Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree wholehartedly with virtually everything you've said with the exception of SCO being somehow absolved of any responsibility for knowingly continuing to distribute 'their code' with a GPL license:
They are free and clear even though they continued to distribute it because they attest that the GPL is meaningless anyways. It is only because the issue at hand is about IP that they allegedly own in the first place that this works out that way.
That seems patently silly.
Are you seriously saying that a party can actively and knowingly distribute their own code to a third party under a certain license yet have no obligation to honor that license simply because they claim it's not a valid license?
Either I'm very dense this morning, or we're somehow just viewing things in a frame of reference.
Just because SCO is justified in their own mind doesn't mean they're justified in any legal sense.
Allegedly, it was not SCO who placed it there in the first place, so SCO is free and clear in this regard.
It's this assertion that I don't necessarily agree with. IMHO, It's irrelevant WHO originally started distributing 'SCO's code' under the GPL. The fact that they are actively and knowingly offering this code packaged under the GPL is, well... it's them actively and knowingly offering this code packaged under the GPL. Yes, SCO is free and clear of placing 'their code' there in the first place, but they're NOT free and clear of distributing this, 'their' code, under a GPL license. You can't just claim that because 'someone else' (this hypothetical 'someone' who placed their code under the GPL illegally) that SCO has no responsibility for the legal licensing they are distributing.
They, SCO, themselves are offering and distributing it under the GPL. This goes well beyond "not mitigating damages". SCO is offering this code bundled with a license that says "Here, you can use this code as open source software".
Remember, since SCO was also alleging that the terms of the GPL itself were not valid, the fact that they continued to distribute it under the terms of the GPL was meaingless.
SCO may consider it meaningless, but it certainly won't be meaningless to a court of law. That's like me repackaging someone else's book and selling it and claiming that is within my rights because I don't accept the author's contract with his publisher(s) to be valid.
What more does SCO have to do? Write it out for you? Oh wait... they DID! They are themselves distributing source code with copyright notices and documents describing the specific licencing issues for the code! Oh, and since you actually bought SCO's lame argument as being justified... I happen to have this really great bridge for sale...
Well, the attitude control system used at first firing to correct from the roll would have to be entirely different from the attitude control system used at apogee. The former would probably have been wing control surfaces and possibly control of the rocket's thrust vector. At the apogee, the rocket wasn't firing and there isn't much of an atmosphere to use the control surfaces with.
Does anyone know if they used attitude control thrusters and if so, what type?
the article talks about antenna SIZE,
not power efficiency.
From the university's press release:
"Tests confirmed that Vincent has created antennas at one third to one ninth of their full size counterparts. Normally smaller antennas are only 8 to 15 percent efficient. Vincent's antennas achieved 80 to 100 percent efficiency as compared to the larger antennas."
So pretty much the same efficiency as a full size antenna while only taking up a fraction of the space.
Your average CRT Television is about 30keV and that's been consumer electronics for about half a century. Consumer stun guns generate several hundred keV using only a simple small trigger coil (about 1cc). The current should be MUCH smaller for this application than for a television set or stun gun, and you should easily be able to put a 50keV low current source in a small pkg.
2. A few routines are rewritten, tested, debugged, and optimized, and litigation ends or becomes insignificant.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this is SCO we're dealing with. If you think for a second that litigation would end or become insignificant (anymore than it is now), you're dreaming.
Besides, the current litigation is a contract dispute with IBM which is not affected in the slightest if code is rewritten.
What's even more ridiculous is that SCO is claiming that distributing BINARY code using these ABIs is a violation of their IP!
These are #defines so these numbers are just substituted before the compiliation. They're in effect saying "You can't use the number 23 to mean such and such in your binaries."
Wow. I really have to hand it to you. You just keep coming back for more. I really expected that the last post was clear and plain enough to get my original point across.
I highly doubt your 99% guess, but that's all irrelevant. The RIAA today filed several hundred lawsuits based *exactly* on these types of IP addresses, static or not. However, my lasts post was merely a last ditch effort to help you see that the HP driver *is* sending out information over the network and that it's not the stretch you make it out to be that the driver could easily send more information when requesting that URL. Your absurd attempts to equate this to doing taxes or shoveling walks only attests to your sheer stupidity.
As I've stated previously, my ONLY complaint about your original post was your claim that "There is no "phone home" feature", which is clearly an ignorant statement. (If you don't understand this, please go look up the word "ignorant" in a dictionary.) You even admitted as much when you said you'd never seen the code, but seemed to think that the idea was so absurd as to be an imposibility. This is where you're being naieve. (maybe you don't know much about technology and just don't understand how easy it would be to have put this in place in the driver).
Maybe I can sum up your argument:
GOLIAS: "I've never seen the HP driver code at all, and I know it's sending out URL requests on the network when people attempt to print images of currency, but it's inconceivable to me that it could be sending out any other information."
And you can't see how I might have a problem with your warped logic?
