As a result of this, they have an unfair advantage in the applications market. In other words, M$ Office can use these like crazy, while potential competitors are left out in the cold on them. It should be obvious how this is anti-competitive (and thus illegal for a monopoly).
2) OEM Licensing. AFAIK, M$ licenses Windows 95/98 to OEM's who commit to install it on almost all of the PC's they ship at a very low cost (probably a few bucks a copy, or some other obscenely low number). On the other hand, the local PC shop who perhaps installs Linux on a quarter of the PC's they ship, because they cater to personal rather than corporate desires, must pay a significantly higher cost, all because they ship a smaller percentage of PC's without Win 9x. I have no problems with volume pricing; volume pricing is a Good Thing(TM). But, when you're charging by the percentage, rather than the true volume, this is wrong. OK, wrong is such a strong word. How about anti-comptetive. Regardless, it is a Bad Thing(TM).
How many software engineers who know enough about the industry to make reasonable decision would work at the patent office?
None. For the same reasons as the FBI is hard-pressed to get geeks on its staff. They pay about half of what you could get in industry.
The PTO doesn't even need to do an RFPA. All they need to do is post pending applications, like parts of Europe (from what I understand; if I'm wrong, please correct me). We wouldn't need a forum on/. because entities (many times individuals have prior art, too) would be knocking down the doors of the PTO with their prior art to get the pending patent rejected.
At any rate someone should moderate up Shotgun's post.
"The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;..."
disclaimerIANAL, expecially a patent lawyer. The following is just my opinion/disclaimer
So, the question here is, as you said, whether the progress of science and useful arts is being hindered by current patent/copyright law (I don't buy into IP b.s.).
In order to determine this, a case would have to go before the Supreme Court. We all know what companies with a vast portfolio of patents would do, so its up to the little guys who won't have the resources to take a suit this far. Since the S.C. won't get a chance to touch this one, it's up to Congress to change the law (which, as someone earlier posted may well be under way; I haven't researched it).
Oh man, I wish I would have read down a bit before I posted my last comment, because this one pretty much sums the situation up perfectly. Someone moderate this up.
Well, having just matriculated from a fine public four-year institution, I guess I'm qualified to comment on this. On every piece of code I handed in for an assignment, was placed a copyright notice. I chose to retain all rights for a good 75 years on it (most of it is simply collections of excrement, but that's not the point). Incidentally, as a result of this, I never saw my code used as an example in class, even thought it was frequently better than the example. Never did I sign or imply that I would assign title to the school (key word no implied consent). Although assignment may be in the school's policy guide, given the way mosts states' laws are on this subject, that portion would likely be null and void anyway. I'll get back to this after an example.
How many of you out there had tech. internships while in college? How many got paid for it? I'd guess a lot. I know I did. How many of you know what the typical salary for a non-technical (non-technical being anything that won't produce IP) intern is? Pretty close to $0. The logic behind this is that the experience is considered enough compensation. There is no "intellectual property" to be transferred. Interns in tech fields get paid (sometimes quite well) because most of them sign agreements assigning all IP rights to the employer. No pay = no assignment = anything I do for said employer stays mine.
Back to the subject at hand. Since students are not being compensated by the school for being students (no, the knowledge doesn't count, my tuition paid for that), the school can't automatically become the assignee of IP rights. No student-generated code, lecture notes, inventions, etc.
Of course, the above applies only to undergrads. Graduate students employed as RA's by the school no doubt signed an assignment agreement with the school. The school can, and should be able to, lay claim to anything they produce.
Now, IANAL, but methinks the school would have a very difficult time defending any claim against me in a court of law (technically, as a tuition-paying student, the school is my employee, or at least contractor), not even for the stuff produced during my 4 quarters as a undergrad TA (no agreement). Even if they did, thanks to the education they provided me, I've got a nice cozy grip of cash accessible to me. Coupling that with the fact that my alma mater's legal team is tied up with investigating academic fraud with a certain men's sports team, well, the outcome is easy to predict. Any attempt to stop me from profiting from my work (one of these days I'll have to have a closer look at Title XVII for definitions, etc.) would be met with lawyers paid from said chunk of change. And in the end, tuition would go up (what else is new?).
