After reading the article I was more than a little surprised by the outright arrogance of SCO in pursuing a "Linux Licensing" arrangement. It's called Open Source for a reason, retards.
IF the Linux code is found to infringe on SCO copyrights and WHEN that code is revealed in court does SCO not realize that in about five microseconds the infringing code will be modified/altered/removed to suit the findings of the court? I seriously doubt we'll ever make it this far, but SCO has to be stupid to think the Linux community will just roll over and say, "Oh yeah, here is a heap of cash we owe you", without looking at maintaining the integrity of Linux and the OSS community.
How is this different from companies like Vanagon (I think that's their name). They buy Ford trucks (minus the box), add a camper to the back and resell them again under the name Vanagon.
What if I took my DVD player, removed all the name branding and replaced it with "Shit Box" and sold it, would that be illegal too? Not trying to be smart ass, and I realize that this is HK we're talking about the last place on Earth where IP means anything, but if they're selling modified DC hardware I still do not see what is illegal about it.
Please don't interpret my comments as derision, I can think of a dozen different consumer products that have been modified and resold at some point, so I just don't understand why this product would be any different. What if they left the original DC name on the unit?
"Could this be the forerunner of many such cases in the future, where our cars tell the unadulterated facts, rather than subjective personal accounts?"
No, in the future the black boxes will provide subjective personal accounts.
Why would this be illegal? It looks like someone took a DC and plopped it in a case with an LCD screen attached. Hard to say without seeing one, mind you. If this is the case, no pun intended, then I don't see what patents/IP are violated, it's just a DC in a different cover.
I've had this idea in the back of my head for several weeks and it started after I really looked at my electrical bill here in Calgary, Alberta. There are consent fees and transmission costs, and storage riders, etc. A thought occured to me: why not require that these costs be included in the per unit charge or fixed monthly charge? That is, my per unit cost for electricity or natural gas or my fixed monthly cost for telephone or cable included all taxes, fees, etc. except perhaps State, Provincal, or Federal Sales Taxes that are calculated on the bill as a fixed percentage.
The advantage of this is I can compare prices between the various electrical utilities, gas providers, telephone services, etc. with the full knowledge that I am comparing apples to apples (or as close as you're going to get). In addition, I can be sure that the itemized "taxes", which are nothing more than an excuse to raise prices, will remain hidden in the cost of the product. Face it, all those fees and taxes just add to numberification of the consumer and very few people ever sit down to analyse just what the hell these fees are really covering and the utility companies love it, for a fee or a tax can increase incrementally, but the unit charge will remain the same.
Just an idea I had floating around in my head since I received very little help from the electrical company trying to explain all those nitpicky little fees that never existed before the great mantra that is "competition" came into being.
9. (1) No person shall (c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
10. (1) Every person who (b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,
(2.1) Every person who contravenes paragraph 9(1)(c) or (d) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.
Exception
(2.3) No person who decodes an encrypted subscription programming signal in contravention of paragraph 9(1)(c) shall be convicted of an offence under that paragraph if the lawful distributor had the lawful right to make the signal available, on payment of a subscription fee or other charge, to persons in the area where the signal was decoded but had not made the signal readily available to those persons.
May I direct your attention to the word LAWFUL. In every court case in Canada save one, distributors of DTV receivers, cards, etc. won handily because their activities involved a service that has no lawful distributor in Canada. DTV is not licensed in Canada and never will be due to our strict Canadian content laws (some call it censorship but what it really amounts to is a quota of domestic TV over foreign broadcasts, the content is not at issue per se).
Now, the Supreme Court threw a curve ball when it ruled in April 2002 that the law provided a blanket prohibition on decoding signals from ANY source. Prior to this the law was in favor or decoding signals from someone other than a lawful source as every court decision came down in favor of the satellite dealers, so the decision was a bit of surprise. The ruling was limited in scope to the communications act itself not the act under the Charter of Rights, our version of the Bill of Rights, and that issue remains to be ruled on.
