Read your parent post again. The "Oh, wait..." at the end should be a clue if you can't figure out the numbers.
how does it help the 10k people that die each year in the US due to lack of health insurance?
I didn't know lack of health insurance was a disease. Oh, I see, you mean that 10,000 people that died could have been saved if they had adequate health insurance. Well, my employer spends $12,000 a year (up about 10% from last year I think) on my health insurance and I have yet to use it. Meanwhile the insurance companies are showing record profits. My money is taken up by people that get every expensive test known to man and that get expensive prescription medication. Pharmaceutical companies say they need to charge that much so that they can come up with better drugs, yet they spend less than 20% on research (sometimes as little as 10%). They usually spend 2-3 times as much on marketing as they do on research. When is the last time you watched a network TV show without seeing an ad for a prescription drug?
The parent tried to make the point that we are now all about money, and no longer "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you read that however, you are only guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are not guaranteed happiness, you have to make that happen yourself.
Can you use a gamepad with the PC version? I guess I'll try it tonight. I bought this for the PC but using the keyboard for everything (you can't use a mouse) is a total pain and I didn't see anywhere to customize controls for a gamepad. I got through a few levels and quit. Since then I bought the fantastic Psychonauts and a gamepad to use with it. I'll try the gamepad tonight to see if it works. If it doesn't, I wouldn't bother with this game on the PC. If it does, I suggest the Logitech Dual Action Gamepad. It works and feels just like a PS2 controller and is very responsive.
On another note, I'd mark down Lego Star Wars a bit because of the collection element. You really have to hit or use the force on almost everything in the game to collect blocks. Along with that and how repetitive it is, I think 7.0 is about right.
On the other hand, I would give Psychonauts a 9.5. Each new mind you enter is completely different with different puzzles and atmosphere, so it's not repetitive at all. Of course there's still the collection aspect, but it doesn't get in the way of the gameplay and you don't really need to do it much. It may be too difficult for younger kids, but it's very funny and there is not much that would bother them.
To get something into low earth orbit, you have to put it 150 km above the ground to keep the atmosphere from slowing it right back down and having it fall to earth.
To appear as large as the moon (31 arcminutes or 0.009042 radians) at that distance, it would have to be 1.35 kilometers in diameter. Let's say the height of the billboard will be only one fifth that, that equals about 0.3645 square kilometers, or 364,500 square meters. The maximum payload of the space shuttle is 24,400 kilograms, that would mean the object could have a maximum average mass of 0.067 kilograms per square meter, or less than 1/6th a pound. It would also have to be strong enought to be unfolded and unrolled to the 1.36 kilometers.
Somehow they would have to have a framework to keep it outstretched. Also they would need to keep it oriented towards earth so it would probably need to be a rigid structure with jets at the corners at least to keep it aligned. Just having an outer shell would require 3.264 kilometeres of a rigid material, that would probably weight more than the space shuttle could carry itself. It would probably take dozens if not hundreds of missions to construct it as well.
So we would be looking at many missions, plus a construction job worse than the IIS. It would almost certainly cost hundreds of billions of dollars. At 150 kilometers, it would only be visible near dawn and dusk since it would be in the earth's shadow the rest of the time. It would only be visible for a few minutes as it crossed the sky. It would also be visible very rarely when it was in front of the sun because it would cause a partial eclipse. It could still be almost as bright as the full moon though because the moon only reflects about 12% of the light hitting it and this could have a higher reflectivity.
A big problem also would be that it would only say one thing. To change what it said you would have to repaint the whole thing. I cannot imagine an advertiser spending hundreds of billions of dollars on seomething that it would take that much to change again. To think of lighting it from the ground is almost ludicrous. For one thing you could only light it when it was overhead from a lighting station. For another, you would need as much power as the sun would deliver to it, so you are talking about 1 kw/ square meter, or 364 megawatts. At a very cheap price of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour, it would take another $730,000 to light this thing for just the two minutes that it was over the lighting station. If you would want to light it over all of the United States or Europe, you would need to create new power stations that would be used just for this task, turn them on to generate 364 megawatts for the two minutes it is overhead, and create a lighting station for each that would cost hundreds of millions itself to operate.
