1) Instead of having centralized servers that hold the blacklist, distribute them as a file. This file would be signed by the blacklist maintainer using a certificate from a reputable Certificate Authority, like Verislime. 2) These files would be distributed on a p2p network like Kazaa. 3) Client-side application would be built that would go to Kazaa maybe once a day or X number of times a day and fetch the latest and greatest version of this file. Even if anti-spammers create fake versions of the file, they can't fake the private key of the blacklist maintainer so fakes could be rooted out by the client-side application. 4) The client-side application would stay on the DNS server of the ISP, meaning that the ISP wouldn't have to set their DNSes to point to outside networks in order to get this blacklist info.
Yes, it is not extremely real-time in terms of modifications, but frankly who cares? Even once-a-day files would be great since it takes days for these blacklist maintainers to modify their list currently. Damn, maybe I should patent this!
Please don't go around saying, "Could this be the end of RDBMSes?" That is just a crock of shit, and it really bugs the hell out of me. How stupid do you think we are to have a tagline like that?
Please watch "Bowling for Columbine" and it says that this type of exaggeration by the media, and most notably US media, is driving the Americans crazy paranoid with fear. It seems like the editors have fallen for the same thing, and it should stop now!
Let's have a modicum of dignity and avoid all the hyperbole, please. We are all somewhat tech-savvy, please treat us with the respect that we deserve!
I'm sure the technology is good, but for crying out loud, mainframes are still around 40 years later. RDBMSes are going nowhere for the next 20+years until true AI comes around.
The article isn't quite clear on this matter, but it does say that "BulletProof Technologies had studied the Openres system closely and produced a system that operated in the same way." If by "studied it closely" they mean "studied the code closely" then it would be copyright infringement, because their work would be considered a derivative, regardless of whether it's in a different language or not.
However, if the programmers made a completely clean-room version of the program, this would not fall into copyright infringement because you cannot point to a derivation.
Haven't they heard the news? Some dude already confessed to faking Bigfoot tracks.
No, wait! That's what the government wants us to believe! Where's my tin-foil hat?!!
What about intra-solar system signal repeaters?
on
Goodbye, Galileo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have always wondered about NASA being able to create a set of intra-solar system repeaters that they would send out into space, and have them simply repeat signals back from our spacecrafts. That means we could still pick up signals from such spacecrafts as Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts by having the repeaters send them back to Earth.
As well, this would eliminate the need for high-gain antennas of the likes of what Galileo needed... they could do with a smaller antenna that would need to reach the repeater, and would decrease overall mission risk.
Again, please read carefully before you write anything.
I said specifically that SCO's position was that if end-users want to continue using Linux that they would need to buy a license. I didn't say anything about SCO wanting to retroactively charge end-users licenses or suing them.
As well, they do not need to prove their code is theirs to license anymore. They have already registered their copyright on the code. This is why they registered it, it was a strategic move.
It is now up to the Anti-SCO-pro-Linux forces to prove that SCO does not own the copyright on the code. This seems possible with all the references in the Unix 7 code, but since SCO has not produced the code in questions, ie. the one million lines of code they say was infringed, it's hard to tell at this point.
Again, you have to be precise in your terminologies here.
I never said that end-users were being sued for damages. I said that end-users were being charged for licenses.
According to SCO, Linux contains code that infringes SCO's copyrights. If end-users want to continue using Linux, they need to purchase a license from SCO so that they can use this infringing product.
You can register your copyrighted material at the Copyright Office. Go here.
You do not need to register to claim a copyright however, as you indicated.
SCO has stated that they did register a copyright for their UNIX software which means that they must have something in the Library of Congress. I tried searching through the database, but either it doesn't seem available, which is why if someone actually went down to the LoC, then it might be faster.
Let's not get confused with what is going on in the SCO situation. I had my IP lawyer friend explain to me exactly what is going on. I am not a lawyer, so take everything that I have written down with a grain of salt, and I may even have the issues confused, so don't sue me.
