If those people want to modify the software, they're still free to do that, they just have to buy another computer to run it on.
Assuming that's possible. It might not be.
Take the quintessential TiVo example. TiVo runs GPL software, but you can't put modified versions of said software on the device and have it run. Your answer, in this scenario, translates to: "buy another TiVo-compatible device to run it on". The problem is, almost by definition, there is no such thing as a TiVo-compatible device that won't suffer from this problem. You certainly can't buy one today. I doubt TiVo will license manufacturers to create a GPL-friendly TiVo. There's probably some proprietary hardware in there that would prevent building one from scratch.
The only way, then, to run a modified TiVo binary is to modify enough of the TiVo to effectively replace the "is this a legal binary?" check. Since that check could be in hardware, it could be effectively impossible to do that, either.
The same logic holds true for Trusted Computing-type systems, or anything else that says "is this a legal binary?". So, while your "go run it somewhere else" argument holds true for multi-purpose computers, like a PC, it fails with devices designed to be single-purpose, or even only-the-purposes-we-want. It's that scenario that the GPL3 is trying to address.
with a binary format like a doc file.. what you need first is first..
And your proof for this assertion is...what?
Counter-proof: ZIP files have their table-of-contents at the end of the file.
you can understand a section by jumping to it and geting just that portion instead of the whole thing
And your proof for this assertion is...what?
it is the same with saving.. updating portions of the file instead of the whole thing.
And your proof for this assertion is...what?
And please don't cite that RAR vs. Solid RAR nonsense from your previous post. Your analysis of RAR vs. Solid RAR is spot-on, but you have not demonstrated how either RAR's or Solid RAR's performance can be used as a predictor of the performance of.doc or ODF or hamster wheels or anything else.
Agreed. I use IPCop to link five regional offices. Net-to-net VPN with IPCop is great. "Road-warrior" IPCop with Windows clients is tough to get set up, which is why some people run OpenVPN in concert with IPCop, or use client-side hardware as the parent poster does.
For offices ranging from 5-35 employees, I use old 200-400MHz Dell desktops with ~128MB RAM and 4-8GB hard drives as the IPCop routers.
You know, you make a very thoughtful point that doesn't need to be buttressed by such a nonsensical claim.
The claim is over-stated, only in that Dmitry Sklyarov was already visiting the US when he was arrested. He did, however, demonstrate "how Adobe's encryption is not so secure", so that portion of the claim is accurate. Hence, "nonsensical" would seem to be inapropos.
My brother helped correct his lazy eye when he was young via a classic Pong game, just by playing with his good eye patched. VR is for whippersnappers with big budgets...:-)
I've only ever had support problems like this with PCs purchased from Dell Home. Dell Small Business PCs have US-based support (at least circa earlier this year), and so far (knock on simulated wood product) I haven't run into many dolts.
Problem is, they seem to be local to Oregon. Leastways, their site says: "How do I start? Come in for a tour to get an overall sense of the organization and so you can ask questions."
A FreeGeek-type organization that wasn't geo-specific would be slick.
But Google isn't my usenet provider. They are a third party redistributing material without my consent.
If your argument is correct, then there's loads of get-rich-quick schemes as a result.
For example, put a letter in your mailbox, with postage and proper addressing. Then sue your postal service for delivering that message, since everybody in that postal service other than your local postal carrier is "a third party redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that the postal service is a single entity? Fine. Put a letter in your mailbox, addressed to an international destination, then sue the postal service in the destination country (plus any services that might have been used by your country's postal service to transport the letter across borders, such as an airline). After all, they are third parties "redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that addressing the letter implies consent for delivery? Fine. Post a classified ad in your local paper, then sue all local retailers that sell that paper. After all, your classified ad was clearly only intended for employees of the newspaper publisher, and all retailers are third parties "redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that publishing in a newspaper implies consent of delivery to anyone who purchases a copy of the paper? Fine. Post that same classified ad in a major newspaper for your country, then sue every library who makes that copy of that paper available to others. After all, you clearly intended for the ad to be only distributed to purchasers of the paper, so all libraries are third parties "redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that libraries have had their behavior endorsed as acceptable? Then what's the difference with Google Groups?
