I know someone who put himself through school to get a phd in optical design and spent every waking moment writing a better piece of optical design software. His software did 95% of what the major players in the optical design market did for 10% of the price. He published version 1.0 and before he knew it there were pirate copies showing up all over the place. Version 1.01 came along with a DONGOL to protect his Intellectual Property. The software is well into version 10, years later and it still comes with a DONGOL.
And what does this have to do with patents?
Hint: If the major players had owned a relevant patent, then he wouldn't have had gotten anything for his hard work, except for a lawsuit from those major players who wouldn't like him to take away their business. That's because unlike copyright, patents cover every creation, even one which you did yourself without even knowing the existing stuff. That's the main difference to copyright: If you come up with something on your own, and can proof that, you're safe. With patents, you're not.
In Bill Bryson's book A Short History of Nearly Everything, he writes that:
Alexander von Humboldt observed: "There are three stages in a scientific discovery: first, people deny that it is true; then they deny that it is important; finally they credit the wrong person."
It's funny until you realize how true it is. The whole book is extremely interesting, very funny and quite relevant to this topic. So when you don't manage to be the person who discovers it, then you still have a change to be the person who is credited for it.:-)
I don't know when the space elevator will be ready. But from what I deduce from TFA, once the elevator is there, it will probably be edible ! And cure any cancer you got due to cosmic radiation while in space.
If you present them with the actual cost of windows, rather than the ubiquitous perception of "free", they will be compelled to see the real value...
Of course the problem is that for most people, Windows is "free" because they get it preinstalled on the computer. I'd bet only a minority of home users install a different version of Windows later. They usually get their next OS with the next computer.
I'll believe that it is the year of Linux on the Desktop when I see the first TV commercial for a computer with Linux preinstalled.
So why do they count the forced bundled XP that came on my notebook and never even booted, being replaced by linux from the break as a windows sale?
You didn't first test that the notebook really works, so that the seller couldn't claim it was your change to Linux which caused any problems you faced?
Well, according to the first summary, Linux on the desktop might double this year. According to the last sentence, it's currently at 0.8%. That means, this year it might raise to 1.6%. I'd not call that "the year of the Linux desktop".
However, if the doubling continues in the following years, Linux will reach 51.2% in five years (which obviously would be the end of the yearly doubling). Of course, there's a big if there...
Well, for Skype the externally encrypted audio stream would just be an audio stream like any other (it would encrypt it again, but that wouldn't actually matter). It doesn't have to support your external audio encryption, it just has to faithfully submit your externally encrypted audio stream.
Of course Skype doesn't come with that extra hardware. The extra hardware I'm speaking of would sit in between your microphone and the microphone jack of your computer (and the same foe your earphone). The audio data your computer (including your earphone driver) received would already be encrypted.
Yes, that's not hardware you get as standard with your computer, but I'd be very surprised if it didn't already exist. After all, conceptionally it's damn easy: Digitize the original sound, encrypt it, and then modulate it into sound waves again, and the reverse at the other end. Each single step is already standard technology, you just have to put it together.
Well, my reply was about the "speaking encrypted" part. I probably should have been more explicit about that. My point is, if you do it in hardware outside your computer (and if you are really interested in having safely encrypted communication, you'll likely be willing to invest more than $15 for that), then even a trojan will not have a chance to get at the decrypted data. It will be as-if speaking encrypted (except that someone might physically replace your hardware, of course, but that can't be done remotely; also you could take that hardware with you and only plug it in when you want to make an encrypted call).
Of course you could simply do that by having a piece of hardware between your microphone and computer which encrypts the sound before it enters the computer, and another one between computer and earphones which decrypts again. In that case the unencrypted voice data wouldn't even enter the computer, so no sort of software could intercept it.
Indeed, the sender and receiver hardware could even communicate over the sound connection, in order to provide an SSL-like authorization protocol.
To redirect the user from www.criminals.com to www.police.de, they only have to intercept DNS calls (unless the criminals have edited their/etc/hosts or Windows equivalent, but if they get a trojan in, that shouldn't be too hard to change as well). The only thing which might be problematic is to get a valid certificate. But then, they probably can get that by just connecting themselves (which they'll do anyway if they do a man-in-the-middle). AFAIK the certificate only contains the domain name, not the server IP, so since the browser thinks it's connected with www.criminals.com, it will accept the original certificate for the fake server. I'm no SSL expert, though, so I may be missing something here.
