It may not be in the Constitution, but it should be.
A Constitutional lawyer you are not. In fact, the only two job openings I can see for you after that statement are:
1. Liberal activist judge.
2. Village idiot.
And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet -- and at a whole lot lower cost than the helmet itself?
Actually, DeCSS circumvents a copy-protection feature
You completely missed the original poster's point (one I would have made but he got there first) that CSS is not, and never was,copy protection. There is nothing about CSS that prevents a bit-by-bit copy of the disc. All that CSS does is attempt to prevent viewing on unapproved and/or out of region players. That's it! Nothing more!
Calling it copy protection distorts the entire argument!
Today the RIAA cheered the discovery of defective hard drives. "Defective hard drives will not be used to store pirated songs and movies from illegal P2P networks," their spokesman said, adding, "We're calling on our paid-for friends in Congress to mandate defective hard drives for all users."
While SCO has yet to be heard from, rumors are that they will drop all suits against users who certify that they only use defective drives in their Linux systems.
The article fails to answer the important questions for us all.
1. What is the yield of this process technology?
2. Does this yield go up as the process matures?
3. Does Moore's Law apply to supernova production?
4. Can you get a refund/exchange on dud supernovas, or do they just provide firmware updates?
5. Are supernovas legal for use in 4th of July celebrations in states that otherwise permit fireworks?
6. Does the EPA regulate supernovas, or do they fall under BATF?
7. Do you need a CCW permit to carry a concealed supernova?
8. Are supernova futures traded on the NASDAQ yet?
9. Have the Democrats figured out a way to tax supernovas (since they fall in the highest out-go bracket)?
10. Have the Republicans managed to regulate what supernovas can do in the privacy of their own interstellar gas clouds?
11. Can the RIAA/MPAA use the DMCA to sue supernovas suspected of being P2P traders?
You dont have to have any previous knowledge of a patent to violate it.
I don't believe they can patent the look and feel of Unix. Those suits were lost a long time ago.
While they might well be able to patent the exact code of a unix implementation, if Linus wrote his own code from scratch, or derived it (as other posters have said) from Minix, it would seem his code and methods of implementation are not any patented by any other person.
Unless a process patent (i.e. a patent on anything that implements "Unix" exists) -- which I completely doubt -- I don't see how Linus's code could be considered patented by anyone else.
Besides, I was using Unix in 1977. Those ideas have to be either prior art or expired patents by now.
McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds
SCO really does seem to want to make an enemy out of absolutely everyone left on Earth.
Excuse me, but didn't Linus actually write Linux from scratch to duplicate the functionality of the existing Unix systems -- or do I misremember those early days?
Lossy compressed music files aren't first gen. And I don't see much song-length swapping going on in.wav files, which I would consider first gen copies. Yes the higher bit rate, compressed music files at higher rates are very listenable and capable of further distribution without additional losses, but not to be confused with the original CDs -- which themselves are often a notch or more below original studio tapes these days.
And I haven't been giving rationalizations for obtaining use of a product without providing compensation to the originators. I've only been pointing out how impercise and overblown these types of statements are.
If you can't argue precisely, why should I take you seriously?
Btw, who says you can't make a profit selling what the consumer can otherwise get for free? How else can you explain the success of bottled water?
It's obvious the poster has ZERO understanding of IP routing
You're just not going to be nice, are you. Glad you're not moderating today. I'd get all 5 of your minus points.
Let me expand for you on a couple of possibilities.
Institutions like MIT and companies like HP among others have Class A allocations (16M IPv4 addresses each) which they use internally to uniquely identify every computer in their organizations. (I've been at HP, and MIT is dicussed here otherwise.) Of this allocation, very few of these machines are exposed to the outside world in ways that can't, and shouldn't, be NATted by their firewalls. By identifying the small subset of exposed, public IP address, an internal network with its own routing tables can reuse all the remaining ones themselves with no modifications required. This alone could give over a large percentage of the possible IPv4 addresses for reuse to any entity with centralized control (e.g. China, maybe India) over their country's Internet infrastructure who also needs more IP address for internal use. Then people like China can reserve their 22M allocation for exposed, public IP address for the world at large. Yes, even those will run out eventually, but probably not in the next 2 years.
