How about a device that will detect a RFID scanner and broadcast a stream of random ids allowing you "hide in the crowd"? Or possibly an RFID jammer that just prevents the RFID from activating in the first place?
Friends in the nursing professions all use analog watches. It's apparently difficult to take a pulse with a digital. Counting while watching a number changing is hard on the ol' brain.
I have opted to wage a personal war against spammers. Here's my battle plan:
Roughly once each week, I go fishing through the spam that has been filtered out of my various accounts for URLs. (Sometimes this involves a little digging to get to the final site.) I extract the host names from the URLs and for each hostname, I create 10 fake email addresses.
I pack these emails into messages that I post to Usenet in groups likely to be trolled by Spammers.
The spammers scrape these addresses from Usenet and add them to their database. Thus, future mailings will also spam the spammer's clients.
If enough people do this, the generated traffic will begin to overload the client's mail server.
After a while the spammer's clients will figure out that every time they employ a spammer, they themselves get spammed.
Even if nothing comes of this, I get the satisfaction of knowing the real perpetrator (the spammer's client) gets to share some of my pain.
This seems like typical overreaction. The concern expressed in the article is that there are no regulations on bio-prospecting. Heck, they even admit, "We're not saying there's much danger of environmental damage."
And "bio-prospecting" is such a loaded term. "Prospector" evokes images of an old, grizzled prospector wearing filthy clothes, leading an overburdened pack mule and "lookin' fer gold in them thar hills."
We don't label physicists "particle-prospectors", after all.
I'm asking if you know whether your interpretation of IBM's patent is synonymous with how they state they will actually use it, and how you know this.
You're asking for predictions here. To the best of my knowledge, IBM has made no statement of how they will use this patent.
The sites likely to be affected if IBM chooses to enforce this are not
probably not worth very much. A few sites might be able to afford licensing; most will close or move overseas. I doubt IBM would make enough to pay their layers. The only use for this patent that I can see is cross-licensing. At my previous employer, we referred to this as a defensive patent.
Given the number of patents IBM files, I can see as how the term "defensive" might not apply in their case.
You seem to be under the impression that I am somehow speaking for IBM. I am not. I am merely stating my opinion based on my experiences with software patents. This patent should have no noticible effect on OSD. It only describes a method of soliciting bids for piecemeal development work on a larger project.
Preventing OSD would be very much against IBM's best interests.
jbn-o wrote:
No it wouldn't, because "open source" was defined to work with business, giving businesses a great deal of what they want in order to champion their licenses and chase this movement's message of practical superiority. Fortunately, the most widely used license this movement gave a thumbs-up to--the GNU General Public License--was written by people with software freedom for all computer users at the heart of their movement.
The issue is not Open Source, the issue is getting paid to develop Open Source. If IBM attempts to enforce this patent how does it benefit them?
It doesn't. There is no benefit to IBM by preventing people from being paid to develop Open Source. In fact, the more Other Companies fund OSD, the less cost there is to IBM. In a closed source model, whoever develops the code has control, making it advantageous to limit who's allowed to develop. But, in an Open Source model, by definition, everyone benefits; restricting paid development would just mean you foot the bill for everyone else.
Now suppose SCO had come up with the idea of this patent? Their lawyers would be working (even more) overtime to block anyone who paid developers to infringe on their precious #defines, and they would have a patent in their favor. Patents can be overturned, but that is expensive and doesn't happen all that often.
By obtaining this patent, IBM has prevented SCO (or anyone else) from attempting to block paid OSD. I fully expect IBM will make not any attempt to enforce this patent.
Of course, that's not the way it will play in MPAA's version of reality. Just watch, all the focus will be on Sprague while Caridi will fade into the background. The fact that most of the leaks came from an industry insider will be quietly swept under the carpet.
(I'm not saying Sprague should go free, just that he couldn't have done it without Caridi.)
Posix defines that you pass O_RDONLY when you want open to open a file in read only mode and the is that file is not present, errno will have the value ENOENT.
The API standards do not define the value of these symbols.