But, before I take this too far, I'd like Hawk's unofficial, non-legal-advice opinion on the subject (maybe its down there, I haven't read that far yet)
Well, having just matriculated from a fine public four-year institution, I guess I'm qualified to comment on this. On every piece of code I handed in for an assignment, was placed a copyright notice. I chose to retain all rights for a good 75 years on it (most of it is simply collections of excrement, but that's not the point). Never did I sign or imply that I would assign title to the school (key word no implied consent). Although assignment may be in the school's policy guide, given the way mosts states' laws are on this subject, that portion would likely be null and void anyway. I'll get back to this after an example.
How many of you out there had tech. internships while in college? How many got paid for it? I'd guess a lot. I know I did. How many of you know what the typical salary for a non-technical (non-technical being anything that won't produce IP)intern is? Pretty close to $0. The logic behind this is that the experience is considered enough compensation. There is no "intellectual property" to be transferred. Interns in tech fields get paid (sometimes quite well) because most of them sign agreements assigning all IP rights to the employer. No pay = no assignment = anything I do for said employer stays mine.
Back to the subject at hand. Since students are not being compensated by the school for being students (no, the knowledge doesn't count, my tuition paid for that), the school can't automatically become the assignee of IP rights. No student-generated code, lecture notes, inventions, etc.
Of course, the above applies only to undergrads. Graduate students employed as RA's by the school no doubt signed an assignment agreement with the school. Technically, the school can lay claim to anything they produce.
Now, IANAL, but methinks the school would have a very difficult time defending any claim against me in a court of law (technically, as a tuition-paying student, the school is my employee, or at least contractor), not even for the stuff produced during my 4 quarters as a undergrad TA (no agreement). Even if they did, thanks to the education they provided me, I've got a nice cozy grip of cash accessible to me. Coupling that with the fact that my alma mater's legal team is tied up with investigating academic fraud with a certain men's sports team, well, the outcome is easy to predict. Any attempt to stop me from profiting from my work (one of these days I'll have to have a closer look at Title XVII for definitions, etc.) would be met with lawyers paid from said chunk of change. And in the end, tuition would go up (what else is new?).
Actually, looking at my server, I see exactly 8 processes currently sleeping known as apache. If my understanding is right, when a connection comes in, all of them are awakened, and the first one to accept the connection handles it. If I had it configured differently, it would use threads.
As for IIS, I'm quite certain that it uses threads, rather than forking (very seldom does a daemon on a MS OS fork to handle a new connection).
I'm not sure because I haven't looked at the/. code, but Rob may want to examine it to make sure that it does not violate this patent. Seems to me that the Slashboxen could be considered "real-time" data obtained from other servers.
Does anyone know when the M-D patent was issued/filed? Unless my memory is painfully flawed. Good old MS-DOS has been doing that for dates since about 1981 (or at least since the days of 3.1 in about '85). IIRC, any 2-digit date less than 80 yielded 20xx, while 80=year=99 gave 19xx.
The Wearable PC is a line of products allowing the user to select processor, storage, and display depending on the application, and starts at $2,000 for quantity purchases.
Storage and display choices. Is that really necessary? A simple LCD and a couple of RAM cards should be enough. But, what I want to know: is this thing real-time, or is there some (significant) delay in translation time?
Don't bet on that. I've held some of those drives (Put a 6 GB in my dad's laptop from work a few weeks ago). Those things are barely there. Although I'm not sure what else might be taking up that weight, I'm not sure that its due to the disk.
I remember doing a report on Norway about 10 years ago (6th grade). In my research I seem to remember something to the effect that Norway did in fact join the EU (then-EEC) in the late 70s or early 80s. However, even if they are not part of the EU, Scandinavia has a long history of being quite liberal in allowing reverse-engineering type activities. So, all other things aside, the reverse engineering was probably quite legal (even in the US for interoperability purposes, which is what we intend to do with it anyway). The goal of the unnamed industry group is simply to scare the sh!t out of the little guy which, as we all know doesn't work when this forum finds out about it.
Besides that, with the advent of the new moderating system, thats not one of the rules, since almost everyone can at some point in time be a moderator.
You are correct about the IUSR_MACHINE account. However, unless explicitly done by using a DOMAIN user, IUSR_MACHINE is a local account on the IIS server. However, that account is for anonymous access, and from the article, I don't see that MS is concerned about anonymous access (yet). The other interesting thing to note about the basic NT services is that (at the moment) multiple connections from the same user are considered to be using one CAL (i.e., if JoeUser is logged in to 4 workstations, and has his home drive mapped on all 4 machines, he's only using 1 CAL. If JaneUser telnets to a machine, and gets her home drive mapped (whoa, that could get hairy), JoeUser still takes one CAL, while Jane takes another). What I and apparently several others believe here is that Nash picked a bad example, and that only NT-authenticated web connections will be "taxed"; in other words connections using HTTP or NTCR authentication. CGI authentication and the like will remain "anonymous" for the purposed of CALs.