Many of those problems are because it would be in a low earth orbit. So why not put it in a higher orbit? Well, to make it appear to be the same size, you would have to make it bigger the further away it is. Also you would then need more power to light it. To put it twice as high up, you need four times the area, so four times the material and four times the power to light it. It would be convenient to put it in geostationary orbit so that it could always be pointing towards your target audience, but then it would have to be 324 kilometers across to appear as big as the moon. It would also cost at 5,366 trillion dollars to build. That's 145 times the entire GNP of the world. So if we stopped any an all production except to put this thing up in geosyncrhonous orbit, it would take us 145 years and we would die of starvation long before that.
So in the only remotely plausible case (I doubt the logistics could even be worked out to create it) it would be in low earth orbit and be powered by reflecting sunlight:
It would cost over $100 billion and take many missions to put up
It would only be visible at all near dawn and dusk
I haven't looked at the regulations, but I would assume this would only affect mail sent by individuals in the company or received by them. If the SPAM is filtered out before it gets to someone's inbox, no one in the company has ever read it so it would not be able to be used in any court case anyway.
You are free to record the shows yourself and watch them at a later date. However, you cannot get a copy of the shows from someone else because they are then distributing the copyrighted content. The copyright holder has a monopoly on copying and distributing their works. You can make a personal copy because of Fair Use.
A shadowy, pseudo-anonymous figure runs a web site that draws huge numbers of fanatics for a "righteous" cause, and as part of the coverage calls out individuals (execs, analysts, and journalists) who disagree with their position so that they can be attacked in writing at every opportunity to post comments to public forums, letters to the editor etc. Being one of those targets, MoG decided to find out a little more about who was behind the attacks. As the saying goes, never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
PJ has called into question Marueen's journalism and motives because of the public things MO's said. PJ doesn't personally attack her and has certainly never investigated or posted MO's personal information on Groklaw. It was all about MO posting stories that are FALSE, stories on sealed court filings she shouldn't have access to, etc. MO hasn't attacked what PJ has posted, rather she is going after PJ personally. The "article" had nothing to do with the court case or the web site. MO bascially denegrated her faith, her apartment, her car, her age, and her family.
She throws out innuendos without any facts or proof. One is that the CEO of a medical software company in NY is PJ's son and that he got his job because PJ started Groklaw. There is absolutely no proof or link to this, she doesn't even explain why she thinks this guy is PJ's son (he has a different last name) other than a "technical writer" with the same name once posted an article on GrokDoc. Personally I think MO did a google search on any name associated with Groklaw or Grokdoc and found a guy with the same name that lives in NY. There's quite a leap to saying it is the same guy, and another leap to saying it is PJ's son. Even if that is the case, there is a HUGE leap saying that he got his job (which he had at least since early 2003) as a reward from IBM for PJ starting Groklaw. MO tries to draw a conclusion but the facts just aren't there to the point of the conclusion being ridiculous. That isn't journalism, that's muckraking.
SCO (and I believe myself that MO is on SCO's payroll but I can't speak to the truth of it) hates PJ and Groklaw. They blamed Groklaw for the failing of their Linux licensing initiative. All Groklaw did was put it out in the open and examine it's virtues (or lack thereof). Let's see, a company claims to own IP in Linux and wants to charge $700 per processor for a license to run it. Wait a minute, the software was already purchased from someone else, shouldn't SCO be going after the distributors? Isn't it true that the whole scheme is illegal since their code would be violating the GPL? It would be like a book writer suing anyone that went to a movie illegally based on his book for $100 because he owns the ideas. Was SCO taking crazy pills?
I use it at work all the time. We have one employee that works out of state and another that works from home 1-2 days a week.