So, I would submit that while the decoding of DTV in Canada is technically illegal (for the time being pending the constitutional outcome) talking about decoding a signal is a far different matter. Contrary to what anyone here has said, Canada has very strong free speech protections. Under our Charter of Rights any interference with your right to free speech must be justified and the onus is on the government to prove that its intentions are not contrary to a "free and democratic society", limited to the dimishment of certain act, proportional, etc. The bar is quite high. DTV starts out in a losing position since by the interpretation of our Charter by the Supreme Court, Pirate's Den is protected speech, in fact all speech is protected. If you read our Supreme Court decisions they say this in pretty much plain english. Of course I am not a lawyer, but even a lay person can read a court decision and understand what they are saying. We shall see...
After reading the article (!), I stepped over to Google and looked up the law regarding trade secrets.
WHAT FACTORS DETERMINE WHETHER SOMETHING IS A "TRADE SECRET"?
the extent to which the information is known outside the business;
the extent to which it is known to those inside the business, i.e., by the employees;
the precautions taken by the holder of the trade secret to guard the secrecy of the information; the savings effected and the value to the holder in having the information as against competitors; the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and developing the information;
the amount of time and expense it would take for others to acquire and duplicate the information.
Ok, so how does any of this relate to the dissemination of a trade secret? As near as I can tell from my scouring on the web, reverse engineering a trade secret is a complete defense, meaning if the information was obtained by independant means then there is not much you can do about it. With DeCSS, the information was reverse engineered and became common knowledge so there is no basis for trade secret protection anymore. I don't see how the MPAA has any case here for an apparent trade secret that was legally reverse engineered and the information placed in the public domain.
Microsoft had, until recently, spoke of Linux and threw around a lot of numbers and FUD about the total cost of ownership with Linux and how Microsoft was so much cheaper. So, if Microsoft is that much better why offer a discount at all? I realize that MS no longer makes this claim, but what does it say about a product that to sell it must be discounted by nearly all its selling value? It's a case of paying 10% now and 100% later when licensing expires or upgrades are required and then required again and again.
This attempt by Ballmer to sell its software smacks of desperation.
If you consider the fact that most (all?) of the Xbox mod chips incorporate a modified BIOS, then, yes, I think intellectual property rights are violated.
If someone reverse engineered the Xbox BIOS and then wrote their own compatible version, I would not consider that a violation of intellectual property since that very thing jumpstarted the PC clone phenomenon at the beginning of the 1980's and grew into the PC market we have today. Microsoft profited substantially from clone PCs and it would be a bit of the pot calling the kettle black if Microsoft bellowed about someone profiting if the situation was reversed. Yes, I know Microsoft themselves did not produce the clone PC BIOS, but they did produce MS-DOS for clone PCs and made, in part, the entire clone PC market viable.
You receive your registration card a few weeks before voting and are required to have it before voting. If you did not receive a card before elections day you can register at the polling place on the day of the election. You hand the card to an official from Elections Canada and that person crosses your name off the voting list and hands you a ballot. You place an "X" in a circle that appears across from the candidate's name and party to vote for that candidate. Anything other than an "X" results in a spoiled ballot. All ballots are kept for auditing purposes.
Then real people count real ballots and the results are known hours after the polls close. If a vote is close within a certain threshold then an automatic recount occurs. Candidates may also ask for a recount if they so desire.
Our entire process is transparent, auditable, managed by an independent authority, Elections Canada, and so simple that it's hard to imagine how one could manipulate the vote process. Any electronic system must have these features or it is ultimately unfair to both the candidates and the voters. That means no hidden source, no questionable voting interface, no secret machine schematics and auditable results that can be physically determined, a completely transparent process.
If our current system resembled the electronic system in terms of secrecy no one would trust the results, so why on earth are governments willing to hand over the legitimacy of an election to unquestioned third party?
16% of Canadians have "no religion", from 12% in the 1991 census. That's nearly 5 million people in a country of 30 million. Europe and the U.K. have similar makeups. B.C. leads Canada in the "no religion" category at 35% and it is also the largest religious group in the Province.