1) SCO is suing IBM for trade secret misappropriation. They are saying that IBM gave away some secrets and it caused them damages. This doesn't really affect Linux. 2) Copyright infringement. They say that Linux contains millions of lines of code that infringes SCO's copyright. This is the reason why they are charging Linux users a license. You can only infringe copyrights if you are given a license by the holder of the copyright. Code comments *are* copyright-able and can be considered trade secrets (but you cannot do both). You cannot patent code comments, but having infringing code copied into the Linux code could be considered copyright infringement. Although if it were only code comments, the claims for damages may be very negligible.
In order for anti-SCO-pro-Linux forces to win, they need to either: 1) prove that SCO doesn't own the copyright to what it says it owns. Right now, there is a presumption that SCO does own the copyright to what it says it owes, it is up to the anti-SCO forces to prove otherwise. I think all the comparisons to UNIX 7 code, if it really was public domain that preceded SCO's claims, could be a good strategy.
2) prove that SCO has waived their claims to copyright infringement. Some people are saying that SCO waived their rights by publishing their own version of Linux, but this is dubious, since they claim someone else infringed their copyrights and placed the code there.
To all Washington DC Slashdotters:
SCO must have disclosed code to the Library of Congress when it registered their copyright to the UNIX code. Presumably they registered infringed code otherwise it would be a pointless on their part. Something must be available there, and it will give a better clue as to what code they say has been infringed. Maybe someone can actually go down there, do some research and publish or point out what that code actually is.
I was personally involved in porting our company's software to Linux. I chose to support Red Hat, thinking that their big name would mean that they were somehow better as an organization.
I WAS TOTALLY WRONG!
I recently tried phoning Red Hat Sales to try and buy support, and it has been more than 1 week, and I have been unable to get them to respond! My first 3 attempts to contact Sales were ignored, and finally I got someone on the phone. They directed me to someone else, and after an initial e-mail, they have yet to contact me after I sent them 2 follow-up e-mails. It is absolutely ridiculous.
You would in this day-and-age that Red Hat would be salivating over someone who is willing to pay them money for support, but they seem competely disinterested in helping me give them money. I have already complained to my superiors that we should consider supporting a different flavor of Linux, because if this is how responsive Red Hat's Sales unit is, imagine how unresponsive their Support unit it.
If you let prices float based on supply and demand, usually the market will set a proper price. I fully believe this is the case.
But you need to have a proper supply in order for competition to kick in an dprices to eventually fall to fair levels.
But with energy there is barely enough supply! This is the problem that occurred in California. There was barely enough supply to cover demand, so competition never occurred, which caused price inflation. As well, when Enron shut down power stations, this caused prices to skyrocket because all of a sudden there was too little supply.
In order for a free market to exist, you first need a market in which competition can be sustained. This means you first need adequate supply.
We need something like 3-4 times the number of power generators we currently have before a free market would be able to give good prices to consumers. But because power stations are big budget items, it could take decades for that to occur, meaning the energy companies get filthy rich off of our backs. Go talk to people in San Diego that quadrupled their power bills once deregulation kicked in 1999/2000.
Although I firmly believe in free markets, I think crucial infrastructure items such as power should NEVER EVER EVER be dictated by free markets because corporations such as Enron and Dynergy will try to extract as much money from consumers as possible, and because it's so vital they have us all by the short-and-curlies, which is exactly what happened to California.
Playing devil's advocate, if copyright extensions have no effect, then the Bad Guys can say,
"Let's extend copyrights forever, so that people can never gain from other people's ideas. This is legitimate, since extending doesn't affect the number of copyright registrations... innovation is not hindered by copyright extensions!"
Was that my choice or was I destined to see it last night? I'm glad I didn't have to wait too long to get my answer.
