Yes, the flash is slightly offset over the top of the lens (overlaps the right edge of the lens as you're looking through the camera). It's probably a little more noticeable in the wedding pictures because of the gamma correction I did on a lot of those shots (the rooms were really dark). I wonder if there's a post-processing app, or a filter for PSP, that I could use to clean that up.
However, even given that flaw, I think this is one of the better cameras out there. The other ones that I was looking at were the new 3MP cameras coming out, like the Powershot S20 and the new Fuji 4700. However, they weren't available yet, and the price I got on the DC290 was just too good.
The Kodak DC290 is one of the better digital cameras I've seen. Great picture quality, decent zoom, great controls. And the scripting language (Digita) really tops it off. With that you can load apps on your camera to help you take pictures. Like things to assist with panoramic shots, or exposure settings. I've had mine for a few weeks now, and I've taken plenty of pictures. Combined with Paint Shop Pro to clean up pictures that were too dark (because of distance), the pictures are better than anything I've taken with a film camera. And the USB cable makes it pretty quick to get the pictures onto the computer.
I ended up buying mine at Accompany (now MobShop). They regularly have them for $680 to $650. And I happened on a NYTimes promo code for them, and got 20% off that. So it ended up being slightly more than $500. For a $900 camera, that's not too bad.
If you'd like to see some pictures from my camera, check out the Photos section of my web site. It's still under construction, but the pictures taken of the Explorer, as well as the pictures from the wedding and the pictures of Akamai's servers, are all from my DC290. The only ones that I cleaned up in PSP were the wedding pictures (since they were in a dark room).
Does this remind anyone else of the Ansible (sp?) in Ender's Game? It still maintains the limit on travel that is set by light speed, but removes the limit on communications. Maybe this is just another example of life imitating art.
...imitating life. If I remember correctly, the "ansible" is an sci-fi extension of a real quantum theory (how close it approximates reality, I don't know). It even came up in a previous Slashdot discussion.
Basically, the theory goes that if you have atom with two electrons in the same quantum state except for spin, and you know the spin of one of them and then change it, the spin of the other electron is changed instantly, regardless of distance. However, I think this interaction occurs at the speed of light, and not instantly. It's just that we can't tell the difference between the two because there's no way (presently) to separate the two particles by very much distance.
Even at that, Time Warner Cable's prior contracts nuke lots of this - Road Runner's deal with Time Warner is as exclusive ISP. Ditto AtHome with the cable companies they're carried on. Nothing will change until either Road Runner and @Home willingly back out of their deal or they expire.
Don't know how true this is (it sounds reasonable, at least), however, Time Warner carries a lot of weight within Road Runner. Something to the tune of a 40% stake. They'd only have to convince one of the other partners involved and they could change that exclusive policy. I think an easy target would be Microsoft, since an open cable network would benefit Microsoft because then they could push MSN.
Not that I think MSN is a viable alternative to anything...
That response is not AOL Time-Warner's response. It is Time-Warner's response. There's a difference. AOL hasn't completed the purchase of Time-Warner yet, and as such has no say in their business practices.
Not only that, but if AOL *did* interfere in Time-Warner's business practices, it would be illegal and would be grounds to have the purchase thrown out immediately.
Hmm...let's see...so the software, during the installation process, pops up a dialog box with the overall license -- "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and says goodbye if you don't say "Y". If you agree, it pops up a second dialog box that says, buried in the middle of a lot of other legal mumbo-jumbo, "Licensee shall allow the Licensor to access Licensee's computer or computers to disable the Software and all related components. Failure to allow such access is grounds for immediate termination of the License and Licensee will return all copies of the Software to the Licensor in addition to a 10% restocking fee"... "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and immediately exits if the response is "N".
Well, first off, the part where you agree to the remote control stuff has to have a means to provide the name of the person for notification, and the location and means of notification. So it would strike me, at least for most mainstream installs, it would have to be a little more interactive than clicking "Yes".
Second, they have to provide 45 days notice, via the method you specified, before they use the remote control to remedy a breach of contract. So even if you do agree, you have to receive notice beforehand.
Third, they can't charge you a fee if you don't agree. Remember, because of other sections of the UCITA, they have to allow you access to the license and the software for inspection before you pay. If they require payment first, and you don't agree to the license after you inspect everything, they have to provide a full refund plus reimbursement for your costs in getting the software back to them.
Fourth, there's nothing preventing software companies now, pre-UCITA, from implementing remote controls in their software and using them at will. All the UCITA does is provide some rules for how they can use it and how they can't. In this case, some legislation on the matter is better than none at all. And the UCITA provides for you seeking damages if they don't use the remote controls properly (ie. use them for something other than remedying a breach of contract, or don't give you enough notice, etc.)
As far as the legal mumbo-jumbo goes, you get than anywhere and for anything when it comes to licenses. If you don't read it, then you are accepting the consequences for that. Personally, I don't read every contract and license that I get. However, I try to read a lot of them on the larger items.
Has anyone actually looked at the UCITA? Now granted, I am by no means a lawyer, and I did not read all of it, but I have skimmed all of it and read the salient parts. And I have to say, this particular piece of legislation doesn't sound that bad. It definitely does not sound as bad as previous posters have been making it out to be.