Actually from TFA: "this guide was prepared for the State Services Commission (SSC) by Chapmann Tripp" (my emphasis).
However, the report itself is emblazoned with the SSC logo and, from all appearances, was published by the SSC. Whether in-house counsel or a third party wrote it is immaterial in terms of how credible it will seem.
I actually think it's more likely to be an attempt on the part of the law firm to drum up a bit of business.
It was prepared by the State Services Commission and therefore presumably carries a stronger imprimatur than if it were just some private law firm making this analysis.
Then again, IANAK (I Am Not A Kiwi), so I may be giving this agency more credit than it is due...
In our case, the implementation of the software isn't that hard once you have the algorithm. Most of our R&D is making that algorithm. That's the hard work we need protected, not the implementaiton.
No, you need to do a better job of protecting your algorithms. Subverting the patent process (which is not supposed to protect algorithms) to achieve that end will get you a mix of profits and derision.
Let's look at Google's PageRank algorithm. Like you, they spend a fair amount of R&D on the algorithm. Like you, they profit from the algorithm. Unlike you, others don't seem to be copying their algorithm. Why not? Most likely because it's bloody hard. They disclose just enough of the algorithm to demonstrate how they are advancing the accuracy of search results, but they don't publish the algorithm on the backs of T-shirts. As far as I'm aware, no search engine competitor has cloned PageRank. The closest people come is the search engine optimization folks, who probably don't reverse-engineer the whole algorithm, but learn enough about what buttons to push to help their customers...until the next GoogleDance when PageRank is changed slightly.
If your competitors are able to copy your algorithm at the drop of a hat, you need to think about how best to defeat that copying, in ways that avoid algorithm patents (and, yes, software-implementations-of-algorithm patents are algorithm patents).
Plug type: Well, I'm probably wrong, but I've seen only 1 type of input to the bricks, which allow for easy changing of 110V to several different 220V type plugs.
Sorry, I meant the plug into the back of the notebook. Some use a barrel, of varying diameters. Some use a modular-type plug, with variety shapes, sizes, and orientations. The best you can hope for is a "power-tip" type of system, where those plugs are interchangeable. I'm not convinced that developing one of those is that much simpler than developing a notebook.
As far as voltage, that could be adjusted by the brick, perhaps before delivery of said machine - I have a brick that adjusts to several different voltages depending on the plug, so I see no major hurdle there.
I tried those once, fried a piece of equipment in the process. I'll readily admit to being an idiot, so choose-your-own-voltage power bricks aren't idiot-proof...;-)
I was wondering if a used notebook for $100 wouldn't deliver similiar performance that this device does but with a bigger more usuable screen.
But finding 1,000,000 used notebooks may be a bigger challenge than building 1,000,000 new ones of these devices. Particularly when you factor in things like:
Dealing with support specifications for 1,000 different varieties of used laptop
Finding Linux drivers to work with 1,000 different varieties of used laptop
Finding replacement batteries for 1,000 different varieties of used laptop
In an ideal world, only the first one would be an issue; in reality, all three are. While I'm all for recycling laptops for educational purposes, doing so on a massive scale could easily be a royal PITA.
The only benefit is the handcrank, which capability could probably be added cheap (via mass production) as a second hand power adapters as most notebook have a universal power adapter AFAIK.
You're kidding, right?
While there's probably fewer than 1,000 different power adapters out there, laptops do not have a universal power adapter (translated to mean: everybody uses the same one). Just look at the lineup of available third-party adapters from firms like Targus, then remember that they're only selling for recent models from a handful of manufacturers.
