What would other folks do if faced with this situation?
I was in a similar situation less than two months back. In my case, it was not about a patent that was too broad or over-reaching. It was about a patent for an incredibly obvious and simple use of some data. What's worse, while the method was totally software-based, my company was trying to pass it off as something more than your regular "if-then-else" hack.
I refused to participate. My problem was not really the management. In fact, the PHBs probably didn't even know that there was a potential patent application going on. It was rather my co-workers, you know, oh-so enthusiastic, "Ooh, ooh, I am actually applying for a patent".
I told my co-workers "No" and quit soon after (due to other reasons too). Of course, I was a small fry in the organization and have no delusions about being missed. Most likely, the patent application will be rejected (on grounds of being too obvious). If it does get through (obfuscated by overly technical jargon), it still won't be of any likely consequence. If however, eventually it is used as a tool to persecute somebody, I'll be around to say, "I was one of the, ahem, "inventors", and the patent was filed without my signature".
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
This is coming from Singapore, half-way across the globe for most of you. I have a personal perspective to share with you.
I don't call our favourite OS "GNU/Linux". I say "Linux", only because it takes fewer syllables. As RMS said in an interview, it doesn't matter much when you are talking amongst us, but it matters a lot when you talk to others.
Why? I started using computers and programming seriously about 8 years back, in school. At that time, I started off using a lot of GNU tools - Emacs, GCC, etc. Yet, I had not even heard the word "GNU". About three years after that, I started playing with Linux. And I still had not ever heard about RMS or GNU. In 1998, when RMS visited Singapore, I finally heard about RMS and GNU.
And since then, I've learnt a lot. I now insist on explaining what the "free" in "free software" means, to people who are still largely apathetic. Why is this important?
Well, until now, people in Singapore have had no need to distinguish between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". This was (and to some extent, still is) a pirates' haven, and you could get MS-Win2K-Enterprise for about US$5. There was no need to worry about licensing issues or copyright. Now, with the pressure from MNCs mounting, the government has started to crack down seriously on illegally copied software. People are feeling it. Few people want to pay US$50 for a CD.
Now is the time we really appreciate how much RMS and others have done for us. By allowing us to copy and share, free software lets us maintain our cost-of-living. People need to be told of this difference. When they see me with a CD-R with "Red Hat" written on it, they ask me, "Ah, pirated software, eh? Where did you manage to get it?" (now that it's becoming increasingly difficult to get illegally copied software). I tell them, "No, this is not pirated. Yes, it's not original Red Hat, but free software lets me copy and share". Then they pay attention when I tell them, "GNU/Linux can never be pirated, because it's always free."
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
My feelings exactly. Other than what was already quoted in the Slashdot intro to this article, there was pretty much nothing else. And this teeny weeny bit of redemption for Unix comes from none other than..., er, Mr. Anonymous.
What a pathetic excuse for an "article". If you take out all the crap about Randi, Lane, weekends and lambchops, there isn't even enough material for a morsel.
Of course, Slashdot had to jump on it nevertheless. After all, a puny jab at Microsoft's expense is still worth headlines. Bah.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Powerful strategy (was Re:I won the last ...)
on
Rock-Paper-Scissors
·
· Score: 1
There's another very powerful strategy that I have seen employed.
There was a similar competition sometime back - the Prisoner's Dilemma Contest run by the Perl Journal. Your program played against two other programs in a series of matches, and the organizers would plant dumb robots.
The winning strategy there was actually a team of three entries: two of which (slaves) were bent on losing to the third (master). I read through the rock-paper-scissors contest rules, and I can see that such cooperation is not precluded. Try coding a master and a bunch of slaves, so that when they meet (and can recognize such a meeting), master will always beat slave. Of course, play sensibly when the master and slave are not playing against each other.
Come to think of it, Iocaine Powder + master-slave would be really powerful indeed.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
I read through the whole thing, and picked out some choice quotes for your reading pleasure. Here you go:
Q: To your knowledge, was MORE or any members of MORE involved in the decrypting of DeCSS? A:Can you define "decrypting"? Mr. Garbus: Withdraw the question.