Also quite interesting was the shift from mainstream Protestantism to groups such as "born again" and "evangelical christian" (121% increase)and perhaps "no religion" (43% increase) or the eastern religions (roughly 85% increase). Not sure if that indicates an ideological shift or one of identity with respect to "christian". Certainly the rise in Muslin, Sikh, etc. practice can be traced to immigration, Canada has experienced enourmous diversity since the 1991 census.
I tried to find similar information on the U.S. Census website, but was unable.
Now, we get to the bottom of a comment where Slashdotters rarely spend time. This is where the real meat and potatoes of many comments are made. Not is this case. I am taking this space to talk of my collection of women's undergarments. Why was this not included on the census form? Surely there are large numbers of lingerie collecting atheist computer geeks out there, how could this be overlooked?
and it is secure from the prying eyes of law enforcement, there will be howls of protest, to be sure, from enforcement agencies.
If, on the other hand, there is a security "backdoor" for law enforcement, then the system really isn't secure in the first place.
No matter how it's sliced, MS has themselves in a pickle; either the system is secure, and the unintended consequence is a secure method for law breakers to communicate, or the system has a backdoor and ultimately not secure (secure enough for digital content, perhaps). Expect a lot of FUD on this issue in the future.
Microsoft isn't helping much with speculation flying around about the exact implemention, a company known for it's clear communication and vision. I am surprised it's not called Secure.Net or similar.
is they block POTENTIAL more than anything else and thus future creativity.
If Lego were analogous to software, the Lego bricks would represent individual instructions in the software. Someone has the bright idea to patent combinations of bricks that achieve a useful result. There is nothing new in this at all, you HAVE to create something useful out of the pieces or you are creating nothing at all (or art). Anyone who wanted to create something incorporating that brick combination would be prohibited from doing so, even though the useful result may be different from yours.
This is the root problem with a softare patent; You're working with a finite resource, instruction sets, that can be combined in an infinite number of ways to create a useful result.
from reading this and other articles about the Russian re-entry:
1. The subtle undercurrent of U.S. space program elitism, that is, the Russians run a barebones operation and the U.S. astronauts were incredibly lucky to return alive in such a piece of junk space capsule. Numerous posts have spoken to the incredibly reliable and effective Russian space program, so I won't belabor the point.
2. The absurd notion, much inferred, that since the space shuttle disintigrated on re-entry that a similar disaster will befall the Russian Soyuz. Somewhere out there someone was waiting to say, "Look, I told you so! Space is dangerous!", as if they had divined the second coming. Space is dangerous, expensive and in the opinion of many, not worth the effort.
There is a benefit to mankind in exploration that often does not come without planning, foresight and much trial and error.
I know the two major broadband ISPs in my area, Calgary, have no policies restricting the use of NATs on their network; They don't support them, but they don't restrict them either. The DSL provider actually sells wireless routers, hubs, switches and access points in their stores and will support them to some degree when purchased from them.
The cable internet provider has policies restricting servers, etc., but they only seem to care when the bandwidth use causes problems.
Other than bandwidth use causing problems, or open mail relays, I don't see why ISPs would really care about NATs. In a way, it's sort of like the telephone company working itself into a froth over an answering machine when they offer voice mail service. Maybe we need SOME regulatory body that would permit the connection of any network device that does not interfere with the operation and enjoyment of other network users, similar to the regulation of telephone devices.
all because of a little piece of paper inserted into the box. What if GM decided to slip little pieces of paper into their oil filter packages? What is the difference? Do you seriously believe that software is licensed because a piece of paper says so?
Software licenses have become the legal equivalent of an easment; Since everyone uses them it must be legal. A prime example of losing rights you have by not exercising any objections.
I am sorry to say this, but I think you have fallen for the oldest propaganda ploy: say a lie often enough and it will appear to be the truth.