The fact is that you made a blatantly uninformed claim in your original post and you're too much of a looser to just admit it.
FACT: HP printer drivers are checking for images of currency and responding by directing users to a web page.
FACT: The web server that people are directed to can obviously see the IP address of those who are connecting to that page (which is ONLY designed for people who have been automatically directed there. -read its text).
FACT: This *IS* "phoning home" and if you tried to print images of money with one of these HP printers it's very likely that YOUR IP address will appear on their server logs. It's trivial to log accesses to a specific page.
Not only are you ignorant, you're also naieve and in denial.
I guess you missed the qualifications to my statement. To quote what I actually said: "Please give the basis for your statement. Have you disassembled the driver and checked out all the code? If not, you're in the same boat as someone who's claiming there is a "phone home" feature."
I stand by that statement. Welcome to comprehension 101. Doesn't look like you're going to pass.
Yes, I agree that it appears that the government was not involved in this at all and the parent post had no support for that wild claim.
All in all, I agree wholeheartedly with all of your previous post except the unsubstantiated claim that there was no "phone home" feature. Must be all the #$%@ math and logic classes coming through.:)
Notice that I'm not claiming anything either way, since I didn't write their drivers.;)
It's seems obviously true that when you use closed source software you must ultimately rely on those creating the software to "Do the Right Thing", and most seem to be pretty responsible since their reputation is at stake. There have been quite a few pieces of comercial software that DO "phone home" and it's not something that's generally advertized by those software makers, but these are usually easily detected by anyone closely monitoring their own network traffic.
Seems you have quite a comprehension problem. I never claimed that either myself, the article, or the post you were replying to made any claim of a current "phone home" feature. I merely pointed out that when YOU claimed "There is no "phone home" feature" you're speaking entirely from a position of ignorance.
There is no "phone home" feature triggered by an attempt to copy money on these printers.
Please give the basis for your statement. Have you disassembled the driver and checked out all the code? If not, you're in the same boat as someone who's claiming there is a "phone home" feature.
What's more, if you actually read the post you were responding to, the author never stated that there was any "phone home" feature. Only that this is setting a precident that these kinds of things are somehow acceptable.
A one-in-a-million chance is small, but if it destroys the entire earth, it's probably too risky to offset almost any benefit.
"destroys the entire earth"? What are you smoking?
The chance if an RTG bursting is extremely small but the risk if one did is imaginary. Certainly nothing from an RTG could be fatal unless the thing hit you on the head. If it burst, it still wouldn't pose a threat.
Thanks for the interesting information. I always believed the contrast differences between what we see and what comes off the CCD (or film) was mostly due to the automatic ranging cause by rhodopsin saturation in our vision system which allows us to see cloud detail in a bright sky while at the same time seeing much darker foreground detail. Just can't seem to do that with traditional media without post-processing selective areas of the image. Seems you could simulate the effect with an intelligent algorithm that affected areas based on overal brightness and detail level, but I haven't seen anything like that.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems patently silly.
Are you seriously saying that a party can actively and knowingly distribute their own code to a third party under a certain license yet have no obligation to honor that license simply because they claim it's not a valid license?
Either I'm very dense this morning, or we're somehow just viewing things in a frame of reference.
Just because SCO is justified in their own mind doesn't mean they're justified in any legal sense.
It's this assertion that I don't necessarily agree with. IMHO, It's irrelevant WHO originally started distributing 'SCO's code' under the GPL. The fact that they are actively and knowingly offering this code packaged under the GPL is, well... it's them actively and knowingly offering this code packaged under the GPL. Yes, SCO is free and clear of placing 'their code' there in the first place, but they're NOT free and clear of distributing this, 'their' code, under a GPL license. You can't just claim that because 'someone else' (this hypothetical 'someone' who placed their code under the GPL illegally) that SCO has no responsibility for the legal licensing they are distributing.
They, SCO, themselves are offering and distributing it under the GPL. This goes well beyond "not mitigating damages". SCO is offering this code bundled with a license that says "Here, you can use this code as open source software".
SCO may consider it meaningless, but it certainly won't be meaningless to a court of law. That's like me repackaging someone else's book and selling it and claiming that is within my rights because I don't accept the author's contract with his publisher(s) to be valid.
What more does SCO have to do? Write it out for you? Oh wait... they DID! They are themselves distributing source code with copyright notices and documents describing the specific licencing issues for the code! Oh, and since you actually bought SCO's lame argument as being justified... I happen to have this really great bridge for sale ...
Does anyone know if they used attitude control thrusters and if so, what type?
From the university's press release: "Tests confirmed that Vincent has created antennas at one third to one ninth of their full size counterparts. Normally smaller antennas are only 8 to 15 percent efficient. Vincent's antennas achieved 80 to 100 percent efficiency as compared to the larger antennas."
So pretty much the same efficiency as a full size antenna while only taking up a fraction of the space.
SCAMMER: "Congrautlations! You've won 5 free magazine subscriptions!
ME: "You mean I get the subscriptions for nothing?"