It's faster to use than phone and email - making a phone call or sending an email takes more time than typing an IM. If you don't want to save your conversation, deleting the emails is even more of a bother and takes more time since you have to open and delete each message, where you only have to close the chat window to get rid of your IM converstaion. If you want to keep it, just save it or copy/paste parts.
Faster delivery - if they want to appear online, you can send a message and know they got it. With email they may not check again until after lunch and with Phone you may not get an answer and have to leave a voicemail.
Functionality of email - you get to type in text and send files. It's easier to click on a link you paste into IM than to try and tell someone over the phone where to go.
Interactivity of phone - You actually have a conversation with IM, there's the give and take of a telephone conversation. You don't have to wait long for your responses like you would with email.
I think you're thinking about the different burdens of proof in Civil and Criminal cases. The plaintiff in criminal cases must have evidence that proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. In civil cases, there just must be a "preponderance of evidence" to show that the plantiff should prevail.
Even in Civil suits, the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". The plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions injured them in some way. The bar could be set very low, for instance in small claims court you can (sometimes) succeed automatically if your opponent fails to show. If you say they did something and they don't dispute it, that could be good enough. In this case, the defendant did show up and did dispute the plaintiff's allegations.
In copyright cases (Is the case about copyright again? I'm losing track:)), the plaintiff must show evidence of copying. In cases where the plaintiff sues for a declaration of non-infringement (RedHat v. SCO and IBM's 10th Counterclaim for Declaration of Non-Infringement), the defendant must show that the plaintiff's work infringes their copyright.
That may appear backwards at first glance (the defendant having the burden of proof), but it isn't. Suits for declaration of non-infringement can't just be brought on a whim. The plaintiff must show that the defendant has made remarks and that there is a possibility of a lawsuit by the plaintiff in the future. In this case that was a barrier that was easily met. SCO had been publicly saying that Linux infringed their copyrights since early 2003 and that they were going to sue people. And even though they now claim their complaint against IBM isn't about that, it is full of references to copyrights, and specifically IBM "missappropriating" and "copying" SYSV code into Linux.
The point is that with copyright you don't have to prove that you didn't infringe, there has to be some evidence of infringement.
IBM's side letter with AT&T pretty much debunks this myth. For one thing, if any information becomes generally available to the public without restriction, IBM no longer has to keep it secret. When AT&T allowed BSD unix to become available without restriction, that pretty much made protecting UNIX "ideas" go out the window.
Also, IBM specifically has the right to develop and market products employing ideas and concepts in UNIX:
Nothing in this agreement shall prevent LICENSEE from developing or marketing products or services employing ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques relating to data processing embodied in SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement
One has to ask the question "What exactly has IBM done in violation of the contract?" SCO has yet to answer with ANY specificity. They have yet to point out a single idea, method, concept, or line of code that would be protected by the contract and that IBM misued by putting into Linux.
SCO has complained from the start that Linux violated their copyrights and that it was the main reason for the lawsuit. Despite claiming "mountains of code" and having three teams of experts (including a team from MIT that didn't exist) going over the code, they have yet to show any actual infringement. In fact, they haven't found any. Actually that's not true, they have found code in Linux that is similar to code in BSD, which AT&T also used and put into SYSV. That is not their code however.
SCO has claimed copyright on public domain header files that are mandated by the POSIX standard and therefore open, lists of values and therefore not copyrightable, and also public domain because they were publicly distributed by AT&T without copyright notice in their binary distributions. The only other code they've shown is from their employee Sandeep Gupta, which was not properly compared, rearranged, not protectable by copyright, and flawed in other ways, and which SCO later claimed they weren't intending to show infringement but just that infringement was possible and they needed more discovery.
In contrast, IBM has had two heavy hitters to REAL code comparisons and neither of them found infringement between SYSV and Linux. Brian W. Kernighan (of K&R C, one of the inventors of the language and the first workers on UNIX at AT&T) tore apart Mr. Gupta's testimony.