Here's just a few points that I noticed (this is from the VA state House Bill 561):
Section 59.1-502.9. This section deals with mass-market licenses (which is pretty much what you run into with mainstream software). It specifically requires the license to be available for review before you are obligated to pay. That means no more of Microsoft's "You accept the license inside by opening this software" licenses. It also provides for refunds if that situation arises, including reimbursement for the costs of returning the software and compensation for changes to your system if reading the license required installing software.
Section 59.1-504.2. This section deals with express warranties. It provides for the creation of a warranty on the performance of the software through the seller's advertising, demos, etc. So, in essence, it's enforcing truth in advertising and creating avenues for seeking damages if the software doesn't turn out to be what it was purported to be.
Section 59.1-504.7. This section deals with modification of the software. Let's say that you purchased a piece of software, and then modified it. If your modified copy doesn't work, you don't get any support for that. Makes sense. However, if you then revert to the unmodified copy, and that doesn't work, you do get support. That's what it says here.
Section 59.1-506.5. This section deals with automatic restraints in the "computer information". It specifically disallows automatic restraints being used to enforce breaches of the license. This means that a software company cannot "reach into your computer and turn off your software" as some posters have suggested.
Section 59.1-506.8. This section deals with the right to inspect a piece of software before payment, and what happens if payment is required before inspection. It's particularly nice. Basically, it says that in purchasing a piece of software, I have the right to take a reasonable amount of time to inspect it and make sure it complies with the contract. Remember, that contract also includes express warranties from their advertising. It also provides that if I have paid for the software before being able to inspect it, that does not mean that I can't get my money back if it doesn't fulfill the contract. There is a piece of language in here that might cause some hackles to go up, which is "(4) A party's right to inspect is subject to existing obligations of confidentiality," but there is no concern over this. The word "existing" denotes that this does not create any new obligations of confidentiality. So, contrary to popular belief, you can tell your friends all about your tests, unless you signed an NDA beforehand.
Section 59.1-508.16. This section deals with electronic means to exercise the software publisher's rights to possession of the software and prevention of use due to a breach of contract. It specifically disallows the use of electronic methods for this unless you, as the end user, has specifically and separately (separate from the license) agreed to the use of these methods. Which means that once again, they can't reach in and delete or disable the software unless you told them that they could. And even if you have agreed to this, they have to notify you before they do using a means that you both agreed on beforehand (whether it be email, phone, in writing, etc.). And if they misuse these electronic means, this section provides you with a recourse against them for damages.
Again, that's just what I see for some salient points of the UCITA. So they can't reach into your computer and disable things, even if you break the contract. They can't prevent you from benchmarking the software. Actually, the UCITA provides some nice protections for the consumer. And it spells everything out in a uniform language, so when dealing with transactions across the Internet, there won't be any arguments regarding one state's laws versus another state's laws.
Those people who wish to denounce the UCITA need to start coming up with some specific grievances, and cite the sections of the code that they are complaining about. Shouting at the top of your lungs that something is bad, while at the same time not saying exactly what it is that is bad, is not going to have any effect. How about we have an intelligent discussion on that law for a change, rather than assuming that all laws are bad?
OK, If you actually bothered to do a little research at the VA state Senate site, you would have found that all that passed the House or Senate was a joint resolution to create a joint subcommittee to study the UCITA and its language. And of course that passed unanimously. All the legislators want to have more information on this, and a technical subcommittee is one of the best ways to get it. The bill was not passed. Not only that, but the report from the subcommittee isn't due until December 1, 2000. So it won't even be voted on until 2001.
Why did they do this? Because, as they say in the resolutions (which, by the way, is both HJ277 and SJ239), "the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding," among other reasons, which are listed in the resolution.
So all I say is shame on Slashdot, michael, Keith Kris, and those prominent people who posted such as Dan Kaminsky. Shame on you for creating yet more sensationalist journalism because you didn't bother to check your references. Any geek with half a brain knows that InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and the like are not very reputable sources.
OK, so Yahoo came out and said it was a DoS attack. However, I don't believe them.
I find it very hard to believe that a DoS attack took out their west coast operations (east coast servers were not affected), and that it wasn't that backhoe at the Yahoo offices that there was an awful lot of commotion around at the exact time that Yahoo became unreachable.
How do I know this? I was speaking with a gentleman who works in the office across the street who was watching the ordeal from his office window. The timing was correct, and there were a lot of people around that backhoe right after Yahoo became unreachable.
Why would Yahoo put out this story about a DoS attack if it was, in fact, a negligent operator of heavy machinery? Search me. Maybe they think that the press would be better. Maybe they wanted the scare tactics. Maybe there's something else going on inside Yahoo and they need a scapegoat and this presented a good opportunity. Maybe whoever's doing the PR is just clueless. I really have no idea.
And sure, it could be a coincidence. But I just don't believe it.
Gotta say, I'm really impressed with Slashdot's responsibility in reporting the news.
Report just one side of the conversation. Let your personal biases come between you and the story. That's the path to responsible journalism.
How about reporting the fact that the Chairman of the SEC came out and said that this merger was a good thing? He almost never comments on mergers and buyouts, but he commented on this one, and positively at that.