When you vote in any election in Canada, you're given a real, paper ballot that you mark with an "X". No confusing ballots, no hanging chads, no closed source, just a simple voting system that seems to work. If you mark anything other than an "X" in the circle next to the candidate's name, the ballot is considered spoiled and rejected. Volunteers count the votes and the results are posted shortly after the polls close.
How well our system would work for a country with as many voters as the U.S. is questionable, but it is undeniably transparent as elections in Canada are administered by an independent authority known as Elections Canada. I have complete confidence in our voting system. The same can not be said for the quality of candidates fielded by the political parties or the process used to determine those candidates, but that is a separate issue.
Everyone remembers the Rockford Files, right? Ok, maybe not, but I digress...
This show appeared in the later 70's and it concerned a group of business men that wanted to create a "super database" of everyone in this computer system located next to an airport. Rockford busts the case and captures the "criminals" in the end, of course. The show ends with a quick blurb about the dangers of computers and privacy.
What I find absolutely astounding is something that was considered criminal a generation ago is now accepted as common practice. "Companies and governments keep databases, big deal", is the common attitude now, but in the 70's even the CONCEPT of maintaining a database of personal information was considered criminal, never mind how it was used.
called, "Why Things Are & Why Things Aren't: The Answers to Life's Greatest Mysteries" by Joel Achenbach that attempts to answer this and many other "unanswerable" questions.
In the book, the explanation given is that humans rarely remember things before roughly four years old because we have not developed the ability to "tell" a story. Memories to this point a just a jumble of unrelated events, some remembered, some forgotten. When we learn the ability to put events in chronological order, that is when we begin to retain these events. At least, that is explanation given in the book that was given to them by pyschologists.
I recommend this book to anyone with any sense of curiousity.
There is one caveat..."systems" can be patented. So you could patent the Xbox and its system software, but only as a complete system.
When you think about it, it does make sense. Systems rely on the interoperation of their components, and software is an important component.
I suspect that PanIP, or whatever their name is this week, would find it impossible in Canada to obtain and enforce patents on web technology since web technology by nature is applicable to non specific systems.
Maybe someone can confirm my assumptions by checking with Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
I can tell you that it annoys us to ask nearly as much as it annoys you to be asked.
Having said that, I NEVER made a big deal out of it and answered honestly when asked what it was for: flyers, catalogues and for some items, the warranty. When customers seem upset about me asking for this information, I always tell them they can say, "No". There is no point in upsetting a customer about such a trivial matter. Most customers were good about it, especially when I tell them that saying "No" is completely OK and not a big deal to either of us. I never understood why some employees would make a huge production out of name and address. I would also apply a little common sense; If a customer was in a rush, if it was very busy or if the item was relatively minor I would not bother to ask.
In some cases, we really do need your address for such things as warranty. Some companies, Pana^H err something...will not accept a serial number for warranty, we require the original recepit (or our electronic copy) and postal code. We will not receive payment for the warranty from certain companies without this information. We can also look up your original receipt in the computer (we use SCO Unix in the back computer) and all receipt information is TAR'd and compressed by day. Without your address or at least your name, we have no way of knowing if you bought a particular item or not.
I do have a beef with people who would get upset to the point of anger. I am doing my job, it is a job requirement to ask for name and address. I have no choice, I try to make your shopping experience as pleasant as possible by knowing the products I sell and how to get you the best deal either by suggesting a product that will cost less and produce the same result or if an item will be on sale. Please realize that the person behind the counter is a person too, with feelings and a family and a paycheck (albeit a small one sometimes). Your anger only tranlates to frustration for me and possibly poorer service for my next customer.
Note that all of this information applies to RadioShack in Canada. Our American cousins are completely a different company and have different ownership and management and entirely different computer systems from what we use in Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading the article I was more than a little surprised by the outright arrogance of SCO in pursuing a "Linux Licensing" arrangement. It's called Open Source for a reason, retards.