Again, in the ideal world, we'd've standardized on one DC input spec (voltage, available current, plug type) for laptops and all sorts of other things using power bricks; in reality, they're a mess.
this extra cost must be offset by cheapening the rest of the car so as to keep the price attractive
There's no evidence of this, given user satisfaction ratings, maintenance records, etc., all documented by national publications. If you have proof of "cheapening the rest of the car", please post it!
Reliability isn't exactly the same as build quality.
Your subsequent statements suggest that your definition of "build quality" would differ from mine.
Forget about luxurious wood/leather interiors and solid-feeling components on a hybrid car. (Such things add weight, and more weight means the engine must make more power than a hybrid engine reasonably can.)
The 2006 Toyota Prius has a leather option, and it's unclear how much heavier leather is than your typical heavyweight car seat fabric.
Similarly, in terms of weight, "luxurious wood...interiors" are made from a laminate and won't weigh significantly more than regular dashboard materials. Any other "components" that you would regularly "feel" as "solid" weigh a small fraction of the engine, frame, and occupants of the car.
Now, I could see concerns regarding cutting corners on frame strength in order to save weight, except that the hybrids I've researched (Honda's and the Prius) have scored well on crash test safety ratings.
And, both Ford and Toyota offer hybrid SUVs, which ain't exactly light. While they're "soft" hybrids (vs. the "full" hybrid of the Prius), it's clear that hybrids can be made in a variety of weights.
and build quality has to be mediocre to keep costs down
The Toyota Prius has some of the best maintenance records among any cars on the road today, as documented by Consumer Reports. The Honda hybrids are comparable to their non-hybrid cousins (e.g., Hybrid Accord vs. regular Accord) and also have good maintenance records.
More expensive? Sure. "Overly" expensive? Depends on what you consider to be "overly", I suppose. Had you said "more" originally, I wouldn't have quibbled a bit with your post.
Compared to a regular car. What else would I have been referring to?
More complex? Probably. "Overly" complex? Only for a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Most people are not savvy with respect to engines, so any engine is overly complex. And a fair number of people who are savvy with respect to engines won't be that put off by new types of parts. Had you said "more" originally, I wouldn't have quibbled a bit with your post.
And a hybrid has one of those as well.
The other reply to my post, by the firefighter, described the situation better than I could: hybrids are a greater challenge than an equivalent non-hybrid, but other technologies, like air bags, can be even more of an issue. So, it's not like hybrids are somehow uniquely evil, and with more models getting more airbags in more places, hybrids may not be that much of a problem by comparison.
And all this without resorting to an overly-expensive (not that VW is cheap, mind), overly-complex, not-so-safe-for-emergency-workers hybrid.
Let's take that one at a time.
overly-expensive
Overly expensive compared to, what? There are plenty of car models that are more expensive than the most popular hybrids (Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid). Besides, if somebody wants to plunk down hybrid-sized money for a hybrid, that's their choice.
overly-complex
Overly complex compared to, what? Yes, they're different than a regular car engine. Kinda like a manual transmission is different from an automatic transmission, a catalytic converter is different from a carburetor, and an electric start is different from that godawful hand crank the Model T's used. Considering that the repair track record for the hybrids, as reported by Consumers Union and others, is pretty stellar, it's not clear how this incremental complexity is causing anyone much trouble.
not-so-safe-for-emergency-workers
Not as safe as, what? It's not like a tankful of gasoline is exactly the epitome of safety. Yes, there are new challenges for emergency workers. Yes, it will take time for emergency workers to be as used to hybrids as other types of cars. This is similar to emergency workers having to deal with undeployed air bags, particularly in new locations (e.g., side-curtain), and their possible accidental deployment in dealing with a wreck. Emergency workers have to adapt to new technology frequently — hybrids are just another change.
If somebody steals your car because you didn't lock the doors, is that the manufacturer's fault?
That would be a fine analogy if the attacker came in through an advertised feature of the program (e.g., user fails to set a password, and somebody walks by and starts using their PC).