But I forget, that would conflict with Slashdot's anti-AOL stance.
OK, so they posted a response. I actually know the guy that posted it (somewhat). Yay Mr. Jackson. You read the news.admin.* groups.
However, let's look at how it was posted. First, it was crossposted to the news.admin hierarchy. This is a no-no. They want you posting to the newsgroup that it is appropriate to. But let's overlook that transgression. It might have been an oversight on Mr. Jackson's part.
But he also forged the approval headers for the moderated newsgroups that he posted to. And that is a big no-no. Especially when you're pleading for your network's life. And it requires premeditation. You don't forge the headers by accident.
And not only that, but he has now attempted this three times. The first time it was canceled by someone who I assume is one of the moderators with the message "No forged headers on my watch". Then Mr. Jackson posted it again. It was cancelled again with the message "No, kids, you don't get it. No forge-approvals. No crossposting in NANAP." Now it has been posted a third time.
So how serious can @Home be if they have commited multiple acts of net abuse all on their own in responding to the action being taken against them for their customers' net abuse?
I'm also having trouble shedding any tears for those who buy or download warez. If you want to get unsupported, unmaintained, bug-ridden software for which you don't even have the source code to either fix or link to newer libraries, that's your business.
If that's what you want, just buy Microsoft products.
I used to run my Ricochet under Linux on a Toshiba laptop all the time at my previous job. Worked like a charm. It's just straight PPP with a special dial string (the one I used was "777**ppp"). The other really nice thing about it was that we had telephone modem access. So I could use the Ricochet to access a real phone line on the other side and dial out to other networks, like the private corporate network.
Used it on my PalmPilot as well, when I wasn't on the laptop. Sure made things nice. I used to get paged about some stupid system problem, and use the Pilot/Ricochet combo to dial in, telnet to the offending Unix system, and do what I needed to do. All without carting a laptop around.
Oh, and I never really found Ricochet to be slow. One thing you have to remember is that default install says to use 28.8 or 33.6. However, if you set it for 56K, it happily operates somewhere between 33.6 and 56K. Not that this is really going to matter very soon. Metricom (the people who bring us Ricochet) has gotten their 128K network out of beta testing and are starting to deploy it now. Just imagine, wireless Internet access at ISDN speeds.
Not the old... The Celeron is the exact same CPU as the Pentium argument again. Hello? They're completely different internally... Same technology yes, but it's not like the Celeron is just the PIII's which failed some tests. Sheesh
Is anyone home in there? Did I say Pentium III? No, I don't think so. I said Pentium. The Celeron is the exact same die as the Pentium II. Just like a Pentium II is a different die from the Pentium III, the Celeron is a different die from the Pentium III.
And that's exactly what a Celeron is. A Pentium II that failed some tests.
These types of announcements are a sure fire way to push Intel to add restrictions to the Celeron processors. I fully expect we'll see this when Coppermine comes out, the packaging will change and the chip will no longer support any overclocking or Dual mode.
And yet you're wrong. The Pentiums and the Celerons come off of the same assembly line. Therefore, the differences are minor by definition. The Celerons are just the lower end of the batch. But Intel's got their manufacturing process down, so even the low end of the batch is pretty damn good. But Intel needs lower end/lower price chips to compete with AMD, so they ship them out locked down and at a lower price.
Intel wants the Pentiums to be capable of operating in a dual-processor system. However, they don't want the Celerons to work that way because they want people to spend more on the Pentiums if they want higher performance, thereby increasing their profit margin. So they lock the Celeron so you can't use it in a dual-processor system. But the lock has to be simple, or else Intel has to create a new assembly line for Celerons, which defeats the purpose of having them.
As far as new chips from Intel goes, I suspect they will continue to want a lower priced processor on the market to keep competing with AMD. How they go about that is anyone's guess. I don't know that it will ever be cost effective for them to run a separate assembly line for the lower end chip, however, since those are by definition lower margin sales. It may not justify the overhead of having a separate line. Only time will tell.
-Todd
---
Maybe you should actually read the article, people
on
AOL Plans TV Channel
·
· Score: 1
If you actually read the article, Hemos, you'd actually see that it's not competition for MSNBC and it's not a TV channel. AOL-TV is competition for WebTV. It's a set-top box.
Personally, I don't think the sails are even the most interesting thing in that article. I mean, don't get me wrong, being able to get a 2.2lb payload to Pluto in 3 weeks with only a 10x10 meter sail is pretty amazing. But something like that is really only good for deep space probes, since there's not much in the way of braking.
What's more interesting are the tether systems that they talk about later in the article. We're talking about a practical, propellant-free (we'll ignore the corrections for tidal pull) transit system for getting things to the Moon and back quickly, and Mars and back in what I would consider a reasonable trip (for the time being). Not to mention the ability to cheaply rid the sky of all our LEO trash.
With a reliable and cheap transit system to the moon, we can actually work on building a moon base that can be used for low gravity work and for staging deep space missions. Combined with the international space station, it'll really give space exploration a boost. Same thing goes for Mars. Who knows... with the ability to do long term low-gravity research, we may be able to develop the propulsion system we need to make the next jump.