Q: CSS-auth we have agreed is a Linux BSD program written by the Livid Group? A:It is a Linux program written by Derek Fawcus. ... Q: Do you know who developed CSS-cat? A:I do not. Q: Do you know whether or not it is a Linux BSD program? A:Can you describe Linux BSD?
Q: Where would that hard drive be? A:It would be in a computer in my office. Mr. Garbus: Will you produce that? Mr. Gold:The entire computer in his office? Mr. Garbus: The hard drive. Mr. Gold:You want the whole hard drive? Mr. Garbus: Yes. Mr. Gold:I object to that as irrelevant.
Mr. Garbus: So it is your position that all the questions I would have after January 14th of this witness are subject to the attorney-client privilege? Mr. Gold:I don't know. I don't think I could answer that question now. I don't know what you are going to ask.
Q: What was the difference in time, if you remember, between the time you downloaded the DeCSS and you downloaded the materials? A:It was infinite.
Q: When you say you have spoken to people at those companies, who is it that you have spoken to at each of the companies? For example, Universal. Mr. Gold:If it was after January of 00, don't answer. If it was before, don't answer. A:I assume my business -- confidential information is covered under the confidentiality clause, the earlier confidentiality issue. Q: You have a lawyer there.
Q: Did you download any materials in addition to that which was sent to you by the MPAA from either of these websites prior to January 14th? A:How do you describe "download"? Q: Take it off the machine and print it.
Mr. Garbus: It occurs to me, Mr. Gold, that you just might have an objection if I ask for that file. Mr. Gold:I think I would. Although you might have been so amazingly clever I wouldn't have recognized it. I gave him a compliment and I think it deserved to be on the record.
Q: What is his background? A:He is an IT professional. Q: What does that mean?
Q: Do you know what strings are? A:Strings? Q: Yes. A:In the computer sense? Q: Yes. A:I believe so, yes. Q: Tell me what they are. A:Strings is typically a term used to define a sequence of text characters.
A:It's clearly an area that is an area of, I guess, hot development, if you will, or interesting development and is, at this point, obviously gotten attention. Q: When you say "hot", what do you mean by "hot"? A:Hot as an area of developmental activity. Q: Be more specific. Can you? A:By "hot", I referred to by having public focus on it, if you will.
Mr. Gold:He testified to a lot of -- Mr. Garbus: We disagree. We will get a ruling on it. Mr. Gold:What you won't do is interrupt me. So if you will hold your horses and your fire for just a few seconds, I will finish.
By the way, if you haven't realized, Mr. Garbus is the guy on "our" side, asking the questions. The witness answering is a stooge for the MPAA. The above collection is only meant to point out some funny things and is not representative of the whole deposition. Towards the latter half, Mr. Garbus asked some real pointed questions that bolstered the defendants' case.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Re:sigh, this is nothing new...
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 2
This is so true. This is also a big wakeup call to all those people who think Microsoft's schemes won't work. Compaq has been doing it for years with their Presario (and other such) series. I had the misfortune of screwing up the system on one such machine. Zilch. I could do nothing with it. No drivers to download and fix the problem. No manuals. A regular Win95 CD install wouldn't fix the problem either. I had to use their "QuickRestore" CD, which of course wiped out all data and restored the system to its birth. Part of the reason why no external solution would work was because they had their own custom motherboard and hid all the BIOS secrets in a separate disk partition. Sheesh.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Remember that UCITA applies to software-hardware combinations as well, so your next PC might have a license agreement applying to the hardware.
I am slowly losing hope for the future, save for free software. I remember being aware of the problems with shrinkwrap licenses more than a year or so back, and thinking to myself, "This is trash; the courts will eventually throw out such licensing.". But on the contrary, things have gotten worse. UCITA has become law in several states. Courts have upheld these licenses (ok, so the linked article talks about a specific contract and not mass-market licenses, but hey, the EULAs are also specific contracts, if Big Company will have its way).
It is deja vu time. I get this feeling that hardware, software, cars, telephones, you-name-it-what-not will all be licensed in the future. Nothing will ever be sold. Except your soul. And Big Company would have found the perfect way to screw copyright law, and you.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
I suspect virtually everyone appreciates the value of standards, especially the open variety.
So tell me, who appreciates closed standards? In other words, proprietary standards? The real power of standards lies in their openness, no?