No flames, please, but this is coming from someone who is in the process of preparing for the IIS exam, and over the course of the past couple of weeks, I've shoved this into my brain any way I could. Hey, as long as PHB's are still willing to "not get fired for buying Microsoft", I'll gladly take their money in my left hand and shove sh!t up their a$$ with my right.
It already does. Anything connecting to services provided by the Server service requires a CAL. Authentication. File/Print sharing, etc, regardless of whether it comes from a Samba server, a Mac, or a PC running FreeDOS. The only difference is that previously each machine counted as a seat, while now, each connection from a different user is a "seat". I still see this is a non-issue for the typical enterprise customer, most of whom use per-seat licensing anyway. I stated in a previous post, that technically, authenticated logins already require a CAL, and here's the relevant portion of the (NT WKS 4.0 OEM) EULA to show it:
"Network Services. Except as otherwise provided below, if the SOFTWARE PRODUCT documentation indicates that the SOFTWARE PRODUCT includes functionality that enables the COMPUTER to share resources over a network with other computers or workstations, any number of computers or workstations may access or otherwise utilize the basic network services of SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER. The basic network services are more fully described in the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and include file and print services and peer Web services.
"Windows NT Workstation Network Services. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Windows NT Workstation, a maximum of ten (10) inbound peer connections may simultaneously access or otherwise utilize the basic network services of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER. The ten-connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through software or hardware that pools or aggregates connections."
The key thing here is the clause about indirect connectiions in the WKS specific part, and the PWS connections in the general section. Not that anyone uses the PWS that comes with WKS anyway.
I don't have a copy of the server EULA in front of me right now, but when I get home in 3 hours, I can post the relevant portions of it. I think that the Network services portion of it say something similar. The basic idea is that nothing can access the Server service without a license. That includes any NTCR or Basic Authentication requests.
On an off-topic to this thread, but relevant to the article, I think that Mr. Nash could have chosen a better example than selling t-shirts from his secure web site. Then again, he may give out NT accounts explicitly for the purpose of that; he'd be a fool to do so, but who ever said that people at MS have brains.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said in an environment harsh to this sort of comment.
Actually, it is a spiral, which is why you have to keep the buffer full when writing to a CD. Its impossible to reposition the laser to where it last left off when the buffer runs out.
10 USC 311 at uscode.house.gov.
As another poster pointed out earlier, when it stops orbiting a star and starts orbiting a planet or some other body, as a result of being captured by the gravitational pull of that body.
This device will be able to whack moles faster than any traditional man-with-a-hammer technique ever could! In fact under test conditions the electrified mole whacking machine can whack up to 100 moles a minute!
...
Which works well until the mole-pop-up-rate reaches 101 moles a minute, or 1000 a minute or
Of course, I'm waiting for UCITA laws to be struck down (if and when they're implemented). Seems to me that the Constitution gives Congress (and only Congress) the power to grant to authors and inventors for a limited time the exclusive rights to their creations. Since the States are denied any right given to Congress, they may no grant the authors/inventors more rights than Congress has given. Of course, there's the whole Interstate Commerce thing, which could also be used to have them struck down...
Don't quote me, but when I was in the market for high-speed access, MediaOne's information led me to believe that all they proxied was HTTP requests on port 80. They do this by transparently routing all connections on port 80 from inside to out through their collections of web proxies.
Of course, they do this to avoid paying for external bandwidth (cheap asses), and presumably it works well. In the end, I went with USWest's overpriced DSL because despite what they say, CableModem providers are not ISP's. They're content providers with give internet access. If I wanted a content provider, I'd be with AOL. I wanted Internet Service.
Neither would the insurance companies.
How many capable software engineers do you know of who would sit on a panel on a government salary? Therein lies the problem. The feds don't pay a competitive enough salary (which would have to be more to start with; who wants stock options on the government?) to get capapable engineers on the panels (this may be by design).
As for IBM pamphlets using it, I coluld (at one time, long ago) present MS-DOS 3.1 floppies, which used a windowing system for dates as far back as 1986 or so. Presumably, Unixen have been using this technique since the '70s.
Yeah, especially the condition that its not warranted to work in any particular way (read: Quake I GPL is not guaranteed to be playable). There's no reason to not be able to download the shareware version and use its WADs, as a previous poster had said.