A second way is to identify a packet as internal to your network, or external to the Internet at large, using an otherwise available flag bit at the sender's end and let your customized routers direct it accordingly internal to your network, or external to the world at large. This is already the way 192.*.*.* address work. Maybe extra work for the sender to identify the network s/he wants. Perhaps can be automated.
Yes these are non-worldwide standard approches, but hardly unworkable.
I said a little bit of cleverness is involved, but within your own network you can set your own rules. So chill a byte before someone mods you down for flaming. After all, you don't know me well enough yet to dislike me that much.
I wonder if ISPs would still be able to charge extra for a static IP address after the conversion to IPv6? After all, the argument now is the supposed scarcity of them that commands premium prices.
When that final address is used up in a couple of years, the online world will grind to a halt.
Now there is an overblown statement worthy of any politician. The world would not grind to a halt. The expansion would just cease until the solution everyone keeps avoiding (IPv6) becomes truly necessary.
China, for example, was assigned 22 million IP addresses (for a population of 1.3 billion)
Given that China has already firewalled the whole country, why don't they just NAT the whole country as well. Then, with a little cleverness, they can have the whole address space available to them alone.
Slashdot Mirror
A Constitutional lawyer you are not. In fact, the only two job openings I can see for you after that statement are:
1. Liberal activist judge.
2. Village idiot.
10,000 radio & TV stations
1,000 channels
100 years of broadcast history
10< owners
And still nothing to watch.
And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet -- and at a whole lot lower cost than the helmet itself?
Peace has been given many chances, and failed all of them.
Peace is a result of total victory after war -- not inspite of it.
Peace does not work because someone will always attempt to take advantage of it.
You're an idiot whom I am very thankful has very little influence over my own personal safety.
Difficult on two counts:
1: Until it's tested in court, there's no reason to believe any new contract would be any more secure than the current one.
2: Any new "contract" might not automatically be applicable to all software released under the previous contract.
Much better to have the current contract ruled completely valid compared to any of the alternatives.
Consider that this could be an effort to get the courts to rule that the GPL can be revoked after the fact. If that happens, it would be big!
Once something can be done, afterwards there is only the drawing of the line on where it will be done.
Not to feed the conspiracy theorists too much, but AOL just did have a big settlement with MS, who would benifit greatly from any damage done to GPL.
IIRC they never sued anyone over Gnutella distribution and/or modifications.
But could such a system be GPL'd and source released? Blowfish is mature, well regarded, and (IIRC) in the public domain for use.
If it's void, then how can you revoke it?
If it's revoked how can it be terminated?
If it's terminated, does that terminate it's void-ness?
Do all these terms cancel out?
I'd say that the real mistake would have been checking with the high-up first.
It's easier to beg for forgivness afterwards, than ask for permission first.
They do own it. Remember, DeCSS was written for Linux!
WRONG! It could be used for circumventing region encoding restrictions, not copy protection (i.e. preventing the making of exact copies).
You completely missed the original poster's point (one I would have made but he got there first) that CSS is not, and never was, copy protection. There is nothing about CSS that prevents a bit-by-bit copy of the disc. All that CSS does is attempt to prevent viewing on unapproved and/or out of region players. That's it! Nothing more!
Calling it copy protection distorts the entire argument!
While SCO has yet to be heard from, rumors are that they will drop all suits against users who certify that they only use defective drives in their Linux systems.
Is that, perchance, your own referral number in the URL?
I found a shorter on of http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-fo rm/103-5576298-7316661 going there directly.