When the attacker comes in through bugs in Windows, your vehicle analogy needs to change:
If somebody is able to disable your car from remote by exploiting bugs in your radio and engine on-board computer, is that the manufacturer's fault?
Hybrids, at this point in time, are nothing but a wasteful political statement.
Wasteful compared to...what?
Wasteful compared to buying an ordinary car? Yes, hybrids cost more than some ordinary cars, but they cost less than others. In case you haven't noticed, cars have a wide price range, and hybrids are, at best, in the middle of the pack.
Wasteful compared to buying another type of high-mileage car? Possibly. Frankly, I think this is mostly a matter of taste.
Wasteful compared to buying a motorcycle? While motorcycles get better mileage than hybrids, they're not exactly the perfect vehicle for many situations (e.g., passengers, weather).
Wasteful compared to buying a bicycle? Well, sure. Many people's commutes aren't exactly bicycle-friendly. I have an 8" surgical scar on my left arm that is my personal testament to this problem. While I'm all for lobbying for bike lanes and paved trails and such, those are long-term answers.
Wasteful compared to just not buying a car? Anyone who goes out and buys a hybrid just for the heck of it is definitely a bit of a nutter. I am hoping that most hybrid buyers have a legitamite need for a vehicle replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
I've RMA'd a few Maxtor drives, and their replacements haven't died yet. I haven't had to RMA any from other drive manufacturers.
So, Maxtor is a mixed bag: (apparently) less-reliable drives, but with decent-quality replacements with a straightforward RMA policy.
How about paudcasts? Or pawedcasts? ;-)
Assuming that's possible. It might not be.
Take the quintessential TiVo example. TiVo runs GPL software, but you can't put modified versions of said software on the device and have it run. Your answer, in this scenario, translates to: "buy another TiVo-compatible device to run it on". The problem is, almost by definition, there is no such thing as a TiVo-compatible device that won't suffer from this problem. You certainly can't buy one today. I doubt TiVo will license manufacturers to create a GPL-friendly TiVo. There's probably some proprietary hardware in there that would prevent building one from scratch.
The only way, then, to run a modified TiVo binary is to modify enough of the TiVo to effectively replace the "is this a legal binary?" check. Since that check could be in hardware, it could be effectively impossible to do that, either.
The same logic holds true for Trusted Computing-type systems, or anything else that says "is this a legal binary?". So, while your "go run it somewhere else" argument holds true for multi-purpose computers, like a PC, it fails with devices designed to be single-purpose, or even only-the-purposes-we-want. It's that scenario that the GPL3 is trying to address.
And your proof for this assertion is...what?
Counter-proof: pull parsers and StAX.
And your proof for this assertion is...what?
Counter-proof: ZIP files have their table-of-contents at the end of the file.
And your proof for this assertion is...what?
And your proof for this assertion is...what?
And please don't cite that RAR vs. Solid RAR nonsense from your previous post. Your analysis of RAR vs. Solid RAR is spot-on, but you have not demonstrated how either RAR's or Solid RAR's performance can be used as a predictor of the performance of .doc or ODF or hamster wheels or anything else.
Which means just one thing: IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!
What? That phrase is trademarked by Marvel? Oops...
Agreed. I use IPCop to link five regional offices. Net-to-net VPN with IPCop is great. "Road-warrior" IPCop with Windows clients is tough to get set up, which is why some people run OpenVPN in concert with IPCop, or use client-side hardware as the parent poster does.
For offices ranging from 5-35 employees, I use old 200-400MHz Dell desktops with ~128MB RAM and 4-8GB hard drives as the IPCop routers.
The claim is over-stated, only in that Dmitry Sklyarov was already visiting the US when he was arrested. He did, however, demonstrate "how Adobe's encryption is not so secure", so that portion of the claim is accurate. Hence, "nonsensical" would seem to be inapropos.