I re-read the post you replied to several times, but couldn't find the place where it advocated replacing the cache memory with DRAM. Instead it was about new memory technology yet to be found. Here's the relevant quote, with emphasis by me:
"If you can find a CMOS-compatible, high-density (e.g. - SRAM's six transistors per cell is toooo big) memory technology, then we're going to be at the point where we can simply replace the cache memory with on-board memory. If said on-chip memory technology is nonvolatile, then we're talking panacea cakes, batman."
I'm interested to see your non-volatile DRAM.:-)
OK, I grant you that he didn't explicitly talk about performance requirements. However, if he considered DRAM as sufficient, why would he have asked for new memory technology?
Re:Thieves show their true nature yet again
on
RIAA Website Hacked
·
· Score: 1
I didn't know that complaining about the RIAA is now a crime.
You seem to take the mistaken view that everyone who complains about the RIAA etc. also does filesharing. Well, I've got news for you: While there's certainly a large intersection of both groups, they are not identical. I for one am very pissed by the current developments of copyright legislation, DRM etc. But I've never in my life started a file sharing program. Neither to download, nor to upload.
That doesn't mean I buy lots of CDs or DVDs, though. But then, they still get their share for every data backup I do, because of the fees on the blank CDs/DVDs. Not that those backups contain anything they have the copyright on, mind you.
Well, at least those robots cannot have been from the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. The RIAA wouldn't ever buy from a company with the motto "share and enjoy!"
Finally something that looks at least remotely like data!
If you read again what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't argue either way (your tone lets me assume you read into my post an argument for power-cycling), but instead said that the arguments given don't allow to get to that conclusion, because there are arguments for the other side as well.
Now if you could at least put some approximate numbers (how many "average" users, how many "greenies", and is there any 24/7 data besides your statistically insignificant 6 HDDs?), maybe it would finally allow me to form an informed opinion instead of getting ever more anecdotes and insufficient rationalizations.
Each harddrive read or write shortens its lifespan.
So does every revolution of the platters. The number of which is reduced if the hard disk doesn't run all the time. So the question is what matters more: Several hours of rotation, or a few minutes of heavy head movement. And of course if any of them is relevant relative to other failure modes, like head crash or failing electronics (thinking about it, failing electronics should also be more probable if the hard disk is constantly powered on).
What about the patch install at power-on? After all, as long as the computer is off, it doesn't matter if the patch is already installed. Just have the computers look for updates as part of the boot process.
Slashdot Mirror
And what does this have to do with patents?
Hint: If the major players had owned a relevant patent, then he wouldn't have had gotten anything for his hard work, except for a lawsuit from those major players who wouldn't like him to take away their business. That's because unlike copyright, patents cover every creation, even one which you did yourself without even knowing the existing stuff. That's the main difference to copyright: If you come up with something on your own, and can proof that, you're safe. With patents, you're not.
So the correct reaction when your neighbour buys a gun is to hold yours that you already have on his head?
It's funny until you realize how true it is. The whole book is extremely interesting, very funny and quite relevant to this topic. So when you don't manage to be the person who discovers it, then you still have a change to be the person who is credited for it.
Well, then we'll just update the entry to "mostly harmless." Problem solved.
I don't know when the space elevator will be ready.
But from what I deduce from TFA, once the elevator is there, it will probably be edible ! And cure any cancer you got due to cosmic radiation while in space.
Of course the problem is that for most people, Windows is "free" because they get it preinstalled on the computer. I'd bet only a minority of home users install a different version of Windows later. They usually get their next OS with the next computer.
I'll believe that it is the year of Linux on the Desktop when I see the first TV commercial for a computer with Linux preinstalled.
You didn't first test that the notebook really works, so that the seller couldn't claim it was your change to Linux which caused any problems you faced?
You surely meant on 102.4% - remember, it's doubling from 0.8%, not from 1%.
Well, according to the first summary, Linux on the desktop might double this year. According to the last sentence, it's currently at 0.8%. That means, this year it might raise to 1.6%. I'd not call that "the year of the Linux desktop".
...
However, if the doubling continues in the following years, Linux will reach 51.2% in five years (which obviously would be the end of the yearly doubling). Of course, there's a big if there
But couldn't the kernel just re-map a page from the calling process to the device driver's one? Then no extra copying would be required.
Your patent violates my patent on patenting patent-based business methods.
Well, for Skype the externally encrypted audio stream would just be an audio stream like any other (it would encrypt it again, but that wouldn't actually matter). It doesn't have to support your external audio encryption, it just has to faithfully submit your externally encrypted audio stream.