IF the Linux code is found to infringe on SCO copyrights and WHEN that code is revealed in court does SCO not realize that in about five microseconds the infringing code will be modified/altered/removed to suit the findings of the court? I seriously doubt we'll ever make it this far, but SCO has to be stupid to think the Linux community will just roll over and say, "Oh yeah, here is a heap of cash we owe you", without looking at maintaining the integrity of Linux and the OSS community.
How is this different from companies like Vanagon (I think that's their name). They buy Ford trucks (minus the box), add a camper to the back and resell them again under the name Vanagon.
What if I took my DVD player, removed all the name branding and replaced it with "Shit Box" and sold it, would that be illegal too? Not trying to be smart ass, and I realize that this is HK we're talking about the last place on Earth where IP means anything, but if they're selling modified DC hardware I still do not see what is illegal about it.
Please don't interpret my comments as derision, I can think of a dozen different consumer products that have been modified and resold at some point, so I just don't understand why this product would be any different. What if they left the original DC name on the unit?
"Could this be the forerunner of many such cases in the future, where our cars tell the unadulterated facts, rather than subjective personal accounts?"
No, in the future the black boxes will provide subjective personal accounts.
Why would this be illegal? It looks like someone took a DC and plopped it in a case with an LCD screen attached. Hard to say without seeing one, mind you. If this is the case, no pun intended, then I don't see what patents/IP are violated, it's just a DC in a different cover.
I've had this idea in the back of my head for several weeks and it started after I really looked at my electrical bill here in Calgary, Alberta. There are consent fees and transmission costs, and storage riders, etc. A thought occured to me: why not require that these costs be included in the per unit charge or fixed monthly charge? That is, my per unit cost for electricity or natural gas or my fixed monthly cost for telephone or cable included all taxes, fees, etc. except perhaps State, Provincal, or Federal Sales Taxes that are calculated on the bill as a fixed percentage.
The advantage of this is I can compare prices between the various electrical utilities, gas providers, telephone services, etc. with the full knowledge that I am comparing apples to apples (or as close as you're going to get). In addition, I can be sure that the itemized "taxes", which are nothing more than an excuse to raise prices, will remain hidden in the cost of the product. Face it, all those fees and taxes just add to numberification of the consumer and very few people ever sit down to analyse just what the hell these fees are really covering and the utility companies love it, for a fee or a tax can increase incrementally, but the unit charge will remain the same.
Just an idea I had floating around in my head since I received very little help from the electrical company trying to explain all those nitpicky little fees that never existed before the great mantra that is "competition" came into being.
when I read it as ANAL inspections and did a double take.
Canadian RadioCommunications Act
9. (1) No person shall
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
10. (1) Every person who
(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,
(2.1) Every person who contravenes paragraph 9(1)(c) or (d) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.
Exception
(2.3) No person who decodes an encrypted subscription programming signal in contravention of paragraph 9(1)(c) shall be convicted of an offence under that paragraph if the lawful distributor had the lawful right to make the signal available, on payment of a subscription fee or other charge, to persons in the area where the signal was decoded but had not made the signal readily available to those persons.
May I direct your attention to the word LAWFUL. In every court case in Canada save one, distributors of DTV receivers, cards, etc. won handily because their activities involved a service that has no lawful distributor in Canada. DTV is not licensed in Canada and never will be due to our strict Canadian content laws (some call it censorship but what it really amounts to is a quota of domestic TV over foreign broadcasts, the content is not at issue per se).
Now, the Supreme Court threw a curve ball when it ruled in April 2002 that the law provided a blanket prohibition on decoding signals from ANY source. Prior to this the law was in favor or decoding signals from someone other than a lawful source as every court decision came down in favor of the satellite dealers, so the decision was a bit of surprise. The ruling was limited in scope to the communications act itself not the act under the Charter of Rights, our version of the Bill of Rights, and that issue remains to be ruled on.