Everyone knows that standards are regularly ignored and "embraced and extinguished" (to borrow a phrase from the M$ toolkit). So apart from raising a stink about it (e.g., Kerberos), is there any other way to "coerce" adherence to the standards? Specifying "strict" standards will not be useful as it leaves no room for changing the standards in an upward-compatible way. Any other options?
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Re:Is any license other than GPL good enough
on
RMS On 'Open' Motif
·
· Score: 2
Does anyone know of a non-GPL based product... under an acceptable license?
Yes, plenty of them qualify as free software licenses, in RMS's/FSF's opinion. You see, RMS applies his criteria and priorities consistently, which is something most people can't do (and are jealous of), which is probably why so many trolls can't stand him.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
FTC Calls for Privacy Legislation to Protect Internet Users. On May 22, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report (PDF) on the results of its latest survey of website privacy policies. The survey documented that only 20% of a random sample of websites addressed basic elements of Fair Information Practices. Based on the findings of the survey, a majority of the FTC Commissioners have recommended that legislation is needed. On Thursday, the FTC will formally present its findings and recommendations in front of the Senate Commerce Committee. EPIC's latest survey, "Surfer Beware 3: Privacy Policies without Privacy Protection", also found that self-regulation provided an inadequate level of online privacy protection.
I just hope the EU doesn't fall for the same bait as did TrustE. Self-regulation isn't.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
About that letter may I recommend you consider another registar?
This is not necessary, nor will it help in any way.
ICANN has long since adopted a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which is adhered to by all ICANN-accredited registrars. The policy is quite fair to you. There is no danger of Mattel bullying you or ICANN into giving up your domain name, simply because: ICANN (or a registrar) will not transfer/cancel a domain name unless it receives a court order or your written approval (as part of a settlement or whatever). In rare cases (such as cybersquatting or cyberpiracy), ICANN could cancel/transfer the domain name on advice from a neutral Administrative Panel, but only after the complainant shows that you have violated all three of their stringent criteria (see the link for more details). It is quite clear to me that Mattel doesn't have a case if it goes to ICANN.
It is also clear to me that Mattel doesn't have a case if it goes to court. You are clearly protected under the "non-commercial use" clause. This itself should save your goat. On top of it, the trademark dilution claim is tenuous at best. I would bet that a court will throw out the claim that "The Barbies" sounds confusingly similar to "Barbie" so much so that it dilutes their trademark. Alas, I have no money to offer on the bet, though. If you can live through a suit (if Mattel brings one against you), you will have achieved sweet victory.
On my part, I am writing to Mattel to complain.
By the way, IANAL.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Yeah, and a lot of other people are going to get sued as well. mp1.com through mp25.com are all taken up. mp26.com is available, at least when I checked just now. It may be gone already.
Why doesn't the MPEGroup just rename the damn standard to something else:)
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
The brief is very well written. Although I, (like most other Slashdotters I guess), abhor legalese, I enjoyed reading this from start to finish. Sure, there is some complicated lawyerspeak in there, but give it a shot. It's very readable.
I found this paragraph quite interesting. Early on, they describe how URLs work:
A hyperlink... associates or "links"... The list syntax is part of the... "HTML"...HTML is a set of... Location is a reference to... "http://" indicates that... The Label, delimited by... may be text or an image... The href attribute... gives...
Cool! A technical description written in lawyerspeak. Can we have the next RFC in this format, please?:)
As an aside, wouldn't it have been enough for the judge to be sent a link to the article (along with the hardcopy)? I am sure he could have figured out what role URLs play on the Web, then.
To finish up, here is a choice quote:
In doing so, we are guided by Justice Stewart's exposition of the correct approach to ambiguities in the law of copyright:
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts...."
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
I think everyone agrees that the original intent of the patent system is to reward inventors in return for making their inventions public.
Although I support the LPF's point of view, I agree that there is room for argument here, especially on the side of small inventors who worry about getting ripped off by companies.
But I can never reconcile two of the fundamental flaws in the patent system:
Licensing: Currently, I am not obliged to license my patent to anyone. What good does it do to the public if I patent something and sit my ass on it, refusing to license it to anybody. Progress is stifled in the patented area for atleast 17 years. Shouldn't the system allow for mandatory licensing to whoever wishes to do so, of course in return for a monetary benefit to the patent holder? Of course, the license fees should have a cap on them, otherwise I could set the fees so sky-high as to make licensing impractical.