Of course Skype doesn't come with that extra hardware. The extra hardware I'm speaking of would sit in between your microphone and the microphone jack of your computer (and the same foe your earphone). The audio data your computer (including your earphone driver) received would already be encrypted.
Yes, that's not hardware you get as standard with your computer, but I'd be very surprised if it didn't already exist. After all, conceptionally it's damn easy: Digitize the original sound, encrypt it, and then modulate it into sound waves again, and the reverse at the other end. Each single step is already standard technology, you just have to put it together.
Well, my reply was about the "speaking encrypted" part. I probably should have been more explicit about that. My point is, if you do it in hardware outside your computer (and if you are really interested in having safely encrypted communication, you'll likely be willing to invest more than $15 for that), then even a trojan will not have a chance to get at the decrypted data. It will be as-if speaking encrypted (except that someone might physically replace your hardware, of course, but that can't be done remotely; also you could take that hardware with you and only plug it in when you want to make an encrypted call).
According to http://www.esrockt.com/bayerntrojaner-hoert-skype-gespraeche-ab/ (German language), it only works on Windows.
Of course you could simply do that by having a piece of hardware between your microphone and computer which encrypts the sound before it enters the computer, and another one between computer and earphones which decrypts again. In that case the unencrypted voice data wouldn't even enter the computer, so no sort of software could intercept it.
Indeed, the sender and receiver hardware could even communicate over the sound connection, in order to provide an SSL-like authorization protocol.
To redirect the user from www.criminals.com to www.police.de, they only have to intercept DNS calls (unless the criminals have edited their /etc/hosts or Windows equivalent, but if they get a trojan in, that shouldn't be too hard to change as well). The only thing which might be problematic is to get a valid certificate. But then, they probably can get that by just connecting themselves (which they'll do anyway if they do a man-in-the-middle). AFAIK the certificate only contains the domain name, not the server IP, so since the browser thinks it's connected with www.criminals.com, it will accept the original certificate for the fake server. I'm no SSL expert, though, so I may be missing something here.
I re-read the post you replied to several times, but couldn't find the place where it advocated replacing the cache memory with DRAM. Instead it was about new memory technology yet to be found. Here's the relevant quote, with emphasis by me:
:-)
"If you can find a CMOS-compatible, high-density (e.g. - SRAM's six transistors per cell is toooo big) memory technology, then we're going to be at the point where we can simply replace the cache memory with on-board memory. If said on-chip memory technology is nonvolatile, then we're talking panacea cakes, batman."
I'm interested to see your non-volatile DRAM.
OK, I grant you that he didn't explicitly talk about performance requirements. However, if he considered DRAM as sufficient, why would he have asked for new memory technology?
I didn't know that complaining about the RIAA is now a crime.
You seem to take the mistaken view that everyone who complains about the RIAA etc. also does filesharing. Well, I've got news for you: While there's certainly a large intersection of both groups, they are not identical. I for one am very pissed by the current developments of copyright legislation, DRM etc. But I've never in my life started a file sharing program. Neither to download, nor to upload.
That doesn't mean I buy lots of CDs or DVDs, though. But then, they still get their share for every data backup I do, because of the fees on the blank CDs/DVDs. Not that those backups contain anything they have the copyright on, mind you.
Well, at least those robots cannot have been from the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. The RIAA wouldn't ever buy from a company with the motto "share and enjoy!"
Finally something that looks at least remotely like data!
If you read again what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't argue either way (your tone lets me assume you read into my post an argument for power-cycling), but instead said that the arguments given don't allow to get to that conclusion, because there are arguments for the other side as well.
Now if you could at least put some approximate numbers (how many "average" users, how many "greenies", and is there any 24/7 data besides your statistically insignificant 6 HDDs?), maybe it would finally allow me to form an informed opinion instead of getting ever more anecdotes and insufficient rationalizations.
What's the problem with long shutdowns? After all, you don't have to wait until the shutdown has finished, do you?
So does every revolution of the platters. The number of which is reduced if the hard disk doesn't run all the time. So the question is what matters more: Several hours of rotation, or a few minutes of heavy head movement. And of course if any of them is relevant relative to other failure modes, like head crash or failing electronics (thinking about it, failing electronics should also be more probable if the hard disk is constantly powered on).
What about the patch install at power-on? After all, as long as the computer is off, it doesn't matter if the patch is already installed. Just have the computers look for updates as part of the boot process.