So, I would submit that while the decoding of DTV in Canada is technically illegal (for the time being pending the constitutional outcome) talking about decoding a signal is a far different matter. Contrary to what anyone here has said, Canada has very strong free speech protections. Under our Charter of Rights any interference with your right to free speech must be justified and the onus is on the government to prove that its intentions are not contrary to a "free and democratic society", limited to the dimishment of certain act, proportional, etc. The bar is quite high. DTV starts out in a losing position since by the interpretation of our Charter by the Supreme Court, Pirate's Den is protected speech, in fact all speech is protected. If you read our Supreme Court decisions they say this in pretty much plain english. Of course I am not a lawyer, but even a lay person can read a court decision and understand what they are saying. We shall see...
After reading the article (!), I stepped over to Google and looked up the law regarding trade secrets.
WHAT FACTORS DETERMINE WHETHER SOMETHING IS A "TRADE SECRET"?
the extent to which the information is known outside the business;
the extent to which it is known to those inside the business, i.e., by the employees;
the precautions taken by the holder of the trade secret to guard the secrecy of the information;
the savings effected and the value to the holder in having the information as against competitors;
the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and developing the information;
the amount of time and expense it would take for others to acquire and duplicate the information.
Ok, so how does any of this relate to the dissemination of a trade secret? As near as I can tell from my scouring on the web, reverse engineering a trade secret is a complete defense, meaning if the information was obtained by independant means then there is not much you can do about it. With DeCSS, the information was reverse engineered and became common knowledge so there is no basis for trade secret protection anymore. I don't see how the MPAA has any case here for an apparent trade secret that was legally reverse engineered and the information placed in the public domain.
What do I know, I am not a lawyer.
Microsoft had, until recently, spoke of Linux and threw around a lot of numbers and FUD about the total cost of ownership with Linux and how Microsoft was so much cheaper. So, if Microsoft is that much better why offer a discount at all? I realize that MS no longer makes this claim, but what does it say about a product that to sell it must be discounted by nearly all its selling value? It's a case of paying 10% now and 100% later when licensing expires or upgrades are required and then required again and again.
This attempt by Ballmer to sell its software smacks of desperation.
If you consider the fact that most (all?) of the Xbox mod chips incorporate a modified BIOS, then, yes, I think intellectual property rights are violated.
If someone reverse engineered the Xbox BIOS and then wrote their own compatible version, I would not consider that a violation of intellectual property since that very thing jumpstarted the PC clone phenomenon at the beginning of the 1980's and grew into the PC market we have today. Microsoft profited substantially from clone PCs and it would be a bit of the pot calling the kettle black if Microsoft bellowed about someone profiting if the situation was reversed. Yes, I know Microsoft themselves did not produce the clone PC BIOS, but they did produce MS-DOS for clone PCs and made, in part, the entire clone PC market viable.
Our system is similar.
You receive your registration card a few weeks before voting and are required to have it before voting. If you did not receive a card before elections day you can register at the polling place on the day of the election. You hand the card to an official from Elections Canada and that person crosses your name off the voting list and hands you a ballot. You place an "X" in a circle that appears across from the candidate's name and party to vote for that candidate. Anything other than an "X" results in a spoiled ballot. All ballots are kept for auditing purposes.
Then real people count real ballots and the results are known hours after the polls close. If a vote is close within a certain threshold then an automatic recount occurs. Candidates may also ask for a recount if they so desire.
Our entire process is transparent, auditable, managed by an independent authority, Elections Canada, and so simple that it's hard to imagine how one could manipulate the vote process. Any electronic system must have these features or it is ultimately unfair to both the candidates and the voters. That means no hidden source, no questionable voting interface, no secret machine schematics and auditable results that can be physically determined, a completely transparent process.
If our current system resembled the electronic system in terms of secrecy no one would trust the results, so why on earth are governments willing to hand over the legitimacy of an election to unquestioned third party?
THAT would be a beautiful picture!
I was just using the nomenclature that Stats Canada employed in the religion breakdown.
I agree that it sounds weird to refer to non-religous persons as a religous group, but in the context of the census, it makes sense.
By the way, do you happen to have Fruit of the Loom Ladies Panties size large (any color) would you? Used, of course.