Randall Davis also did a code comparison for them and he didn't find any infringing code. If you don't know who Randall Davis is, he's been involved in computer copyright cases before... One of the first copyright cases involving computer code in the 10th circuit was Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus. Ltd. The court didn't understand computer code and didn't know how to compare it to see if it infringed copyright. The court itself (not the parties) hired an expert to come up with the abstraction-filtration-comparison test that has been used since to determine if one computer program infringes another. Yes, that expert was Randall Davis. The very test the 10th circuit uses to determine copyright infringement was developed by Dr. Davis and now used by him to determine that Linux does not infringe SCO's purported copyrights.
Despite their complaint being littered with references to copyright infringement and IBM dumping code straight from SYSV into Linux, they now claim their lawsuit isn't about copyright. Despite sending threatening letters to fortune 500 companies demanding licensing fees for Linux, they have avoided confronting a leading Linux distributor for copyright infringement. When RedHat brought a suit for declaration of non-infringement, SCO had it stayed by claiming that the IBM suit was about the same thing.
Instead of taking RedHat to court, they sued one of their customers, Autozone, for copyright infringement. If a magazine article infringed the copyright of something you wrote, would you sue the magazine or would you sue some schmo that bought that magazine at the newsstand? Would you say "Paragraph 3 of the article is very similar to paragraph 2 on page 203 of my novel." or would you say "Whole parts of the article are lifted word for word from my books.", yet fail to give any examples after 4 lawsuits and years of discovery?
People, this just doesn't make any sense. I don't see how they can avoid going to jail for fraud when this is over.
I would think that your POV would be akin to nailing the doors shut on the public library.
What do we need public libraries for? Public libraries take food from the mouths of the babies of the people that work for retail book chains. So what if the local bookstore doesn't have a certain book you want, you could always find it at an online bookstore. Oh, wait...
Or is there any way to tell if a trojan is on one of the computers and is intercepting the traffic before it gets sent over the wire or after it is decoded? Or if the person that wrote the [banking for example] program put in a back door? Or if the person entering the data copied it down?
Do people understand that this will only work between two systems directly linked together, you can't use a routing system like the internet? Or am I missing something?
The DMCA protects COPYRIGHTED material protected by encryption. Whether the white balance settings in a RAW image file are protectable by copyright is very doubtful. If they are, then it would almost certainly be the photographer that would own the copyright. Making the owner be Nikon would be like Microsoft owning the copyright for any document ever written in MS Word. All Adobe is trying to do is interoperate with another technology.
The Lexmark case was similar. Lexmark put encryption into their printers and ink cartridges to keep other companies from selling the high-markup cartridges to their customers. Initially they got an injunction against a company, but it was wisely overturned by the federal appeals court.
Static Control has seized on the last exemption, which permits reverse-engineering "for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs" and says its creation of the Smartek chip is also protected by traditional fair use rights enshrined in U.S. copyright law.
This exploits a vulnerability in Mozilla/FireFox's javascript engine. It allows the javascript code on the web page to access an arbitrary amount of heap data of the FireFox application. The locations in memory and the size of the block returned cannot be set, so you basically get random data from FireFox's heap. Most likely under a kilobyte of data will be returned, and it will most likely be data from some web page or file you downloaded.
This data is available to the javascript engine then, so it is possible for the javascript to submit it a number of ways to an internet server. It could call a web service with the data or post it to a web page. The server could then organize this data and examine it for anything interesting.
This will not allow someone to read your personal files or hijack your computer. The real problem would be if stored passwords or sensitive data from web mail or banking sites were on the heap and were found this way and transmitted to a web site. A large amount of 'Junk' would have to be sifted through in order to get any juicy data though.
The only way to be save right now is (in FireFox) to go to Tools->Options, go to "Web Features", and uncheck "Enable Javascript". Seeing as many sites (including/.) require javascript to use, this really isn't a good option. I hope the team gets a fixed version out soon.
The amount of energy is easy to find, yet you spend time writing seven paragraphs instead of looking it up? You seem to just assume that we couldn't get all the power we need from solar cells.