My brother helped correct his lazy eye when he was young via a classic Pong game, just by playing with his good eye patched. VR is for whippersnappers with big budgets... :-)
I've only ever had support problems like this with PCs purchased from Dell Home. Dell Small Business PCs have US-based support (at least circa earlier this year), and so far (knock on simulated wood product) I haven't run into many dolts.
Problem is, they seem to be local to Oregon. Leastways, their site says: "How do I start? Come in for a tour to get an overall sense of the organization and so you can ask questions."
A FreeGeek-type organization that wasn't geo-specific would be slick.
If your argument is correct, then there's loads of get-rich-quick schemes as a result.
For example, put a letter in your mailbox, with postage and proper addressing. Then sue your postal service for delivering that message, since everybody in that postal service other than your local postal carrier is "a third party redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that the postal service is a single entity? Fine. Put a letter in your mailbox, addressed to an international destination, then sue the postal service in the destination country (plus any services that might have been used by your country's postal service to transport the letter across borders, such as an airline). After all, they are third parties "redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that addressing the letter implies consent for delivery? Fine. Post a classified ad in your local paper, then sue all local retailers that sell that paper. After all, your classified ad was clearly only intended for employees of the newspaper publisher, and all retailers are third parties "redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that publishing in a newspaper implies consent of delivery to anyone who purchases a copy of the paper? Fine. Post that same classified ad in a major newspaper for your country, then sue every library who makes that copy of that paper available to others. After all, you clearly intended for the ad to be only distributed to purchasers of the paper, so all libraries are third parties "redistributing material without my consent".
Want to argue that libraries have had their behavior endorsed as acceptable? Then what's the difference with Google Groups?
However, the report itself is emblazoned with the SSC logo and, from all appearances, was published by the SSC. Whether in-house counsel or a third party wrote it is immaterial in terms of how credible it will seem.
It was prepared by the State Services Commission and therefore presumably carries a stronger imprimatur than if it were just some private law firm making this analysis.
Then again, IANAK (I Am Not A Kiwi), so I may be giving this agency more credit than it is due...
Yup, Ghostscript is very handy. On Windows, CutePDF and PDF Creator both wrap the Ghostscript engine in a friendly-to-non-techies UI.
No, you need to do a better job of protecting your algorithms. Subverting the patent process (which is not supposed to protect algorithms) to achieve that end will get you a mix of profits and derision.
Let's look at Google's PageRank algorithm. Like you, they spend a fair amount of R&D on the algorithm. Like you, they profit from the algorithm. Unlike you, others don't seem to be copying their algorithm. Why not? Most likely because it's bloody hard. They disclose just enough of the algorithm to demonstrate how they are advancing the accuracy of search results, but they don't publish the algorithm on the backs of T-shirts. As far as I'm aware, no search engine competitor has cloned PageRank. The closest people come is the search engine optimization folks, who probably don't reverse-engineer the whole algorithm, but learn enough about what buttons to push to help their customers...until the next GoogleDance when PageRank is changed slightly.
If your competitors are able to copy your algorithm at the drop of a hat, you need to think about how best to defeat that copying, in ways that avoid algorithm patents (and, yes, software-implementations-of-algorithm patents are algorithm patents).
Sorry, I meant the plug into the back of the notebook. Some use a barrel, of varying diameters. Some use a modular-type plug, with variety shapes, sizes, and orientations. The best you can hope for is a "power-tip" type of system, where those plugs are interchangeable. I'm not convinced that developing one of those is that much simpler than developing a notebook.
I tried those once, fried a piece of equipment in the process. I'll readily admit to being an idiot, so choose-your-own-voltage power bricks aren't idiot-proof... ;-)
But finding 1,000,000 used notebooks may be a bigger challenge than building 1,000,000 new ones of these devices. Particularly when you factor in things like:
In an ideal world, only the first one would be an issue; in reality, all three are. While I'm all for recycling laptops for educational purposes, doing so on a massive scale could easily be a royal PITA.