It was a great movie. I'm usually a harsh critic, but this movie I liked and the action scenes were simply awesome. I even liked all the "choice vs destiny" talk although they did lay it on too thick at some times.
I love it! One of the problems that the article touches upon is that the royalties, etc, will go on for 70 years... That means by the 60th year, there will be 3 generations of descendants that will be fighting over the royalties of this money!!! Imagine how many great-great-great grandchildren there will be that will be fighting over the money! The lawyers will be the ones making the most money, that's for sure!
Isn't the great? They try so hard to keep control of their copyrights until decades after they die, presumably to help their descendants, but we know what will actually happen: greed will overtake them all and cause the family to be torn apart! I love it, what great revenge!
I have a friend whose grandmother passed away, leaving a rather large cottage which is being shared between her several children and their children. Already, the fights that are brewing because they can't have access to this cottage is causing family strife, and we're talking about a stupid $20,000 cottage!
Imagine how many fights there will be over potentially millions of dollars for the royalties for some of the stuff out there, like June Rowland/Harry Potter, or Stephen King, etc.
Sorry, but there wasn't enough info on either of the links...
Does this mean that they will be using X-rays on us everytime we pass through a security checkpoint?
Already I question how safe all that stuff is, especially standing in front of the opening of the X-ray machine while I put my carry-ons on the conveyor belt.
Although the technology is really cool, is this something I want to subject myself to, especially if I am a business traveller?
If a few companies control access, then it means that the ISPs are not free as well.
So you can go and write anything you want, because the ISP may pull it because they may be "legally liable" or "against their terms of service".
Let's say you are against the war, and you set up a web site about that. What if the big media corporation shuts it down because it was "bad for their business" or whatever. So you host your own web site on your home computer via DSL, and then the phone company shuts you down, because they could be legally liable for whatever is on their networks or you had broken their terms of service. Where do you go next? Probably no where.
Without competition, without choice, we are all controlled. The Internet will be the watered-down reflection of what the media companies want it to be, not what we want it to be.
It's the difference between pirate radio and regular radio, or someone with their own printing press.
Someone who just sets up a pirate radio station can transmit whatever they feel like saying (despite the legalities of this). Someone who has their own printing press can write whatever they want and distribute it.
But if we don't control the actual physical layer, or if the physical layer is owned by a oligopoly of media companies, they can squish us like an insignificant bug.
This is what Lessig is talking about.
The "death" that he describes is not the fact that the Internet will get disconnected. This death is the death of the virtual freedom we have enjoyed for almost 10 years in terms of the nerds and techies doing whatever we wanted because we were one step ahead of everyone.
We could build our own web sites and make billions of dollars. We could write our own blogs telling whoever wanted to read it if we wanted. We could set up a web site that blasted a corporation that we hated or warning people of the problems with certain products. We were able to help the little guys such as the protesters organize against government oppressions by having centralized web sites that the government couldn't hack into.
The death that Lessig fears is this death. I'm quite confident that we will always have an Internet that will give us the latest stock quotes, the movie times, tv schedules, weather, etc. Losing the new freedom we have acquired over the past 10 years is something far more precious.
One thing not mentioned is ip addresses and NAT. Are you going to use NAT or will each unit have their own ip address?
If you go with NAT, how will this affect the users, especially the gamers? Will the hardware that you buy support multiple people using udp (ie. quake, counterstrike, etc) in a NAT configuration? I'm not a guru, but that would seem to be hard... not super-hard, but hard because you have 160 units connected. If several units are trying to play cs on the same server, can NAT actually solve this problem, since the traffic is udp? If it doesn't, will this generate a support call to you?
What about VPN (ie, pptp, or ipsec)? Some firewalls can only support one pptp VPN connection out, so you would probably want something smarter.... or do you disallow VPN? Then people who wanted to work from home won't be able to.
What about accountability? What if you are using NAT, and someone in a unit distributes kiddie porn, and the FBI comes knocking on your door. Will you be able to figure out who did it?