AOL is just the biggest name in the game of rolling over for law enforcement, so that is why they are getting the most attention. Anne Arundel cops have been able to just drive over to AOL headquarters and take anything they want, just by flashing a badge. No court order needed, just bring your laptop with a lot of disk space. There is even an office for cops in the building, but the cops have to schedule time in it since so many investigators try to use it.
Well, I guess we now see exactly how bright you are.
1) AOL's headquarters are in Dulles, VA (Sterling, VA if you want to get picky). Loudon County.
2) Not only that, Anne Arundel county is in Maryland, not Virginia.
3) And last, sorry, no. Cops need a court order to get info out of AOL. Noone can just walk up and take any information they want, cop or not.
Sure, if you want, go ahead and dredge up AOL's past transgressions and claim they're still valid today. But I could just as easily say all the British are bastards cause they want to tax the hell out of us Americans. Sure, it happened some time ago, but it's no longer true.
Sounds like the London Sunday Times has been reading Cosm by Gregory Benford.
In it, a scientist borrowing time at Brookhaven's RHIC creates a "cosm" (universe in a very heavy silver ball several feet across). She spirits it back to UC, and then the folks at the RHIC try to create some more, not knowing they could destroy the world, and end up just destroying most of the ring.
Actually, what it really sounds like to me (from reading the pages on the UJP) is the glasses out of Gibson's Virtual Light
One of their goals for this is to have you be able to stand on the street and look at a building, and have the UJP use your GPS and compass to identify the building and start mining (and displaying) information for you.
The difference being, of course, that the glasses in Virtual Light weren't so much a computer that had this function. Their job was to provide an overlay on reality for the user with this mined information. That was the only purpose. And of course, that they were just glasses with nothing else attached:)
We've had boxes like this for some time. Hardware black boxes that encrypt/decrypt traffic. Sure, maybe they don't run at 10 Gbps, but speed increases are a matter of course these days.
Let's keep in mind that this is not a public key system. Sandia's hardware is designed for creating encrypted network connections, using either virtual or physical pipes. (We were going to install similar hardware at one of my previous employers to encrypt 2 connections: one a direct wire to another site, and one a virtual pipe over the Internet to a third site).
Great, we can encrypt faster. But this doesn't really get us anywhere towards using encryption globally on a daily basis in emails, messaging, etc. We still need a good PKI for something along those lines and I just haven't seen anything that qualifies yet.
It appears that that is their eventual aim. The basic structure of the World Wide Web (WWW) is Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). THe basic transport for the WWW is Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Shall we just look at this word "hypertext" for a moment.
According to Webster's, hypertext is a noun meaning "a database format in which information related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display." That's a rather convoluted definition. But if we break it down we can see it's not really that bad. We start by calling it "a database format," which is not exntirely false; we can consider a HTML page a record, making the WWW a form of database. Then we say that the nature of this database is such that "information related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display." This means that the nature of the WWW is such that if I'm viewing a web page on music, I can directly access other pages dealing with music from the page that I'm viewing. So the definition isn't a bad one.
So by extrapolation we see that the nature of the WWW is such that such that pages link to all sorts of other (related) pages, forming a sort of web. This is part of what makes the WWW so useful: if I'm reading a page and I want more information on a particular topic, I just click on it and go there. And as someone making web pages, I don't have to reasearch and compile information and store it on my site if someone else has done it already. I can just link to their site.
But now we have ASCAP stepping in and saying that if I'm setting up a little page saying how much I like They Might Be Giants, and I want to link to emusic.com where they have some sample clips of TMBG music that they sell (legally), I have to pay a license fee, or be faced with a lawsuit that I can't afford, regardless of whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. So what's next? We could have online newspapers demanding you pay a fee to post links to their stories on your web page. And then every Joe Clueless with a web site starts demanding payment for being able to link to his site.
But why should they stop with the web? Why not sue people for putting links in their Usenet posts telling people where to get some more information on a topic? Or email? I better not put a link to ASCAP's web site in here, or they might sue me! This goes against everything that the World Wide Web is. The WWW was developed for sharing information and making information avaiable to everyone easily.
But I suppose we better make sure that we're in compliance with ASCAP's rules regarding linking to their site....
Third-Party Web Sites Seeking to Link
If you would like to link to ASCAP's Site, please read and comply with the following guidelines and all applicable laws. A Web site that links to ASCAP's Site:
May link to, but not replicate, ASCAP's content.
Oh shoot. I'm violating that right now by copying their copyright agreement, aren't I? Damn. Better notify my lawyers.
Should not create a browser or border environment around ASCAP content.
Should not imply that ASCAP is endorsing it or its products.
Should not misrepresent its relationship with ASCAP, its members, officers or directors.
OK, These are actually perfectly reasonable requests. There are a lot of issues with framing other people's content, especially if you put ads in those border frames. And as far as misrepresentation goes, that ends up falling into other legal areas.
Should not present false information about ASCAP, its services or activities.
Who determines what false is? If I say that ASCAP is a fascist organization, that's my opinion. Sure, you can say that it's false, but that doesn't mean you get to tell me to change it. However, if I was to hypothetically say that ASCAP's board of directors has a predilection for child pornography, that would be slander and you'd have legal grounds to sue me.