You're kidding, right?
While there's probably fewer than 1,000 different power adapters out there, laptops do not have a universal power adapter (translated to mean: everybody uses the same one). Just look at the lineup of available third-party adapters from firms like Targus, then remember that they're only selling for recent models from a handful of manufacturers.
Again, in the ideal world, we'd've standardized on one DC input spec (voltage, available current, plug type) for laptops and all sorts of other things using power bricks; in reality, they're a mess.
There's no evidence of this, given user satisfaction ratings, maintenance records, etc., all documented by national publications. If you have proof of "cheapening the rest of the car", please post it!
Your subsequent statements suggest that your definition of "build quality" would differ from mine.
The 2006 Toyota Prius has a leather option, and it's unclear how much heavier leather is than your typical heavyweight car seat fabric.
Similarly, in terms of weight, "luxurious wood...interiors" are made from a laminate and won't weigh significantly more than regular dashboard materials. Any other "components" that you would regularly "feel" as "solid" weigh a small fraction of the engine, frame, and occupants of the car.
Now, I could see concerns regarding cutting corners on frame strength in order to save weight, except that the hybrids I've researched (Honda's and the Prius) have scored well on crash test safety ratings.
And, both Ford and Toyota offer hybrid SUVs, which ain't exactly light. While they're "soft" hybrids (vs. the "full" hybrid of the Prius), it's clear that hybrids can be made in a variety of weights.
The Toyota Prius has some of the best maintenance records among any cars on the road today, as documented by Consumer Reports. The Honda hybrids are comparable to their non-hybrid cousins (e.g., Hybrid Accord vs. regular Accord) and also have good maintenance records.
He was referring to Dover, PA, not Kansas. A link to an article explaining the views of the winning candidates is http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3196053.
More expensive? Sure. "Overly" expensive? Depends on what you consider to be "overly", I suppose. Had you said "more" originally, I wouldn't have quibbled a bit with your post.
More complex? Probably. "Overly" complex? Only for a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Most people are not savvy with respect to engines, so any engine is overly complex. And a fair number of people who are savvy with respect to engines won't be that put off by new types of parts. Had you said "more" originally, I wouldn't have quibbled a bit with your post.
The other reply to my post, by the firefighter, described the situation better than I could: hybrids are a greater challenge than an equivalent non-hybrid, but other technologies, like air bags, can be even more of an issue. So, it's not like hybrids are somehow uniquely evil, and with more models getting more airbags in more places, hybrids may not be that much of a problem by comparison.
Let's take that one at a time.
Overly expensive compared to, what? There are plenty of car models that are more expensive than the most popular hybrids (Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid). Besides, if somebody wants to plunk down hybrid-sized money for a hybrid, that's their choice.
Overly complex compared to, what? Yes, they're different than a regular car engine. Kinda like a manual transmission is different from an automatic transmission, a catalytic converter is different from a carburetor, and an electric start is different from that godawful hand crank the Model T's used. Considering that the repair track record for the hybrids, as reported by Consumers Union and others, is pretty stellar, it's not clear how this incremental complexity is causing anyone much trouble.
Not as safe as, what? It's not like a tankful of gasoline is exactly the epitome of safety. Yes, there are new challenges for emergency workers. Yes, it will take time for emergency workers to be as used to hybrids as other types of cars. This is similar to emergency workers having to deal with undeployed air bags, particularly in new locations (e.g., side-curtain), and their possible accidental deployment in dealing with a wreck. Emergency workers have to adapt to new technology frequently — hybrids are just another change.
That would be a fine analogy if the attacker came in through an advertised feature of the program (e.g., user fails to set a password, and somebody walks by and starts using their PC).
When the attacker comes in through bugs in Windows, your vehicle analogy needs to change:
I'd say the answer is yes.
Wasteful compared to...what?