I've followed most of the SCO nonsense over the past year, but somehow in all of that I missed something....
In SCO's letter it is talking about the Unix ABIs. I had always assumed the issue involved actual code (e.g., the buffer management code). But they're talking about ABIs here.
For those that haven't dealt directly with ABIs, here's the skinny...
When you want to open a file you issue a command like:
int fd = open("/etc/motd", O_RDONLY);
if (fd == -1 && errno == ENOENT) {
printf("File does not exist\n");
}
The ABI defines the value of O_RDONLY (0) and the value of ENOENT (2). Without an ABI, one vendor (vendorA) might use the values 0 and 2 while another (vendorB) might use the values 1 and 3. Thus while you would have source compatability (code using the macros O_RDONLY and ENOENT will compile anywhere), you would not have binary compatability (code compiled with vendorA's headers will not run in vendorB's environment).
What all this means is: SCO is basing their case on the values of #defines!
This is precisely why we see no obvious evolution of the human species. The lawyers won't let us kill off those who should never be allowed to procreate.
Of course, it could be argued that that is a survival instinct on the part of lawyers.
Note: that only works on XP Pro. XP Home does not have gpedit. However, you can achieve much the same effect by going to the services control panel and disabling 'Themes'.
I hope they're not throwing the baby (Mindstorms) out with the bathwater (Potter/Star Wars/Bionicle).
In my mind, the Mindstorms product is in keeping with the original Legos line. Generic pieces that you can use to build anything.
The kits out there today give you exactly what you need to build 2 or 3 models and little more. If you can think of something else to build, you invariablely either don't have the right shapes, or you don't have enough pieces.
If they don't keep Mindstorms, can someone else release a Mindstorms equivalent?
Or, does DMCA prevent the construction of something that will attach to a Lego brick?
That's why we need NOTA aka Voter Consent laws.
NOTA - None Of The Above - adds either a "None of the Above; For New Election" or "Prefer None of the Above" choice to ballots. The first form is called a "Binding NOTA", the second is a "non-binding NOTA".
NOTA gives voters the opportunity to actively state that they don't like any of the candidates. With a binding NOTA, if the majority of votes go to NOTA, no one is elected and the process begins again. In a non-binding NOTA, the populace get to express their opinion, but the candidate with the most votes still wins.
Nevada has had non-binding NOTA on the books since 1976. This past summer, Massachusetts passed the first binding NOTA. It goes into effect in 2005.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a device that will detect a RFID scanner and broadcast a stream of random ids allowing you "hide in the crowd"? Or possibly an RFID jammer that just prevents the RFID from activating in the first place?
Friends in the nursing professions all use analog watches. It's apparently difficult to take a pulse with a digital. Counting while watching a number changing is hard on the ol' brain.
Roughly once each week, I go fishing through the spam that has been filtered out of my various accounts for URLs. (Sometimes this involves a little digging to get to the final site.) I extract the host names from the URLs and for each hostname, I create 10 fake email addresses.
I pack these emails into messages that I post to Usenet in groups likely to be trolled by Spammers. The spammers scrape these addresses from Usenet and add them to their database. Thus, future mailings will also spam the spammer's clients.
If enough people do this, the generated traffic will begin to overload the client's mail server. After a while the spammer's clients will figure out that every time they employ a spammer, they themselves get spammed.
Even if nothing comes of this, I get the satisfaction of knowing the real perpetrator (the spammer's client) gets to share some of my pain.
And "bio-prospecting" is such a loaded term. "Prospector" evokes images of an old, grizzled prospector wearing filthy clothes, leading an overburdened pack mule and "lookin' fer gold in them thar hills." We don't label physicists "particle-prospectors", after all.
The sites likely to be affected if IBM chooses to enforce this are not probably not worth very much. A few sites might be able to afford licensing; most will close or move overseas. I doubt IBM would make enough to pay their layers. The only use for this patent that I can see is cross-licensing. At my previous employer, we referred to this as a defensive patent.
Given the number of patents IBM files, I can see as how the term "defensive" might not apply in their case.