16% of Canadians have "no religion", from 12% in the 1991 census. That's nearly 5 million people in a country of 30 million. Europe and the U.K. have similar makeups. B.C. leads Canada in the "no religion" category at 35% and it is also the largest religious group in the Province.
Also quite interesting was the shift from mainstream Protestantism to groups such as "born again" and "evangelical christian" (121% increase)and perhaps "no religion" (43% increase) or the eastern religions (roughly 85% increase). Not sure if that indicates an ideological shift or one of identity with respect to "christian". Certainly the rise in Muslin, Sikh, etc. practice can be traced to immigration, Canada has experienced enourmous diversity since the 1991 census.
I tried to find similar information on the U.S. Census website, but was unable.
Now, we get to the bottom of a comment where Slashdotters rarely spend time. This is where the real meat and potatoes of many comments are made. Not is this case. I am taking this space to talk of my collection of women's undergarments. Why was this not included on the census form? Surely there are large numbers of lingerie collecting atheist computer geeks out there, how could this be overlooked?
and it is secure from the prying eyes of law enforcement, there will be howls of protest, to be sure, from enforcement agencies.
.Net or similar.
If, on the other hand, there is a security "backdoor" for law enforcement, then the system really isn't secure in the first place.
No matter how it's sliced, MS has themselves in a pickle; either the system is secure, and the unintended consequence is a secure method for law breakers to communicate, or the system has a backdoor and ultimately not secure (secure enough for digital content, perhaps). Expect a lot of FUD on this issue in the future.
Microsoft isn't helping much with speculation flying around about the exact implemention, a company known for it's clear communication and vision. I am surprised it's not called Secure
is they block POTENTIAL more than anything else and thus future creativity.
If Lego were analogous to software, the Lego bricks would represent individual instructions in the software. Someone has the bright idea to patent combinations of bricks that achieve a useful result. There is nothing new in this at all, you HAVE to create something useful out of the pieces or you are creating nothing at all (or art). Anyone who wanted to create something incorporating that brick combination would be prohibited from doing so, even though the useful result may be different from yours.
This is the root problem with a softare patent; You're working with a finite resource, instruction sets, that can be combined in an infinite number of ways to create a useful result.
from reading this and other articles about the Russian re-entry:
1. The subtle undercurrent of U.S. space program elitism, that is, the Russians run a barebones operation and the U.S. astronauts were incredibly lucky to return alive in such a piece of junk space capsule. Numerous posts have spoken to the incredibly reliable and effective Russian space program, so I won't belabor the point.
2. The absurd notion, much inferred, that since the space shuttle disintigrated on re-entry that a similar disaster will befall the Russian Soyuz. Somewhere out there someone was waiting to say, "Look, I told you so! Space is dangerous!", as if they had divined the second coming. Space is dangerous, expensive and in the opinion of many, not worth the effort.
There is a benefit to mankind in exploration that often does not come without planning, foresight and much trial and error.
Just my thoughts.
I know the two major broadband ISPs in my area, Calgary, have no policies restricting the use of NATs on their network; They don't support them, but they don't restrict them either. The DSL provider actually sells wireless routers, hubs, switches and access points in their stores and will support them to some degree when purchased from them.
The cable internet provider has policies restricting servers, etc., but they only seem to care when the bandwidth use causes problems.
Other than bandwidth use causing problems, or open mail relays, I don't see why ISPs would really care about NATs. In a way, it's sort of like the telephone company working itself into a froth over an answering machine when they offer voice mail service. Maybe we need SOME regulatory body that would permit the connection of any network device that does not interfere with the operation and enjoyment of other network users, similar to the regulation of telephone devices.
Just throwing out ideas.
Only when OS X ten hits 30+.
all because of a little piece of paper inserted into the box. What if GM decided to slip little pieces of paper into their oil filter packages? What is the difference? Do you seriously believe that software is licensed because a piece of paper says so?