1. What is the yield of this process technology?
2. Does this yield go up as the process matures?
3. Does Moore's Law apply to supernova production?
4. Can you get a refund/exchange on dud supernovas, or do they just provide firmware updates?
5. Are supernovas legal for use in 4th of July celebrations in states that otherwise permit fireworks?
6. Does the EPA regulate supernovas, or do they fall under BATF?
7. Do you need a CCW permit to carry a concealed supernova?
8. Are supernova futures traded on the NASDAQ yet?
9. Have the Democrats figured out a way to tax supernovas (since they fall in the highest out-go bracket)?
10. Have the Republicans managed to regulate what supernovas can do in the privacy of their own interstellar gas clouds?
11. Can the RIAA/MPAA use the DMCA to sue supernovas suspected of being P2P traders?
Yes, where are the real answers?
I don't believe they can patent the look and feel of Unix. Those suits were lost a long time ago.
While they might well be able to patent the exact code of a unix implementation, if Linus wrote his own code from scratch, or derived it (as other posters have said) from Minix, it would seem his code and methods of implementation are not any patented by any other person.
Unless a process patent (i.e. a patent on anything that implements "Unix" exists) -- which I completely doubt -- I don't see how Linus's code could be considered patented by anyone else.
Besides, I was using Unix in 1977. Those ideas have to be either prior art or expired patents by now.
Then again: IANAL.
True. But not against prior art.
SCO really does seem to want to make an enemy out of absolutely everyone left on Earth.
Excuse me, but didn't Linus actually write Linux from scratch to duplicate the functionality of the existing Unix systems -- or do I misremember those early days?
Is the day for muddy thinking, or is it just me?
Lossy compressed music files aren't first gen. And I don't see much song-length swapping going on in .wav files, which I would consider first gen copies. Yes the higher bit rate, compressed music files at higher rates are very listenable and capable of further distribution without additional losses, but not to be confused with the original CDs -- which themselves are often a notch or more below original studio tapes these days.
And I haven't been giving rationalizations for obtaining use of a product without providing compensation to the originators. I've only been pointing out how impercise and overblown these types of statements are.
If you can't argue precisely, why should I take you seriously?
Btw, who says you can't make a profit selling what the consumer can otherwise get for free? How else can you explain the success of bottled water?
You're just not going to be nice, are you. Glad you're not moderating today. I'd get all 5 of your minus points.
Let me expand for you on a couple of possibilities.
Institutions like MIT and companies like HP among others have Class A allocations (16M IPv4 addresses each) which they use internally to uniquely identify every computer in their organizations. (I've been at HP, and MIT is dicussed here otherwise.) Of this allocation, very few of these machines are exposed to the outside world in ways that can't, and shouldn't, be NATted by their firewalls. By identifying the small subset of exposed, public IP address, an internal network with its own routing tables can reuse all the remaining ones themselves with no modifications required. This alone could give over a large percentage of the possible IPv4 addresses for reuse to any entity with centralized control (e.g. China, maybe India) over their country's Internet infrastructure who also needs more IP address for internal use. Then people like China can reserve their 22M allocation for exposed, public IP address for the world at large. Yes, even those will run out eventually, but probably not in the next 2 years.
A second way is to identify a packet as internal to your network, or external to the Internet at large, using an otherwise available flag bit at the sender's end and let your customized routers direct it accordingly internal to your network, or external to the world at large. This is already the way 192.*.*.* address work. Maybe extra work for the sender to identify the network s/he wants. Perhaps can be automated.
Yes these are non-worldwide standard approches, but hardly unworkable.
I said a little bit of cleverness is involved, but within your own network you can set your own rules. So chill a byte before someone mods you down for flaming. After all, you don't know me well enough yet to dislike me that much.
I wonder if ISPs would still be able to charge extra for a static IP address after the conversion to IPv6? After all, the argument now is the supposed scarcity of them that commands premium prices.
It wasn't redundant when I started composing that post.
Now there is an overblown statement worthy of any politician. The world would not grind to a halt. The expansion would just cease until the solution everyone keeps avoiding (IPv6) becomes truly necessary.
Time to buy Cicso again.
Given that China has already firewalled the whole country, why don't they just NAT the whole country as well. Then, with a little cleverness, they can have the whole address space available to them alone.