Well, the amount of solar energy hitting us is around 1.5 kilowatts per square meter at our distance, that would be when the sun is directly overhead (and through the atmosphere). That drops off as a cos of the angle away from the point facing the sun. So if the sun passed directly overhead at noon, at 9:00 am and 3:00 pm (45 degrees away) we would be getting about 70.71% of the energy, or about 1 kilowatt. At 30 degrees lattitude, we would still be getting 75% of the maximum energy as early as 10:00 am and as late as 2:00 pm. So let's say we have 35% cloud cover (some areas could be much more sunny), that should account about for the rest of the hours in the day if we ignore them, but let us go ahead and take an hour off our peak time. So we'd have just three hours of sunlight at 80% (on average lets say) of 1.5 kilowatts, or 3.6 kilowatt hours per square meter per day. let's assume a solar cell that is 20% efficient, so we only get 0.72 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day.
Statistics show that hte US used 94.27 quadrillion BTUs of energy from all sources in 1998. From the conversion factors, that comes out to 27 trillion kilowatt hours. Divide by 365 and that's 74 billion kilowatt hours per day that we need. So we end up needing 103 billion square meters at 30 degrees lattitude to power the entire U.S. That's an area 320.5 kilometers to a side, about 1/7th the size of Texas.
And that's using conservative estimates. Plug in 30% efficency for solar cells, take into account the whole day and not just three hours like I did, and that area will shrink considerably.
His "cosmological constant" represented a mass density of empty space that drove the universe to expand at an ever-increasing rate.
When Einstein put the "cosmological constant" into his formulas, they hadn't found out yet that the universe was expanding. The constant was there to make the equations work for a static universe.
I've never bought as much music in my life as when Napster was around. I would download songs and if I liked them, I bought the CD. Also you could find some cool stuff that doesn't get released, like Michael Stipe and Natalie Merchant singing "The Counting Song" live.
I think the recording industry is shooting themselves in the foot. CDs experienced record sales after Napster came out. When they shut Napster down, CD sales plummeted. They blamed it online music file sharing, but Napster was bigger than anything else, so they have it reversed. I refuse to buy CDs anymore, I'm worried the next time I pop one into my computer it will install software that will keep me from ripping any CD. Maybe it won't work in my old car CD player or my CD player clock-radio either. Screw it, it ain't worth the trouble. Besides I still haven't gotten my $10 settlement from them over-charging me for CDs.
That was my point, I wasn't defending or attacking him, just trying to let people know what he probably meant by "writing a web browser", he didn't start from scratch.
There's an IE control that can be hosted in VB (or C# or VB.NET, or even C/C++). Add an address box, a 'Go' button and a few lines of code to your form and you have yourself a web browser. We have hosted the IE control in a project so the user could view web-based reports and we could control it without giving the user full access to IE I guess...
Slashdot Mirror
Except the encryption isn't a "protection mechanism" used by the copyright holder, the one who wrote the documents or their employer.
The parent tried to make the point that we are now all about money, and no longer "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you read that however, you are only guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are not guaranteed happiness, you have to make that happen yourself.
On another note, I'd mark down Lego Star Wars a bit because of the collection element. You really have to hit or use the force on almost everything in the game to collect blocks. Along with that and how repetitive it is, I think 7.0 is about right.
On the other hand, I would give Psychonauts a 9.5. Each new mind you enter is completely different with different puzzles and atmosphere, so it's not repetitive at all. Of course there's still the collection aspect, but it doesn't get in the way of the gameplay and you don't really need to do it much. It may be too difficult for younger kids, but it's very funny and there is not much that would bother them.
To appear as large as the moon (31 arcminutes or 0.009042 radians) at that distance, it would have to be 1.35 kilometers in diameter. Let's say the height of the billboard will be only one fifth that, that equals about 0.3645 square kilometers, or 364,500 square meters. The maximum payload of the space shuttle is 24,400 kilograms, that would mean the object could have a maximum average mass of 0.067 kilograms per square meter, or less than 1/6th a pound. It would also have to be strong enought to be unfolded and unrolled to the 1.36 kilometers.