Like many other people have mentioned, support is the key.... if you advertise this internet connection, and it goes down, will you be liable for any losses? If some people work at home, and the connection drops, will there be someone around to debug the issue? Will the people who work from home be SOL? Is there's a problem with the T1 connection, you will still get the phone call, and you would have to phone the ISP....
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but these are just some things to consider.
I completely agree. I'm not a creationist, but I fully support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't shove it down my throat.
I work with plenty of devout Hindus, and their beliefs are complete foreign to me (don't eat cows because they are sacred animals, they believe in not just one god, but many different gods, etc). Personally, I don't subscribe to any of it, but that's just my own personal belief, they are completely free to believe whatever they want, and who knows, they could be right and I could be wrong!
Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.
Kids spend far too much time watching TV and doing nothing real.
Why not pick up a baseball and teach them to throw? (You do know how to throw a ball, don't you?)
Maybe bring them to the science museum, or teach them how to build models, or get a chemistry set and teach them about basic chemistry.
How about going on hikes into the forest, or biking, or playing street hockey, or soccer, or throw a frisbee around?
Why the hell would you want to teach an 8 year-old kid to sit on their ass in front of a computer screen at such a young age?!?!? They have plenty of time to do that shit during college, hell that's when I started.
Forget Virtual Reality and think Real Reality, bro.
Slashdot Mirror
Why did they go after this attack instead of the DOS on the spam blacklists?
Oh yeah, I forgot, because this was against a newspaper, and not some small fries blacklist operators.
Money talks, huh?
Ahhhhh... Hence my SAT and GRE scores.
Holy crap!
Insouciance?
Temerity?
Magnanimity?
You think this guy got 750+ on his verbal SAT or LSAT?
1) Instead of having centralized servers that hold the blacklist, distribute them as a file. This file would be signed by the blacklist maintainer using a certificate from a reputable Certificate Authority, like Verislime.
2) These files would be distributed on a p2p network like Kazaa.
3) Client-side application would be built that would go to Kazaa maybe once a day or X number of times a day and fetch the latest and greatest version of this file. Even if anti-spammers create fake versions of the file, they can't fake the private key of the blacklist maintainer so fakes could be rooted out by the client-side application.
4) The client-side application would stay on the DNS server of the ISP, meaning that the ISP wouldn't have to set their DNSes to point to outside networks in order to get this blacklist info.
Yes, it is not extremely real-time in terms of modifications, but frankly who cares? Even once-a-day files would be great since it takes days for these blacklist maintainers to modify their list currently. Damn, maybe I should patent this!
Please don't go around saying, "Could this be the end of RDBMSes?" That is just a crock of shit, and it really bugs the hell out of me. How stupid do you think we are to have a tagline like that?
Please watch "Bowling for Columbine" and it says that this type of exaggeration by the media, and most notably US media, is driving the Americans crazy paranoid with fear. It seems like the editors have fallen for the same thing, and it should stop now!
Let's have a modicum of dignity and avoid all the hyperbole, please. We are all somewhat tech-savvy, please treat us with the respect that we deserve!
I'm sure the technology is good, but for crying out loud, mainframes are still around 40 years later. RDBMSes are going nowhere for the next 20+years until true AI comes around.
The article isn't quite clear on this matter, but it does say that "BulletProof Technologies had studied the Openres system closely and produced a system that operated in the same way." If by "studied it closely" they mean "studied the code closely" then it would be copyright infringement, because their work would be considered a derivative, regardless of whether it's in a different language or not.
However, if the programmers made a completely clean-room version of the program, this would not fall into copyright infringement because you cannot point to a derivation.
Haven't they heard the news? Some dude already confessed to faking Bigfoot tracks.
No, wait! That's what the government wants us to believe! Where's my tin-foil hat?!!