Should not use the ASCAP logo, screen shot, splash screen or any ASCAP Marks displayed on this Site without permission from ASCAP.
Again, perfectly sound restriction against using your intellectual property without your permission. However, if I was to use your graphics as part of a parody, you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. Parodies are protected under fair use.
Should not be a Web site that infringes any intellectual property or other right of any entity or person, including, but not limited to violating anyone's copyrights or trademarks, violating any law or advocating illegal activity.
Should not be a Web site that contains content that could be construed as distasteful, offensive or controversial, and should contain only content that is appropriate for all age groups.
These two really come down to a matter of opinion. And frankly, if ASCAP really expects to be able to enforce them, I suggest they make sure they go to every major search engine and demand that all links to ASCAP be removed. Because there's not a search site I know of that doesn't return either warez or porn sites in their searches.
Any Web site that creates a link to ASCAP's Site which ASCAP discovers violates these terms and conditions, ASCAP expressly reserves the right to request that such a link be removed and to undertake whatever other action it deems appropriate.
I suppose for the items that actual have some legal basis, this is entirely acceptable. But it's still not illegal for me to say "You can find this information over there." You can sue me for slander, you can sue me for copyright infringement, but you can't sue me for pointing at you.
Yeah... and use those shock beans... super caffeinated coffee beans.
The barista across from where I used to work had this drink called a Going Critical. 5-shot latte. If you're really nice, he'll make it with an extra shot, and he'll run Water Joe through the machine. Had one of these once and I couldn't sit still enough to type!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the flash is slightly offset over the top of the lens (overlaps the right edge of the lens as you're looking through the camera). It's probably a little more noticeable in the wedding pictures because of the gamma correction I did on a lot of those shots (the rooms were really dark). I wonder if there's a post-processing app, or a filter for PSP, that I could use to clean that up.
However, even given that flaw, I think this is one of the better cameras out there. The other ones that I was looking at were the new 3MP cameras coming out, like the Powershot S20 and the new Fuji 4700. However, they weren't available yet, and the price I got on the DC290 was just too good.
-Todd
---
The Kodak DC290 is one of the better digital cameras I've seen. Great picture quality, decent zoom, great controls. And the scripting language (Digita) really tops it off. With that you can load apps on your camera to help you take pictures. Like things to assist with panoramic shots, or exposure settings. I've had mine for a few weeks now, and I've taken plenty of pictures. Combined with Paint Shop Pro to clean up pictures that were too dark (because of distance), the pictures are better than anything I've taken with a film camera. And the USB cable makes it pretty quick to get the pictures onto the computer.
I ended up buying mine at Accompany (now MobShop). They regularly have them for $680 to $650. And I happened on a NYTimes promo code for them, and got 20% off that. So it ended up being slightly more than $500. For a $900 camera, that's not too bad.
If you'd like to see some pictures from my camera, check out the Photos section of my web site. It's still under construction, but the pictures taken of the Explorer, as well as the pictures from the wedding and the pictures of Akamai's servers, are all from my DC290. The only ones that I cleaned up in PSP were the wedding pictures (since they were in a dark room).
-Todd
---
Does this remind anyone else of the Ansible (sp?) in Ender's Game? It still maintains the limit on travel that is set by light speed, but removes the limit on communications. Maybe this is just another example of life imitating art.
...imitating life. If I remember correctly, the "ansible" is an sci-fi extension of a real quantum theory (how close it approximates reality, I don't know). It even came up in a previous Slashdot discussion.
Basically, the theory goes that if you have atom with two electrons in the same quantum state except for spin, and you know the spin of one of them and then change it, the spin of the other electron is changed instantly, regardless of distance. However, I think this interaction occurs at the speed of light, and not instantly. It's just that we can't tell the difference between the two because there's no way (presently) to separate the two particles by very much distance.
-Todd
---
Even at that, Time Warner Cable's prior contracts nuke lots of this - Road Runner's deal with Time Warner is as exclusive ISP. Ditto AtHome with the cable companies they're carried on. Nothing will change until either Road Runner and @Home willingly back out of their deal or they expire.
Don't know how true this is (it sounds reasonable, at least), however, Time Warner carries a lot of weight within Road Runner. Something to the tune of a 40% stake. They'd only have to convince one of the other partners involved and they could change that exclusive policy. I think an easy target would be Microsoft, since an open cable network would benefit Microsoft because then they could push MSN.
Not that I think MSN is a viable alternative to anything...
-Todd
---
That response is not AOL Time-Warner's response. It is Time-Warner's response. There's a difference. AOL hasn't completed the purchase of Time-Warner yet, and as such has no say in their business practices.
Not only that, but if AOL *did* interfere in Time-Warner's business practices, it would be illegal and would be grounds to have the purchase thrown out immediately.
-Todd
---
Hmm...let's see...so the software, during the installation process, pops up a dialog box with the overall license -- "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and says goodbye if you don't say "Y". If you agree, it pops up a second dialog box that says, buried in the middle of a lot of other legal mumbo-jumbo, "Licensee shall allow the Licensor to access Licensee's computer or computers to disable the Software and all related components. Failure to allow such access is grounds for immediate termination of the License and Licensee will return all copies of the Software to the Licensor in addition to a 10% restocking fee" ... "Do you agree (Y/N)?" -- and immediately exits if the response is "N".