Independent invention: Currently, even if someone else independently invents my patented stuff, they are violating my patent. I don't understand the logic for this. Copyright system allows for a perfect reproduction to be possible, if I can show that it was done totally without reference to the original. Why should the patent system be any different in this regard? It seems very hypocritical and outright unjust to hold a true inventor liable in this case.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
I think you have to agree that "security through open source" is not a given. Let me try to summarize the arguments we've heard while adding some of my own.
Against: If you open the source code, you are making it much easier for crackers to find flaws in your system. For: Yeah, but there will also be good guys finding flaws too, which will let us fix the bugs faster.
For: If you close the source code, it doesn't mean that crackers won't find flaws. A determined cracker will get in, eventually. Against: Yeah, but just look around. There are a lot of good guys finding holes in closed source software as well, e.g., Bennett Haselton of Peacefire.
For: Yeah, but the many eye-balls effect is a unique advantage of open source. Closed source software doesn't have that. Against: Well, the many eye-balls principle is just that, a principle. As this article shows, a lot of people just assume that others are doing the security audit; most are not competent to find flaws even if they are looking; nobody wants to look at a tangled mess of C code, etc. In reality, if your program is not an obviously security-related product (say it's your run-of-the-mill application), you've to admit that many eye-balls won't find any problems there. But a lot of systems are still put at risk because of these "applications".
I think what the critics of open source security are missing is the deterrent power of open source. If they are really right in their claim that more crackers than good guys will be finding flaws in my program, then that's a strong deterrent for me to just code away as I wish. I have a sort of moral responsibility for the code I write (the warranty disclaimers notwithstanding) and I would be peeved if a cracker penetrated a system because of gaping security holes in my work.
The incentive for writing better code is that much lesser if I know that "hell, who's going to be spending time disassembling this code, I've got a deadline to meet".
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Yeah, so you've heard it all from others how this shitty movie has no plot. Some apologise for it saying this is meant to be "action" flick.
As if that somehow exonerates its crappy "action". I have no problem watching senseless violence, explosions or action sequences that defy physics, especially if the movie's setting already allows for it, like Matrix or sci-fi.
But M:I2 is just a pathetic excuse. The action doesn't make ANY sense.
1. Jousting motorcyclists: This has got to be the worst of the lot. People are supposed to be fighting for their lives, but no, they would rather tease you with a school-kid-type-i-dare-you stunt first instead of just using their guns.
2. The villain knows exactly how the hero is going to penetrate the building and that his aim is to destroy the virus. But no, instead of doing something about it, the villain and his cronies would rather wait to get their asses kicked. See, that's so much more cool.
3. The hero is trapped behind a small desk at the laboratory. Instead of just killing the guy, the villains want to engage in conversation. "Oh, let's chat, for we may die soon."
4. The hero could have taken out the last remaining sample of virus with a single gunshot. But no, he would rather take longing looks at it, hiding behind a desk, waiting for the bimbo to do something stupid with it. And don't tell me the hero can't aim. We all know how many times in the movie he takes out grenades/villains with a bullet from afar.
5. The building is worth less 10 seconds of free fall (anyone bother to note how long it took for the hero to free-fall-penetrate or which floor the laboratory was on?). But, it's apparently enough for a parachute to save the guy.
... oh and list goes on...
I am just so irritated that even the action doesn't deliver.
Sreeram. ---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
Unfortunately, a lot of people here are going to trip over this wording. The scents in question have not been patented. They have been trademarked. Please stop to consider this before rushing to post your flurry of claims for royalties and absurd patents. Dammit. The logo for this article doesn't help either.
I wouldn't be surprised even if scents were patentable. Harley-Davidson has long since patented their motorcycles' rumbles, no? Sounds, scents, visual art, music - they are the same in one "sense", no?
Sreeram.
---------------------------------- Observation is the essence of art.
There are several interesting issues here. Like the judge said himself, this case doesn't warrant a decision on these issues, so there will be more debating and more lawsuits to come before a body of case law is established.