I have always wondered about NASA being able to create a set of intra-solar system repeaters that they would send out into space, and have them simply repeat signals back from our spacecrafts. That means we could still pick up signals from such spacecrafts as Voyager and Pioneer spacecrafts by having the repeaters send them back to Earth.
As well, this would eliminate the need for high-gain antennas of the likes of what Galileo needed... they could do with a smaller antenna that would need to reach the repeater, and would decrease overall mission risk.
Again, please read carefully before you write anything.
I said specifically that SCO's position was that if end-users want to continue using Linux that they would need to buy a license. I didn't say anything about SCO wanting to retroactively charge end-users licenses or suing them.
As well, they do not need to prove their code is theirs to license anymore. They have already registered their copyright on the code. This is why they registered it, it was a strategic move.
It is now up to the Anti-SCO-pro-Linux forces to prove that SCO does not own the copyright on the code. This seems possible with all the references in the Unix 7 code, but since SCO has not produced the code in questions, ie. the one million lines of code they say was infringed, it's hard to tell at this point.
Again, you have to be precise in your terminologies here.
I never said that end-users were being sued for damages. I said that end-users were being charged for licenses.
According to SCO, Linux contains code that infringes SCO's copyrights. If end-users want to continue using Linux, they need to purchase a license from SCO so that they can use this infringing product.
Licensing and damages are two separate things.
You are not completely correct.
You can register your copyrighted material at the Copyright Office. Go here.
You do not need to register to claim a copyright however, as you indicated.
SCO has stated that they did register a copyright for their UNIX software which means that they must have something in the Library of Congress. I tried searching through the database, but either it doesn't seem available, which is why if someone actually went down to the LoC, then it might be faster.
Let's not get confused with what is going on in the SCO situation. I had my IP lawyer friend explain to me exactly what is going on. I am not a lawyer, so take everything that I have written down with a grain of salt, and I may even have the issues confused, so don't sue me.
1) SCO is suing IBM for trade secret misappropriation. They are saying that IBM gave away some secrets and it caused them damages. This doesn't really affect Linux.
2) Copyright infringement. They say that Linux contains millions of lines of code that infringes SCO's copyright. This is the reason why they are charging Linux users a license. You can only infringe copyrights if you are given a license by the holder of the copyright. Code comments *are* copyright-able and can be considered trade secrets (but you cannot do both). You cannot patent code comments, but having infringing code copied into the Linux code could be considered copyright infringement. Although if it were only code comments, the claims for damages may be very negligible.
In order for anti-SCO-pro-Linux forces to win, they need to either:
1) prove that SCO doesn't own the copyright to what it says it owns. Right now, there is a presumption that SCO does own the copyright to what it says it owes, it is up to the anti-SCO forces to prove otherwise. I think all the comparisons to UNIX 7 code, if it really was public domain that preceded SCO's claims, could be a good strategy.
2) prove that SCO has waived their claims to copyright infringement. Some people are saying that SCO waived their rights by publishing their own version of Linux, but this is dubious, since they claim someone else infringed their copyrights and placed the code there.
To all Washington DC Slashdotters:
SCO must have disclosed code to the Library of Congress when it registered their copyright to the UNIX code. Presumably they registered infringed code otherwise it would be a pointless on their part. Something must be available there, and it will give a better clue as to what code they say has been infringed. Maybe someone can actually go down there, do some research and publish or point out what that code actually is.
I was personally involved in porting our company's software to Linux. I chose to support Red Hat, thinking that their big name would mean that they were somehow better as an organization.
I WAS TOTALLY WRONG!
I recently tried phoning Red Hat Sales to try and buy support, and it has been more than 1 week, and I have been unable to get them to respond! My first 3 attempts to contact Sales were ignored, and finally I got someone on the phone. They directed me to someone else, and after an initial e-mail, they have yet to contact me after I sent them 2 follow-up e-mails. It is absolutely ridiculous.