Well, first off, the part where you agree to the remote control stuff has to have a means to provide the name of the person for notification, and the location and means of notification. So it would strike me, at least for most mainstream installs, it would have to be a little more interactive than clicking "Yes".
Second, they have to provide 45 days notice, via the method you specified, before they use the remote control to remedy a breach of contract. So even if you do agree, you have to receive notice beforehand.
Third, they can't charge you a fee if you don't agree. Remember, because of other sections of the UCITA, they have to allow you access to the license and the software for inspection before you pay. If they require payment first, and you don't agree to the license after you inspect everything, they have to provide a full refund plus reimbursement for your costs in getting the software back to them.
Fourth, there's nothing preventing software companies now, pre-UCITA, from implementing remote controls in their software and using them at will. All the UCITA does is provide some rules for how they can use it and how they can't. In this case, some legislation on the matter is better than none at all. And the UCITA provides for you seeking damages if they don't use the remote controls properly (ie. use them for something other than remedying a breach of contract, or don't give you enough notice, etc.)
As far as the legal mumbo-jumbo goes, you get than anywhere and for anything when it comes to licenses. If you don't read it, then you are accepting the consequences for that. Personally, I don't read every contract and license that I get. However, I try to read a lot of them on the larger items.
-Todd
---
Here's just a few points that I noticed (this is from the VA state House Bill 561):
Again, that's just what I see for some salient points of the UCITA. So they can't reach into your computer and disable things, even if you break the contract. They can't prevent you from benchmarking the software. Actually, the UCITA provides some nice protections for the consumer. And it spells everything out in a uniform language, so when dealing with transactions across the Internet, there won't be any arguments regarding one state's laws versus another state's laws.
Those people who wish to denounce the UCITA need to start coming up with some specific grievances, and cite the sections of the code that they are complaining about. Shouting at the top of your lungs that something is bad, while at the same time not saying exactly what it is that is bad, is not going to have any effect. How about we have an intelligent discussion on that law for a change, rather than assuming that all laws are bad?
-Todd
---
OK, If you actually bothered to do a little research at the VA state Senate site, you would have found that all that passed the House or Senate was a joint resolution to create a joint subcommittee to study the UCITA and its language. And of course that passed unanimously. All the legislators want to have more information on this, and a technical subcommittee is one of the best ways to get it. The bill was not passed. Not only that, but the report from the subcommittee isn't due until December 1, 2000. So it won't even be voted on until 2001.
Why did they do this? Because, as they say in the resolutions (which, by the way, is both HJ277 and SJ239), "the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding," among other reasons, which are listed in the resolution.
So all I say is shame on Slashdot, michael, Keith Kris, and those prominent people who posted such as Dan Kaminsky. Shame on you for creating yet more sensationalist journalism because you didn't bother to check your references. Any geek with half a brain knows that InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and the like are not very reputable sources.
-Todd
---
OK, so Yahoo came out and said it was a DoS attack. However, I don't believe them.
I find it very hard to believe that a DoS attack took out their west coast operations (east coast servers were not affected), and that it wasn't that backhoe at the Yahoo offices that there was an awful lot of commotion around at the exact time that Yahoo became unreachable.
How do I know this? I was speaking with a gentleman who works in the office across the street who was watching the ordeal from his office window. The timing was correct, and there were a lot of people around that backhoe right after Yahoo became unreachable.
Why would Yahoo put out this story about a DoS attack if it was, in fact, a negligent operator of heavy machinery? Search me. Maybe they think that the press would be better. Maybe they wanted the scare tactics. Maybe there's something else going on inside Yahoo and they need a scapegoat and this presented a good opportunity. Maybe whoever's doing the PR is just clueless. I really have no idea.
And sure, it could be a coincidence. But I just don't believe it.
-Todd
---
Thanks for correcting me, Tim. I didn't actually look at the headers on the third one.
-Todd
---
Gotta say, I'm really impressed with Slashdot's responsibility in reporting the news.
Report just one side of the conversation. Let your personal biases come between you and the story. That's the path to responsible journalism.
How about reporting the fact that the Chairman of the SEC came out and said that this merger was a good thing? He almost never comments on mergers and buyouts, but he commented on this one, and positively at that.
But I forget, that would conflict with Slashdot's anti-AOL stance.
-Todd
---
OK, so they posted a response. I actually know the guy that posted it (somewhat). Yay Mr. Jackson. You read the news.admin.* groups.
However, let's look at how it was posted. First, it was crossposted to the news.admin hierarchy. This is a no-no. They want you posting to the newsgroup that it is appropriate to. But let's overlook that transgression. It might have been an oversight on Mr. Jackson's part.
But he also forged the approval headers for the moderated newsgroups that he posted to. And that is a big no-no. Especially when you're pleading for your network's life. And it requires premeditation. You don't forge the headers by accident.