SCAMMER: "That's right! Totally free, with just a small handling fee of $4.99 per week".
ME: "So, I won 5 free subscriptions valued at up to $19 each, or $100 and all I have to do is pay a mere $260/year for 'handline fees'?"
SCAMMER: "Um... well... See... <click>"
Your average CRT Television is about 30keV and that's been consumer electronics for about half a century. Consumer stun guns generate several hundred keV using only a simple small trigger coil (about 1cc). The current should be MUCH smaller for this application than for a television set or stun gun, and you should easily be able to put a 50keV low current source in a small pkg.
... What better cover than to announce in on April 1st and watch an otherwise vigilant public ignore it entirely until it's too late to stop. ;)
Well, someone's not getting a world class education in mathematics! ;)
1% of a million is 10,000. NOW you can compare that to the 20,000 US CS graduates per year.
Just imagine Quake at 1000000 fps!
Seriously, when I initially saw the subject line, I honestly thought it was in German and skipped over it. :)
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this is SCO we're dealing with. If you think for a second that litigation would end or become insignificant (anymore than it is now), you're dreaming.
Besides, the current litigation is a contract dispute with IBM which is not affected in the slightest if code is rewritten.
He also said "15 or so companies", so maybe it's more like 2/12. Nice to see Darl's speaking with his usual specificity. (ie. None)
These are #defines so these numbers are just substituted before the compiliation. They're in effect saying "You can't use the number 23 to mean such and such in your binaries."
What a bunch of morons.
Yes, and YOU made an entirely unfounded claim that there was NOT a "phone home" feature.
It this so difficult for you to grasp?
I highly doubt your 99% guess, but that's all irrelevant. The RIAA today filed several hundred lawsuits based *exactly* on these types of IP addresses, static or not. However, my lasts post was merely a last ditch effort to help you see that the HP driver *is* sending out information over the network and that it's not the stretch you make it out to be that the driver could easily send more information when requesting that URL. Your absurd attempts to equate this to doing taxes or shoveling walks only attests to your sheer stupidity.
As I've stated previously, my ONLY complaint about your original post was your claim that "There is no "phone home" feature", which is clearly an ignorant statement. (If you don't understand this, please go look up the word "ignorant" in a dictionary.) You even admitted as much when you said you'd never seen the code, but seemed to think that the idea was so absurd as to be an imposibility. This is where you're being naieve. (maybe you don't know much about technology and just don't understand how easy it would be to have put this in place in the driver).
Maybe I can sum up your argument:
And you can't see how I might have a problem with your warped logic?
The fact is that you made a blatantly uninformed claim in your original post and you're too much of a looser to just admit it.
FACT: HP printer drivers are checking for images of currency and responding by directing users to a web page.
FACT: The web server that people are directed to can obviously see the IP address of those who are connecting to that page (which is ONLY designed for people who have been automatically directed there. -read its text).
FACT: This *IS* "phoning home" and if you tried to print images of money with one of these HP printers it's very likely that YOUR IP address will appear on their server logs. It's trivial to log accesses to a specific page.
Not only are you ignorant, you're also naieve and in denial.
YOU: "I have not disassembled the driver or even glimpsed at the code,"
You are ignorant. Take a logic class.
I stand by that statement. Welcome to comprehension 101. Doesn't look like you're going to pass.
All in all, I agree wholeheartedly with all of your previous post except the unsubstantiated claim that there was no "phone home" feature. Must be all the #$%@ math and logic classes coming through. :)
Notice that I'm not claiming anything either way, since I didn't write their drivers. ;)
It's seems obviously true that when you use closed source software you must ultimately rely on those creating the software to "Do the Right Thing", and most seem to be pretty responsible since their reputation is at stake. There have been quite a few pieces of comercial software that DO "phone home" and it's not something that's generally advertized by those software makers, but these are usually easily detected by anyone closely monitoring their own network traffic.
Please give the basis for your statement. Have you disassembled the driver and checked out all the code? If not, you're in the same boat as someone who's claiming there is a "phone home" feature.
What's more, if you actually read the post you were responding to, the author never stated that there was any "phone home" feature. Only that this is setting a precident that these kinds of things are somehow acceptable.
"destroys the entire earth"? What are you smoking? The chance if an RTG bursting is extremely small but the risk if one did is imaginary. Certainly nothing from an RTG could be fatal unless the thing hit you on the head. If it burst, it still wouldn't pose a threat.
Thanks for the interesting information. I always believed the contrast differences between what we see and what comes off the CCD (or film) was mostly due to the automatic ranging cause by rhodopsin saturation in our vision system which allows us to see cloud detail in a bright sky while at the same time seeing much darker foreground detail. Just can't seem to do that with traditional media without post-processing selective areas of the image. Seems you could simulate the effect with an intelligent algorithm that affected areas based on overal brightness and detail level, but I haven't seen anything like that.
Definitely a pro... That's CMYK for all you non-professionals out there. ;)