Somehow they would have to have a framework to keep it outstretched. Also they would need to keep it oriented towards earth so it would probably need to be a rigid structure with jets at the corners at least to keep it aligned. Just having an outer shell would require 3.264 kilometeres of a rigid material, that would probably weight more than the space shuttle could carry itself. It would probably take dozens if not hundreds of missions to construct it as well.
So we would be looking at many missions, plus a construction job worse than the IIS. It would almost certainly cost hundreds of billions of dollars. At 150 kilometers, it would only be visible near dawn and dusk since it would be in the earth's shadow the rest of the time. It would only be visible for a few minutes as it crossed the sky. It would also be visible very rarely when it was in front of the sun because it would cause a partial eclipse. It could still be almost as bright as the full moon though because the moon only reflects about 12% of the light hitting it and this could have a higher reflectivity.
A big problem also would be that it would only say one thing. To change what it said you would have to repaint the whole thing. I cannot imagine an advertiser spending hundreds of billions of dollars on seomething that it would take that much to change again. To think of lighting it from the ground is almost ludicrous. For one thing you could only light it when it was overhead from a lighting station. For another, you would need as much power as the sun would deliver to it, so you are talking about 1 kw/ square meter, or 364 megawatts. At a very cheap price of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour, it would take another $730,000 to light this thing for just the two minutes that it was over the lighting station. If you would want to light it over all of the United States or Europe, you would need to create new power stations that would be used just for this task, turn them on to generate 364 megawatts for the two minutes it is overhead, and create a lighting station for each that would cost hundreds of millions itself to operate.
Many of those problems are because it would be in a low earth orbit. So why not put it in a higher orbit? Well, to make it appear to be the same size, you would have to make it bigger the further away it is. Also you would then need more power to light it. To put it twice as high up, you need four times the area, so four times the material and four times the power to light it. It would be convenient to put it in geostationary orbit so that it could always be pointing towards your target audience, but then it would have to be 324 kilometers across to appear as big as the moon. It would also cost at 5,366 trillion dollars to build. That's 145 times the entire GNP of the world. So if we stopped any an all production except to put this thing up in geosyncrhonous orbit, it would take us 145 years and we would die of starvation long before that.
So in the only remotely plausible case (I doubt the logistics could even be worked out to create it) it would be in low earth orbit and be powered by reflecting sunlight:
I haven't looked at the regulations, but I would assume this would only affect mail sent by individuals in the company or received by them. If the SPAM is filtered out before it gets to someone's inbox, no one in the company has ever read it so it would not be able to be used in any court case anyway.
You are free to record the shows yourself and watch them at a later date. However, you cannot get a copy of the shows from someone else because they are then distributing the copyrighted content. The copyright holder has a monopoly on copying and distributing their works. You can make a personal copy because of Fair Use.
Thanks Mrs. Duffy.
She throws out innuendos without any facts or proof. One is that the CEO of a medical software company in NY is PJ's son and that he got his job because PJ started Groklaw. There is absolutely no proof or link to this, she doesn't even explain why she thinks this guy is PJ's son (he has a different last name) other than a "technical writer" with the same name once posted an article on GrokDoc. Personally I think MO did a google search on any name associated with Groklaw or Grokdoc and found a guy with the same name that lives in NY. There's quite a leap to saying it is the same guy, and another leap to saying it is PJ's son. Even if that is the case, there is a HUGE leap saying that he got his job (which he had at least since early 2003) as a reward from IBM for PJ starting Groklaw. MO tries to draw a conclusion but the facts just aren't there to the point of the conclusion being ridiculous. That isn't journalism, that's muckraking.