Software licenses have become the legal equivalent of an easment; Since everyone uses them it must be legal. A prime example of losing rights you have by not exercising any objections.
I am sorry to say this, but I think you have fallen for the oldest propaganda ploy: say a lie often enough and it will appear to be the truth.
When you vote in any election in Canada, you're given a real, paper ballot that you mark with an "X". No confusing ballots, no hanging chads, no closed source, just a simple voting system that seems to work. If you mark anything other than an "X" in the circle next to the candidate's name, the ballot is considered spoiled and rejected. Volunteers count the votes and the results are posted shortly after the polls close.
How well our system would work for a country with as many voters as the U.S. is questionable, but it is undeniably transparent as elections in Canada are administered by an independent authority known as Elections Canada. I have complete confidence in our voting system. The same can not be said for the quality of candidates fielded by the political parties or the process used to determine those candidates, but that is a separate issue.
Everyone remembers the Rockford Files, right? Ok, maybe not, but I digress...
This show appeared in the later 70's and it concerned a group of business men that wanted to create a "super database" of everyone in this computer system located next to an airport. Rockford busts the case and captures the "criminals" in the end, of course. The show ends with a quick blurb about the dangers of computers and privacy.
What I find absolutely astounding is something that was considered criminal a generation ago is now accepted as common practice. "Companies and governments keep databases, big deal", is the common attitude now, but in the 70's even the CONCEPT of maintaining a database of personal information was considered criminal, never mind how it was used.
called, "Why Things Are & Why Things Aren't: The Answers to Life's Greatest Mysteries" by Joel Achenbach that attempts to answer this and many other "unanswerable" questions.
In the book, the explanation given is that humans rarely remember things before roughly four years old because we have not developed the ability to "tell" a story. Memories to this point a just a jumble of unrelated events, some remembered, some forgotten. When we learn the ability to put events in chronological order, that is when we begin to retain these events. At least, that is explanation given in the book that was given to them by pyschologists.
I recommend this book to anyone with any sense of curiousity.
There is one caveat..."systems" can be patented. So you could patent the Xbox and its system software, but only as a complete system.
When you think about it, it does make sense. Systems rely on the interoperation of their components, and software is an important component.
I suspect that PanIP, or whatever their name is this week, would find it impossible in Canada to obtain and enforce patents on web technology since web technology by nature is applicable to non specific systems.
Maybe someone can confirm my assumptions by checking with Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
I can tell you that it annoys us to ask nearly as much as it annoys you to be asked.
Having said that, I NEVER made a big deal out of it and answered honestly when asked what it was for: flyers, catalogues and for some items, the warranty. When customers seem upset about me asking for this information, I always tell them they can say, "No". There is no point in upsetting a customer about such a trivial matter. Most customers were good about it, especially when I tell them that saying "No" is completely OK and not a big deal to either of us. I never understood why some employees would make a huge production out of name and address. I would also apply a little common sense; If a customer was in a rush, if it was very busy or if the item was relatively minor I would not bother to ask.
In some cases, we really do need your address for such things as warranty. Some companies, Pana^H err something...will not accept a serial number for warranty, we require the original recepit (or our electronic copy) and postal code. We will not receive payment for the warranty from certain companies without this information. We can also look up your original receipt in the computer (we use SCO Unix in the back computer) and all receipt information is TAR'd and compressed by day. Without your address or at least your name, we have no way of knowing if you bought a particular item or not.
I do have a beef with people who would get upset to the point of anger. I am doing my job, it is a job requirement to ask for name and address. I have no choice, I try to make your shopping experience as pleasant as possible by knowing the products I sell and how to get you the best deal either by suggesting a product that will cost less and produce the same result or if an item will be on sale. Please realize that the person behind the counter is a person too, with feelings and a family and a paycheck (albeit a small one sometimes). Your anger only tranlates to frustration for me and possibly poorer service for my next customer.
Note that all of this information applies to RadioShack in Canada. Our American cousins are completely a different company and have different ownership and management and entirely different computer systems from what we use in Canada.