The company I work for has had a habit of splitting; the board likes to keep the price around 100-120 a share. So, the price gets up to 150 or so, they declare a 3:2 split, 200 or so gets a 2:1. Last time we were trading at about 80, they called for a 3:2. The price went up 10 that day. At the closing bell on the div-date, we traded at 300, which takes us to 200 split adjusted. We're now at 250. *
What's my point? When a split is declared, the price of the stock tends to go up, so everyone can double the number of shares they have, for the reasons mentioned in some of the other posts in this thread. Fact is, this is typical stock behavior. So, even though the actual split doesn't change the value of the stock, the calue goes up in the time preceding the split. Incidentally, we tend to take a small hit in the week or so after the split (no doubt from the people who sell off the shares they gained, in profit-taking).
As others have pointed out, making Baby Bills out of one big Bill could make that one Bill even richer than he already is. I don't think that breaking up M$ a la AT&T is thus a wise idea. Besides, how will we break up the company. Obviously, a distinction can be made between hardware and software, but M$ has done a good job of bringing together their software under 1 umbrella, for the most part. Take a look at the IE4/5 / Windows integration. So much for breaking off Internet products. But the kicker comes with the Office Suite. Will the office software company remove calls to undocumented API's? Will the OS company remove the API's to break the Office Suite? No and No. In fact what would likely happen, and be quite under the table, is
that the various Baby Bills would end up conspiring in such a way that we'd have an effective monopoly. We'd break up the company to the public, but behind the curtains, it'd be one company.
Of course, something has to be done to stop M$'s anti-competitive practices. The best solution I've come across involves doing all of 2 things to M$. First, they must document all of their undocumented API's to the world outside of the Micro$oft compound. Second, they must eliminate all preferential OEM licensing on the OS and other software.
Before I get flamed, lets take a look at my solution:
1. M$ has a collection of undocumented API's that they use internally. We all know it. As a result of this, they have an unfair advantage in the applications market. In other words, M$ Office can use these like crazy, while potential competitors are left out in the cold on them. It should be obvious how this is anti-competitive (and thus illegal for a monopoly).
2) OEM Licensing. AFAIK, M$ licenses Windows 95/98 to OEM's who commit to install it on almost all of the PC's they ship at a very low cost (probably a few bucks a copy, or some other obscenely low number). On the other hand, the local PC shop who perhaps installs Linux on a quarter of the PC's they ship, because they cater to personal rather than corporate desires, must pay a significantly higher cost, all because they ship a smaller percentage of PC's without Win 9x. I have no problems with volume pricing; volume pricing is a Good Thing(TM). But, when you're charging by the percentage, rather than the true volume, this is wrong. OK, wrong is such a strong word. How about anti-comptetive. Regardless, it is a Bad Thing(TM).
Anyone else see this same thing?
How many software engineers who know enough about the industry to make reasonable decision would work at the patent office?
/. because entities (many times individuals have prior art, too) would be knocking down the doors of the PTO with their prior art to get the pending patent rejected.
None. For the same reasons as the FBI is hard-pressed to get geeks on its staff. They pay about half of what you could get in industry.
The PTO doesn't even need to do an RFPA. All they need to do is post pending applications, like parts of Europe (from what I understand; if I'm wrong, please correct me). We wouldn't need a forum on
At any rate someone should moderate up Shotgun's post.
From the Constitution Article I, Section 8:
... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; ..."
"The Congress shall have power
disclaimerIANAL, expecially a patent lawyer. The following is just my opinion/disclaimer
So, the question here is, as you said, whether the progress of science and useful arts is being hindered by current patent/copyright law (I don't buy into IP b.s.).
In order to determine this, a case would have to go before the Supreme Court. We all know what companies with a vast portfolio of patents would do, so its up to the little guys who won't have the resources to take a suit this far. Since the S.C. won't get a chance to touch this one, it's up to Congress to change the law (which, as someone earlier posted may well be under way; I haven't researched it).
Aside from that, you may be on to something.
Oh man, I wish I would have read down a bit before I posted my last comment, because this one pretty much sums the situation up perfectly. Someone moderate this up.