And not only that, but he has now attempted this three times. The first time it was canceled by someone who I assume is one of the moderators with the message "No forged headers on my watch". Then Mr. Jackson posted it again. It was cancelled again with the message "No, kids, you don't get it. No forge-approvals. No crossposting in NANAP." Now it has been posted a third time.
So how serious can @Home be if they have commited multiple acts of net abuse all on their own in responding to the action being taken against them for their customers' net abuse?
-Todd
---
I'm also having trouble shedding any tears for those who buy or download warez. If you want to get unsupported, unmaintained, bug-ridden software for which you don't even have the source code to either fix or link to newer libraries, that's your business.
If that's what you want, just buy Microsoft products.
-Todd
---
I used to run my Ricochet under Linux on a Toshiba laptop all the time at my previous job. Worked like a charm. It's just straight PPP with a special dial string (the one I used was "777**ppp"). The other really nice thing about it was that we had telephone modem access. So I could use the Ricochet to access a real phone line on the other side and dial out to other networks, like the private corporate network.
Used it on my PalmPilot as well, when I wasn't on the laptop. Sure made things nice. I used to get paged about some stupid system problem, and use the Pilot/Ricochet combo to dial in, telnet to the offending Unix system, and do what I needed to do. All without carting a laptop around.
Oh, and I never really found Ricochet to be slow. One thing you have to remember is that default install says to use 28.8 or 33.6. However, if you set it for 56K, it happily operates somewhere between 33.6 and 56K. Not that this is really going to matter very soon. Metricom (the people who bring us Ricochet) has gotten their 128K network out of beta testing and are starting to deploy it now. Just imagine, wireless Internet access at ISDN speeds.
It's top on my Christmas list *g*
-Todd
---
Not the old... The Celeron is the exact same CPU as the Pentium argument again. Hello? They're completely different internally... Same technology yes, but it's not like the Celeron is just the PIII's which failed some tests. Sheesh
Is anyone home in there? Did I say Pentium III? No, I don't think so. I said Pentium. The Celeron is the exact same die as the Pentium II. Just like a Pentium II is a different die from the Pentium III, the Celeron is a different die from the Pentium III.
And that's exactly what a Celeron is. A Pentium II that failed some tests.
-Todd
---
These types of announcements are a sure fire way to push Intel to add restrictions to the Celeron processors. I fully expect we'll see this when Coppermine comes out, the packaging will change and the chip will no longer support any overclocking or Dual mode.
And yet you're wrong. The Pentiums and the Celerons come off of the same assembly line. Therefore, the differences are minor by definition. The Celerons are just the lower end of the batch. But Intel's got their manufacturing process down, so even the low end of the batch is pretty damn good. But Intel needs lower end/lower price chips to compete with AMD, so they ship them out locked down and at a lower price.
Intel wants the Pentiums to be capable of operating in a dual-processor system. However, they don't want the Celerons to work that way because they want people to spend more on the Pentiums if they want higher performance, thereby increasing their profit margin. So they lock the Celeron so you can't use it in a dual-processor system. But the lock has to be simple, or else Intel has to create a new assembly line for Celerons, which defeats the purpose of having them.
As far as new chips from Intel goes, I suspect they will continue to want a lower priced processor on the market to keep competing with AMD. How they go about that is anyone's guess. I don't know that it will ever be cost effective for them to run a separate assembly line for the lower end chip, however, since those are by definition lower margin sales. It may not justify the overhead of having a separate line. Only time will tell.
-Todd
---
If you actually read the article, Hemos, you'd actually see that it's not competition for MSNBC and it's not a TV channel. AOL-TV is competition for WebTV. It's a set-top box.
/.'s "quality" news.
So much for
-Todd
---
Personally, I don't think the sails are even the most interesting thing in that article. I mean, don't get me wrong, being able to get a 2.2lb payload to Pluto in 3 weeks with only a 10x10 meter sail is pretty amazing. But something like that is really only good for deep space probes, since there's not much in the way of braking.
What's more interesting are the tether systems that they talk about later in the article. We're talking about a practical, propellant-free (we'll ignore the corrections for tidal pull) transit system for getting things to the Moon and back quickly, and Mars and back in what I would consider a reasonable trip (for the time being). Not to mention the ability to cheaply rid the sky of all our LEO trash.
With a reliable and cheap transit system to the moon, we can actually work on building a moon base that can be used for low gravity work and for staging deep space missions. Combined with the international space station, it'll really give space exploration a boost. Same thing goes for Mars. Who knows... with the ability to do long term low-gravity research, we may be able to develop the propulsion system we need to make the next jump.
-Todd
---
AOL is just the biggest name in the game of rolling over for law enforcement, so that is why they are getting the most attention. Anne Arundel cops have been able to just drive over to AOL headquarters and take anything they want, just by flashing a badge. No court order needed, just bring your laptop with a lot of disk space. There is even an office for cops in the building, but the cops have to schedule time in it since so many investigators try to use it.
Well, I guess we now see exactly how bright you are.
1) AOL's headquarters are in Dulles, VA (Sterling, VA if you want to get picky). Loudon County.
2) Not only that, Anne Arundel county is in Maryland, not Virginia.
3) And last, sorry, no. Cops need a court order to get info out of AOL. Noone can just walk up and take any information they want, cop or not.