You seem to be under the impression that I am somehow speaking for IBM. I am not. I am merely stating my opinion based on my experiences with software patents. This patent should have no noticible effect on OSD. It only describes a method of soliciting bids for piecemeal development work on a larger project.
It doesn't. There is no benefit to IBM by preventing people from being paid to develop Open Source. In fact, the more Other Companies fund OSD, the less cost there is to IBM. In a closed source model, whoever develops the code has control, making it advantageous to limit who's allowed to develop. But, in an Open Source model, by definition, everyone benefits; restricting paid development would just mean you foot the bill for everyone else.
Now suppose SCO had come up with the idea of this patent? Their lawyers would be working (even more) overtime to block anyone who paid developers to infringe on their precious #defines, and they would have a patent in their favor. Patents can be overturned, but that is expensive and doesn't happen all that often.
By obtaining this patent, IBM has prevented SCO (or anyone else) from attempting to block paid OSD. I fully expect IBM will make not any attempt to enforce this patent.
Preventing OSD would be very much against IBM's best interests.
However...
Imagine if SCO owned this patent. They would be doing their best to extort anyone trying to pay open source developers.
The one that make me go squick is people who leverage the word "leverage" when the should really use the word "use".
SCO claiming they have the rights to:
makes about as much sense as when Intel tried to trademark the number 386.
(Ducks flying produce.)
If they said they were arresting "one CarrotTop" I would be concerned that there might be more than one of him!
Of course, that's not the way it will play in MPAA's version of reality. Just watch, all the focus will be on Sprague while Caridi will fade into the background. The fact that most of the leaks came from an industry insider will be quietly swept under the carpet.
(I'm not saying Sprague should go free, just that he couldn't have done it without Caridi.)
POSIX, et al, define the API.
Posix defines that you pass O_RDONLY when you want open to open a file in read only mode and the is that file is not present, errno will have the value ENOENT.
The API standards do not define the value of these symbols.
I've followed most of the SCO nonsense over the past year, but somehow in all of that I missed something....
In SCO's letter it is talking about the Unix ABIs. I had always assumed the issue involved actual code (e.g., the buffer management code). But they're talking about ABIs here.
For those that haven't dealt directly with ABIs, here's the skinny...
When you want to open a file you issue a command like:
The ABI defines the value of O_RDONLY (0) and the value of ENOENT (2). Without an ABI, one vendor (vendorA) might use the values 0 and 2 while another (vendorB) might use the values 1 and 3. Thus while you would have source compatability (code using the macros O_RDONLY and ENOENT will compile anywhere), you would not have binary compatability (code compiled with vendorA's headers will not run in vendorB's environment).
What all this means is: SCO is basing their case on the values of #defines!
Isn't that a feature of IPv6?
Doesn't that depend on how big your ass is?
Retired? Nah it was outsourced overseas!
Of course, it could be argued that that is a survival instinct on the part of lawyers.
Note: that only works on XP Pro. XP Home does not have gpedit. However, you can achieve much the same effect by going to the services control panel and disabling 'Themes'.
In my mind, the Mindstorms product is in keeping with the original Legos line. Generic pieces that you can use to build anything.
The kits out there today give you exactly what you need to build 2 or 3 models and little more. If you can think of something else to build, you invariablely either don't have the right shapes, or you don't have enough pieces.
If they don't keep Mindstorms, can someone else release a Mindstorms equivalent?
Or, does DMCA prevent the construction of something that will attach to a Lego brick?
NOTA gives voters the opportunity to actively state that they don't like any of the candidates. With a binding NOTA, if the majority of votes go to NOTA, no one is elected and the process begins again. In a non-binding NOTA, the populace get to express their opinion, but the candidate with the most votes still wins.
Nevada has had non-binding NOTA on the books since 1976. This past summer, Massachusetts passed the first binding NOTA. It goes into effect in 2005.
The majority of fighters are single seaters with no room to bring along an instructor.
Given the cost of modern fighter aircraft, I'd much prefer my tax dollars pay for a couple of simulators you can crash again and again.
The question is:
Was the crater there before Beagle arrived?