SCO (and I believe myself that MO is on SCO's payroll but I can't speak to the truth of it) hates PJ and Groklaw. They blamed Groklaw for the failing of their Linux licensing initiative. All Groklaw did was put it out in the open and examine it's virtues (or lack thereof). Let's see, a company claims to own IP in Linux and wants to charge $700 per processor for a license to run it. Wait a minute, the software was already purchased from someone else, shouldn't SCO be going after the distributors? Isn't it true that the whole scheme is illegal since their code would be violating the GPL? It would be like a book writer suing anyone that went to a movie illegally based on his book for $100 because he owns the ideas. Was SCO taking crazy pills?
Even in Civil suits, the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". The plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions injured them in some way. The bar could be set very low, for instance in small claims court you can (sometimes) succeed automatically if your opponent fails to show. If you say they did something and they don't dispute it, that could be good enough. In this case, the defendant did show up and did dispute the plaintiff's allegations.
In copyright cases (Is the case about copyright again? I'm losing track :)), the plaintiff must show evidence of copying. In cases where the plaintiff sues for a declaration of non-infringement (RedHat v. SCO and IBM's 10th Counterclaim for Declaration of Non-Infringement), the defendant must show that the plaintiff's work infringes their copyright.
That may appear backwards at first glance (the defendant having the burden of proof), but it isn't. Suits for declaration of non-infringement can't just be brought on a whim. The plaintiff must show that the defendant has made remarks and that there is a possibility of a lawsuit by the plaintiff in the future. In this case that was a barrier that was easily met. SCO had been publicly saying that Linux infringed their copyrights since early 2003 and that they were going to sue people. And even though they now claim their complaint against IBM isn't about that, it is full of references to copyrights, and specifically IBM "missappropriating" and "copying" SYSV code into Linux.
The point is that with copyright you don't have to prove that you didn't infringe, there has to be some evidence of infringement.
Also, IBM specifically has the right to develop and market products employing ideas and concepts in UNIX:
One has to ask the question "What exactly has IBM done in violation of the contract?" SCO has yet to answer with ANY specificity. They have yet to point out a single idea, method, concept, or line of code that would be protected by the contract and that IBM misued by putting into Linux.SCO has claimed copyright on public domain header files that are mandated by the POSIX standard and therefore open, lists of values and therefore not copyrightable, and also public domain because they were publicly distributed by AT&T without copyright notice in their binary distributions. The only other code they've shown is from their employee Sandeep Gupta, which was not properly compared, rearranged, not protectable by copyright, and flawed in other ways, and which SCO later claimed they weren't intending to show infringement but just that infringement was possible and they needed more discovery.
In contrast, IBM has had two heavy hitters to REAL code comparisons and neither of them found infringement between SYSV and Linux. Brian W. Kernighan (of K&R C, one of the inventors of the language and the first workers on UNIX at AT&T) tore apart Mr. Gupta's testimony.
Randall Davis also did a code comparison for them and he didn't find any infringing code. If you don't know who Randall Davis is, he's been involved in computer copyright cases before... One of the first copyright cases involving computer code in the 10th circuit was Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus. Ltd. The court didn't understand computer code and didn't know how to compare it to see if it infringed copyright. The court itself (not the parties) hired an expert to come up with the abstraction-filtration-comparison test that has been used since to determine if one computer program infringes another. Yes, that expert was Randall Davis. The very test the 10th circuit uses to determine copyright infringement was developed by Dr. Davis and now used by him to determine that Linux does not infringe SCO's purported copyrights.
Despite their complaint being littered with references to copyright infringement and IBM dumping code straight from SYSV into Linux, they now claim their lawsuit isn't about copyright. Despite sending threatening letters to fortune 500 companies demanding licensing fees for Linux, they have avoided confronting a leading Linux distributor for copyright infringement. When RedHat brought a suit for declaration of non-infringement, SCO had it stayed by claiming that the IBM suit was about the same thing.