Sure, if you want, go ahead and dredge up AOL's past transgressions and claim they're still valid today. But I could just as easily say all the British are bastards cause they want to tax the hell out of us Americans. Sure, it happened some time ago, but it's no longer true.
---
Sounds like the London Sunday Times has been reading Cosm by Gregory Benford.
In it, a scientist borrowing time at Brookhaven's RHIC creates a "cosm" (universe in a very heavy silver ball several feet across). She spirits it back to UC, and then the folks at the RHIC try to create some more, not knowing they could destroy the world, and end up just destroying most of the ring.
Was a good book the first time around.
-Todd
---
Actually, what it really sounds like to me (from reading the pages on the UJP) is the glasses out of Gibson's Virtual Light
:)
One of their goals for this is to have you be able to stand on the street and look at a building, and have the UJP use your GPS and compass to identify the building and start mining (and displaying) information for you.
The difference being, of course, that the glasses in Virtual Light weren't so much a computer that had this function. Their job was to provide an overlay on reality for the user with this mined information. That was the only purpose. And of course, that they were just glasses with nothing else attached
-Todd
---
Ummmm. No.
That's all that needs to be said.
Maybe, at some point in the past, in a much older version of the client and server software that no longer run anymore, this was true. Maybe.
But as for what exists today, you're just wrong.
---
We've had boxes like this for some time. Hardware black boxes that encrypt/decrypt traffic. Sure, maybe they don't run at 10 Gbps, but speed increases are a matter of course these days.
Let's keep in mind that this is not a public key system. Sandia's hardware is designed for creating encrypted network connections, using either virtual or physical pipes. (We were going to install similar hardware at one of my previous employers to encrypt 2 connections: one a direct wire to another site, and one a virtual pipe over the Internet to a third site).
Great, we can encrypt faster. But this doesn't really get us anywhere towards using encryption globally on a daily basis in emails, messaging, etc. We still need a good PKI for something along those lines and I just haven't seen anything that qualifies yet.
---
According to Webster's, hypertext is a noun meaning "a database format in which information related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display." That's a rather convoluted definition. But if we break it down we can see it's not really that bad. We start by calling it "a database format," which is not exntirely false; we can consider a HTML page a record, making the WWW a form of database. Then we say that the nature of this database is such that "information related to that on a display can be accessed directly from the display." This means that the nature of the WWW is such that if I'm viewing a web page on music, I can directly access other pages dealing with music from the page that I'm viewing. So the definition isn't a bad one.
So by extrapolation we see that the nature of the WWW is such that such that pages link to all sorts of other (related) pages, forming a sort of web. This is part of what makes the WWW so useful: if I'm reading a page and I want more information on a particular topic, I just click on it and go there. And as someone making web pages, I don't have to reasearch and compile information and store it on my site if someone else has done it already. I can just link to their site.
But now we have ASCAP stepping in and saying that if I'm setting up a little page saying how much I like They Might Be Giants, and I want to link to emusic.com where they have some sample clips of TMBG music that they sell (legally), I have to pay a license fee, or be faced with a lawsuit that I can't afford, regardless of whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. So what's next? We could have online newspapers demanding you pay a fee to post links to their stories on your web page. And then every Joe Clueless with a web site starts demanding payment for being able to link to his site.
But why should they stop with the web? Why not sue people for putting links in their Usenet posts telling people where to get some more information on a topic? Or email? I better not put a link to ASCAP's web site in here, or they might sue me! This goes against everything that the World Wide Web is. The WWW was developed for sharing information and making information avaiable to everyone easily.
But I suppose we better make sure that we're in compliance with ASCAP's rules regarding linking to their site....
Oh shoot. I'm violating that right now by copying their copyright agreement, aren't I? Damn. Better notify my lawyers.
OK, These are actually perfectly reasonable requests. There are a lot of issues with framing other people's content, especially if you put ads in those border frames. And as far as misrepresentation goes, that ends up falling into other legal areas.
Who determines what false is? If I say that ASCAP is a fascist organization, that's my opinion. Sure, you can say that it's false, but that doesn't mean you get to tell me to change it. However, if I was to hypothetically say that ASCAP's board of directors has a predilection for child pornography, that would be slander and you'd have legal grounds to sue me.
Again, perfectly sound restriction against using your intellectual property without your permission. However, if I was to use your graphics as part of a parody, you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. Parodies are protected under fair use.
These two really come down to a matter of opinion. And frankly, if ASCAP really expects to be able to enforce them, I suggest they make sure they go to every major search engine and demand that all links to ASCAP be removed. Because there's not a search site I know of that doesn't return either warez or porn sites in their searches.
I suppose for the items that actual have some legal basis, this is entirely acceptable. But it's still not illegal for me to say "You can find this information over there." You can sue me for slander, you can sue me for copyright infringement, but you can't sue me for pointing at you.
---
Yeah... and use those shock beans... super caffeinated coffee beans.
The barista across from where I used to work had this drink called a Going Critical. 5-shot latte. If you're really nice, he'll make it with an extra shot, and he'll run Water Joe through the machine. Had one of these once and I couldn't sit still enough to type!
---