You would in this day-and-age that Red Hat would be salivating over someone who is willing to pay them money for support, but they seem competely disinterested in helping me give them money. I have already complained to my superiors that we should consider supporting a different flavor of Linux, because if this is how responsive Red Hat's Sales unit is, imagine how unresponsive their Support unit it.
If you let prices float based on supply and demand, usually the market will set a proper price. I fully believe this is the case.
But you need to have a proper supply in order for competition to kick in an dprices to eventually fall to fair levels.
But with energy there is barely enough supply! This is the problem that occurred in California. There was barely enough supply to cover demand, so competition never occurred, which caused price inflation. As well, when Enron shut down power stations, this caused prices to skyrocket because all of a sudden there was too little supply.
In order for a free market to exist, you first need a market in which competition can be sustained. This means you first need adequate supply.
We need something like 3-4 times the number of power generators we currently have before a free market would be able to give good prices to consumers. But because power stations are big budget items, it could take decades for that to occur, meaning the energy companies get filthy rich off of our backs. Go talk to people in San Diego that quadrupled their power bills once deregulation kicked in 1999/2000.
Although I firmly believe in free markets, I think crucial infrastructure items such as power should NEVER EVER EVER be dictated by free markets because corporations such as Enron and Dynergy will try to extract as much money from consumers as possible, and because it's so vital they have us all by the short-and-curlies, which is exactly what happened to California.
Playing devil's advocate, if copyright extensions have no effect, then the Bad Guys can say,
"Let's extend copyrights forever, so that people can never gain from other people's ideas. This is legitimate, since extending doesn't affect the number of copyright registrations... innovation is not hindered by copyright extensions!"
Was that my choice or was I destined to see it last night? I'm glad I didn't have to wait too long to get my answer.
It was a great movie. I'm usually a harsh critic, but this movie I liked and the action scenes were simply awesome. I even liked all the "choice vs destiny" talk although they did lay it on too thick at some times.
I love it! One of the problems that the article touches upon is that the royalties, etc, will go on for 70 years... That means by the 60th year, there will be 3 generations of descendants that will be fighting over the royalties of this money!!! Imagine how many great-great-great grandchildren there will be that will be fighting over the money! The lawyers will be the ones making the most money, that's for sure!
Isn't the great? They try so hard to keep control of their copyrights until decades after they die, presumably to help their descendants, but we know what will actually happen: greed will overtake them all and cause the family to be torn apart! I love it, what great revenge!
I have a friend whose grandmother passed away, leaving a rather large cottage which is being shared between her several children and their children. Already, the fights that are brewing because they can't have access to this cottage is causing family strife, and we're talking about a stupid $20,000 cottage!
Imagine how many fights there will be over potentially millions of dollars for the royalties for some of the stuff out there, like June Rowland/Harry Potter, or Stephen King, etc.
Sorry, but there wasn't enough info on either of the links...
Does this mean that they will be using X-rays on us everytime we pass through a security checkpoint?
Already I question how safe all that stuff is, especially standing in front of the opening of the X-ray machine while I put my carry-ons on the conveyor belt.
Although the technology is really cool, is this something I want to subject myself to, especially if I am a business traveller?
I think that SCO is suing over trade secrets that IBM disclosed, nothing to do with patents or copyright.
What, you're tired of touching her?
It's not just that.
If a few companies control access, then it means that the ISPs are not free as well.
So you can go and write anything you want, because the ISP may pull it because they may be "legally liable" or "against their terms of service".
Let's say you are against the war, and you set up a web site about that. What if the big media corporation shuts it down because it was "bad for their business" or whatever. So you host your own web site on your home computer via DSL, and then the phone company shuts you down, because they could be legally liable for whatever is on their networks or you had broken their terms of service. Where do you go next? Probably no where.
Without competition, without choice, we are all controlled. The Internet will be the watered-down reflection of what the media companies want it to be, not what we want it to be.
It's the difference between pirate radio and regular radio, or someone with their own printing press.