Well, having just matriculated from a fine public four-year institution, I guess I'm qualified to comment on this. On every piece of code I handed in for an assignment, was placed a copyright notice. I chose to retain all rights for a good 75 years on it (most of it is simply collections of excrement, but that's not the point). Incidentally, as a result of this, I never saw my code used as an example in class, even thought it was frequently better than the example. Never did I sign or imply that I would assign title to the school (key word no implied consent). Although assignment may be in the school's policy guide, given the way mosts states' laws are on this subject, that portion would likely be null and void anyway. I'll get back to this after an example.
How many of you out there had tech. internships while in college? How many got paid for it? I'd guess a lot. I know I did. How many of you know what the typical salary for a non-technical (non-technical being anything that won't produce IP) intern is? Pretty close to $0. The logic behind this is that the experience is considered enough compensation. There is no "intellectual property" to be transferred. Interns in tech fields get paid (sometimes quite well) because most of them sign agreements assigning all IP rights to the employer. No pay = no assignment = anything I do for said employer stays mine.
Back to the subject at hand. Since students are not being compensated by the school for being students (no, the knowledge doesn't count, my tuition paid for that), the school can't automatically become the assignee of IP rights. No student-generated code, lecture notes, inventions, etc.
Of course, the above applies only to undergrads. Graduate students employed as RA's by the school no doubt signed an assignment agreement with the school. The school can, and should be able to, lay claim to anything they produce.
Now, IANAL, but methinks the school would have a very difficult time defending any claim against me in a court of law (technically, as a tuition-paying student, the school is my employee, or at least contractor), not even for the stuff produced during my 4 quarters as a undergrad TA (no agreement). Even if they did, thanks to the education they provided me, I've got a nice cozy grip of cash accessible to me. Coupling that with the fact that my alma mater's legal team is tied up with investigating academic fraud with a certain men's sports team, well, the outcome is easy to predict. Any attempt to stop me from profiting from my work (one of these days I'll have to have a closer look at Title XVII for definitions, etc.) would be met with lawyers paid from said chunk of change. And in the end, tuition would go up (what else is new?).
But, before I take this too far, I'd like Hawk's unofficial, non-legal-advice opinion on the subject (maybe its down there, I haven't read that far yet)
Well, having just matriculated from a fine public four-year institution, I guess I'm qualified to comment on this. On every piece of code I handed in for an assignment, was placed a copyright notice. I chose to retain all rights for a good 75 years on it (most of it is simply collections of excrement, but that's not the point). Never did I sign or imply that I would assign title to the school (key word no implied consent). Although assignment may be in the school's policy guide, given the way mosts states' laws are on this subject, that portion would likely be null and void anyway. I'll get back to this after an example.
How many of you out there had tech. internships while in college? How many got paid for it? I'd guess a lot. I know I did. How many of you know what the typical salary for a non-technical (non-technical being anything that won't produce IP)intern is? Pretty close to $0. The logic behind this is that the experience is considered enough compensation. There is no "intellectual property" to be transferred. Interns in tech fields get paid (sometimes quite well) because most of them sign agreements assigning all IP rights to the employer. No pay = no assignment = anything I do for said employer stays mine.
Back to the subject at hand. Since students are not being compensated by the school for being students (no, the knowledge doesn't count, my tuition paid for that), the school can't automatically become the assignee of IP rights. No student-generated code, lecture notes, inventions, etc.
Of course, the above applies only to undergrads. Graduate students employed as RA's by the school no doubt signed an assignment agreement with the school. Technically, the school can lay claim to anything they produce.
Now, IANAL, but methinks the school would have a very difficult time defending any claim against me in a court of law (technically, as a tuition-paying student, the school is my employee, or at least contractor), not even for the stuff produced during my 4 quarters as a undergrad TA (no agreement). Even if they did, thanks to the education they provided me, I've got a nice cozy grip of cash accessible to me. Coupling that with the fact that my alma mater's legal team is tied up with investigating academic fraud with a certain men's sports team, well, the outcome is easy to predict. Any attempt to stop me from profiting from my work (one of these days I'll have to have a closer look at Title XVII for definitions, etc.) would be met with lawyers paid from said chunk of change. And in the end, tuition would go up (what else is new?).
Actually, looking at my server, I see exactly 8 processes currently sleeping known as apache. If my understanding is right, when a connection comes in, all of them are awakened, and the first one to accept the connection handles it. If I had it configured differently, it would use threads.
/. code, but Rob may want to examine it to make sure that it does not violate this patent. Seems to me that the Slashboxen could be considered "real-time" data obtained from other servers.
As for IIS, I'm quite certain that it uses threads, rather than forking (very seldom does a daemon on a MS OS fork to handle a new connection).