Instead of taking RedHat to court, they sued one of their customers, Autozone, for copyright infringement. If a magazine article infringed the copyright of something you wrote, would you sue the magazine or would you sue some schmo that bought that magazine at the newsstand? Would you say "Paragraph 3 of the article is very similar to paragraph 2 on page 203 of my novel." or would you say "Whole parts of the article are lifted word for word from my books.", yet fail to give any examples after 4 lawsuits and years of discovery?
People, this just doesn't make any sense. I don't see how they can avoid going to jail for fraud when this is over.
Do people understand that this will only work between two systems directly linked together, you can't use a routing system like the internet? Or am I missing something?
The Lexmark case was similar. Lexmark put encryption into their printers and ink cartridges to keep other companies from selling the high-markup cartridges to their customers. Initially they got an injunction against a company, but it was wisely overturned by the federal appeals court.
This data is available to the javascript engine then, so it is possible for the javascript to submit it a number of ways to an internet server. It could call a web service with the data or post it to a web page. The server could then organize this data and examine it for anything interesting.
This will not allow someone to read your personal files or hijack your computer. The real problem would be if stored passwords or sensitive data from web mail or banking sites were on the heap and were found this way and transmitted to a web site. A large amount of 'Junk' would have to be sifted through in order to get any juicy data though.
The only way to be save right now is (in FireFox) to go to Tools->Options, go to "Web Features", and uncheck "Enable Javascript". Seeing as many sites (including /.) require javascript to use, this really isn't a good option. I hope the team gets a fixed version out soon.
Well, the amount of solar energy hitting us is around 1.5 kilowatts per square meter at our distance, that would be when the sun is directly overhead (and through the atmosphere). That drops off as a cos of the angle away from the point facing the sun. So if the sun passed directly overhead at noon, at 9:00 am and 3:00 pm (45 degrees away) we would be getting about 70.71% of the energy, or about 1 kilowatt. At 30 degrees lattitude, we would still be getting 75% of the maximum energy as early as 10:00 am and as late as 2:00 pm. So let's say we have 35% cloud cover (some areas could be much more sunny), that should account about for the rest of the hours in the day if we ignore them, but let us go ahead and take an hour off our peak time. So we'd have just three hours of sunlight at 80% (on average lets say) of 1.5 kilowatts, or 3.6 kilowatt hours per square meter per day. let's assume a solar cell that is 20% efficient, so we only get 0.72 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day.
Statistics show that hte US used 94.27 quadrillion BTUs of energy from all sources in 1998. From the conversion factors, that comes out to 27 trillion kilowatt hours. Divide by 365 and that's 74 billion kilowatt hours per day that we need. So we end up needing 103 billion square meters at 30 degrees lattitude to power the entire U.S. That's an area 320.5 kilometers to a side, about 1/7th the size of Texas.
And that's using conservative estimates. Plug in 30% efficency for solar cells, take into account the whole day and not just three hours like I did, and that area will shrink considerably.
A cipher that is more efficient in hardware and therefore more easily brute-forced. What will they come up with next?
Get real. This guy is making money off Hasbro's game and not paying Hasbro 1 cent. Now you want Hasbro to give him MORE money? For what?
I think the recording industry is shooting themselves in the foot. CDs experienced record sales after Napster came out. When they shut Napster down, CD sales plummeted. They blamed it online music file sharing, but Napster was bigger than anything else, so they have it reversed. I refuse to buy CDs anymore, I'm worried the next time I pop one into my computer it will install software that will keep me from ripping any CD. Maybe it won't work in my old car CD player or my CD player clock-radio either. Screw it, it ain't worth the trouble. Besides I still haven't gotten my $10 settlement from them over-charging me for CDs.
That was my point, I wasn't defending or attacking him, just trying to let people know what he probably meant by "writing a web browser", he didn't start from scratch.
There's an IE control that can be hosted in VB (or C# or VB.NET, or even C/C++). Add an address box, a 'Go' button and a few lines of code to your form and you have yourself a web browser. We have hosted the IE control in a project so the user could view web-based reports and we could control it without giving the user full access to IE I guess...