Someone who just sets up a pirate radio station can transmit whatever they feel like saying (despite the legalities of this). Someone who has their own printing press can write whatever they want and distribute it.
But if we don't control the actual physical layer, or if the physical layer is owned by a oligopoly of media companies, they can squish us like an insignificant bug.
This is what Lessig is talking about.
The "death" that he describes is not the fact that the Internet will get disconnected. This death is the death of the virtual freedom we have enjoyed for almost 10 years in terms of the nerds and techies doing whatever we wanted because we were one step ahead of everyone.
We could build our own web sites and make billions of dollars. We could write our own blogs telling whoever wanted to read it if we wanted. We could set up a web site that blasted a corporation that we hated or warning people of the problems with certain products. We were able to help the little guys such as the protesters organize against government oppressions by having centralized web sites that the government couldn't hack into.
The death that Lessig fears is this death. I'm quite confident that we will always have an Internet that will give us the latest stock quotes, the movie times, tv schedules, weather, etc. Losing the new freedom we have acquired over the past 10 years is something far more precious.
One thing not mentioned is ip addresses and NAT. Are you going to use NAT or will each unit have their own ip address?
If you go with NAT, how will this affect the users, especially the gamers? Will the hardware that you buy support multiple people using udp (ie. quake, counterstrike, etc) in a NAT configuration? I'm not a guru, but that would seem to be hard... not super-hard, but hard because you have 160 units connected. If several units are trying to play cs on the same server, can NAT actually solve this problem, since the traffic is udp? If it doesn't, will this generate a support call to you?
What about VPN (ie, pptp, or ipsec)? Some firewalls can only support one pptp VPN connection out, so you would probably want something smarter.... or do you disallow VPN? Then people who wanted to work from home won't be able to.
What about accountability? What if you are using NAT, and someone in a unit distributes kiddie porn, and the FBI comes knocking on your door. Will you be able to figure out who did it?
Like many other people have mentioned, support is the key.... if you advertise this internet connection, and it goes down, will you be liable for any losses? If some people work at home, and the connection drops, will there be someone around to debug the issue? Will the people who work from home be SOL? Is there's a problem with the T1 connection, you will still get the phone call, and you would have to phone the ISP....
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but these are just some things to consider.
I completely agree. I'm not a creationist, but I fully support their right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't shove it down my throat.
I work with plenty of devout Hindus, and their beliefs are complete foreign to me (don't eat cows because they are sacred animals, they believe in not just one god, but many different gods, etc). Personally, I don't subscribe to any of it, but that's just my own personal belief, they are completely free to believe whatever they want, and who knows, they could be right and I could be wrong!
Why is it that creationists are so looked down upon, but other religions that, for example, believe that the world is sitting on an elephant that is sitting on a turtle are okay? Is it because it is expected that white people in North America should know better, but non-whites are free to believe whatever they want?!? That to me seems at the very least bigotted.
I've always thought that Web Services is just a rip-off of ONC-RPC (the basis behind NFS, NIS, NIS+):
.x file, WS uses wsdl.
RPC uses XDR to marshal data, Web Services uses XML.
RPC uses TLI as the transport mechanism, WS uses HTTP.
RPC uses
RPC uses portmapper to advertise services, WS uses UDDI.
It's not very much different, and as long as this guy didn't explicitly define XML, I don't see how his patent is valid.
Kids spend far too much time watching TV and doing nothing real.
Why not pick up a baseball and teach them to throw? (You do know how to throw a ball, don't you?)
Maybe bring them to the science museum, or teach them how to build models, or get a chemistry set and teach them about basic chemistry.
How about going on hikes into the forest, or biking, or playing street hockey, or soccer, or throw a frisbee around?
Why the hell would you want to teach an 8 year-old kid to sit on their ass in front of a computer screen at such a young age?!?!? They have plenty of time to do that shit during college, hell that's when I started.
Forget Virtual Reality and think Real Reality, bro.