I'm not sure because I haven't looked at the
Does anyone know when the M-D patent was issued/filed? Unless my memory is painfully flawed. Good old MS-DOS has been doing that for dates since about 1981 (or at least since the days of 3.1 in about '85). IIRC, any 2-digit date less than 80 yielded 20xx, while 80=year=99 gave 19xx.
The Wearable PC is a line of products allowing the user to select processor, storage, and display depending on the application, and starts at $2,000 for quantity purchases.
Storage and display choices. Is that really necessary? A simple LCD and a couple of RAM cards should be enough. But, what I want to know: is this thing real-time, or is there some (significant) delay in translation time?
Universal Translator, meet the 20th Century.
Don't bet on that. I've held some of those drives (Put a 6 GB in my dad's laptop from work a few weeks ago). Those things are barely there. Although I'm not sure what else might be taking up that weight, I'm not sure that its due to the disk.
I remember doing a report on Norway about 10 years ago (6th grade). In my research I seem to remember something to the effect that Norway did in fact join the EU (then-EEC) in the late 70s or early 80s. However, even if they are not part of the EU, Scandinavia has a long history of being quite liberal in allowing reverse-engineering type activities. So, all other things aside, the reverse engineering was probably quite legal (even in the US for interoperability purposes, which is what we intend to do with it anyway). The goal of the unnamed industry group is simply to scare the sh!t out of the little guy which, as we all know doesn't work when this forum finds out about it.
Besides that, with the advent of the new moderating system, thats not one of the rules, since almost everyone can at some point in time be a moderator.
You are correct about the IUSR_MACHINE account. However, unless explicitly done by using a DOMAIN user, IUSR_MACHINE is a local account on the IIS server. However, that account is for anonymous access, and from the article, I don't see that MS is concerned about anonymous access (yet). The other interesting thing to note about the basic NT services is that (at the moment) multiple connections from the same user are considered to be using one CAL (i.e., if JoeUser is logged in to 4 workstations, and has his home drive mapped on all 4 machines, he's only using 1 CAL. If JaneUser telnets to a machine, and gets her home drive mapped (whoa, that could get hairy), JoeUser still takes one CAL, while Jane takes another). What I and apparently several others believe here is that Nash picked a bad example, and that only NT-authenticated web connections will be "taxed"; in other words connections using HTTP or NTCR authentication. CGI authentication and the like will remain "anonymous" for the purposed of CALs.
No flames, please, but this is coming from someone who is in the process of preparing for the IIS exam, and over the course of the past couple of weeks, I've shoved this into my brain any way I could. Hey, as long as PHB's are still willing to "not get fired for buying Microsoft", I'll gladly take their money in my left hand and shove sh!t up their a$$ with my right.
It already does. Anything connecting to services provided by the Server service requires a CAL. Authentication. File/Print sharing, etc, regardless of whether it comes from a Samba server, a Mac, or a PC running FreeDOS. The only difference is that previously each machine counted as a seat, while now, each connection from a different user is a "seat". I still see this is a non-issue for the typical enterprise customer, most of whom use per-seat licensing anyway. I stated in a previous post, that technically, authenticated logins already require a CAL, and here's the relevant portion of the (NT WKS 4.0 OEM) EULA to show it:
"Network Services. Except as otherwise provided below, if the SOFTWARE PRODUCT documentation indicates that the SOFTWARE PRODUCT includes functionality that enables the COMPUTER to share resources over a network with other computers or workstations, any number of computers or workstations may access or otherwise utilize the basic network services of SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER. The basic network services are more fully described in the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and include file and print services and peer Web services.
"Windows NT Workstation Network Services. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Windows NT Workstation, a maximum of ten (10) inbound peer connections may simultaneously access or otherwise utilize the basic network services of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER. The ten-connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through software or hardware that pools or aggregates connections."
The key thing here is the clause about indirect connectiions in the WKS specific part, and the PWS connections in the general section. Not that anyone uses the PWS that comes with WKS anyway.
I don't have a copy of the server EULA in front of me right now, but when I get home in 3 hours, I can post the relevant portions of it. I think that the Network services portion of it say something similar. The basic idea is that nothing can access the Server service without a license. That includes any NTCR or Basic Authentication requests.
On an off-topic to this thread, but relevant to the article, I think that Mr. Nash could have chosen a better example than selling t-shirts from his secure web site. Then again, he may give out NT accounts explicitly for the purpose of that; he'd be a fool to do so, but who ever said that people at MS have brains.