The way I see it, these are some of the major issues we are debating about:
1. Ownership (Copyright vs Authorship) ... most bullitain boards claim ownership of anything posted on them. Most bulletin boards do say that they own the copyright on the posts, so you can't go and freely copy the bulletin board posts without their consent. But, BBSes won't (or can't) claim authorship of the posts. If they did, they would have to ensure that the content is non-offensive (which is a big headache for them). Copyright is (by default) owned by the author of original work, so the "Terms and Conditions" of the site probably say something like "you hereby relinquish all copyrights on the posts you make and instead transfer them to so-and-so.com". This protects them from getting sued over objectionable content, yet gives them power to sue you for copyright violation. Sort of like the editorials or opinion columns in magazines. The magazine will claim copyright, but say something like "these opinions don't necessarily reflect those of the official blah blah". But I do agree with you that claiming such things doesn't make BBS/website hosts invulnerable. They probably can be successfully sued with the help of a sympathetic jury.
2. Editing/Moderation (Power vs Obligation) I think the power to edit doesn't necessarily constitute an obligation to do so. To take the oft repeated telephone example, surely the carriers have the power to edit, but they make it a policy not to, so they are really not liable for the content they carry. Again, I don't think this will insulate all. This will probably be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on whether the defendant is a publisher or a carrier, whether there was intent (for the objectionable material) or not, whether there was opportunity to edit or not (like someone pointed it out and the ISP still didn't do anything), etc.
3. Amount of editing This seems to me the most ambiguous issue. ISPs can protect themselves to a large extent through Content Neutrality. But it is unclear how this applies to, say the newsgroups that they carry. Because (usually) ISPs don't moderate the newsgroups they carry, they are thus "content neutral" as far as each newsgroup is concerned. However, most ISPs don't carry a lot of the alt.some.really.objectionable.newsgroups, so can they be held liable if they let one of such newsgroups slip through (by accident or not)?
I am sure there are more and finer issues, but things are hazy as it is in my head, I better stop now.
Oh no! Now you can't even hide your *ahem* private endeavours behind the glare of your headlights. Thermal images, really! Reminds me of "R" in TWINE - must be a Y2K glitch!
... 128-bit key is more than 309,485,009,821,345,068,724,781,056 times harder than a 40-bit key...
So someone thought it would be cool to calculate 2^128/2^40. Hmph! But, anyway, my point is, you have to be careful about such numbers. Admittedly, using longer key lengths will give you exponentially stronger encryption, but it doesn't scale so neatly all the time. Ask Bruce Schneier. A lot of factors come into play in determining the final entropy: the way the key is used (how many bits are actually relevant), how much entropy in the PRNG (pseudo random number generator), etc. Just nitpicking on details I guess, but something to remember anyway.
Your everyday/usr/games/fortune has a lot of this crap as well. Quite a number of them are untrue and totally made up. IIRC, there was a guy who purposely made up some of these "laws" and circulated them around long enough to get some into the default fortune list. It is on record somewhere on the net. Go find it. The same applies to this website as well. Many of the so-called "laws" are just bad interpretations of legal speak. Come on, when was the last time you saw a law that said in simple words, "Lollipops are banned"? I know it is meant to be funny and all that, but give me a break. It doesn't take wit to interpret laws in a twisted way, take them out of context and translate into something weird. Go ahead and laugh. But don't spread the word and fool a lot of the naive out there as well. Or add a pinch of salt to go.
This is nothing new. The practice of sending cookies with GIFs (or GET for GIFs) has always been a problem. Naturally any email client (HTML or not) stupid enough to support this will open up the user to a variety of abuse.
First of all, note that there is nothing "groundbreaking" in this discovery. All this happens only if you are unlucky enough to have your email address in the hands of spammers, which is already as bad as it gets.
What can you do to prevent such abuse? Several things: Turn off HTML enabling for your email clients (you may or may not have a choice depending on the client). Restrict (or disallow) cookies in your web browser. Use something like Junk Buster.
Okay, so there will be the usual slew of comments complaining about the FBI abusing its power, harassing innocent people, etc. The article contributes its share too:
... Isn't that part of what the Constitution is all about--the means to peacefully object to the laws of the land? ... [The FBI's] actions are counter to the Consitutional rights ... so why investigate a person for doing something completely legal?
I don't know if the FBI investigation is legal or ethical or whatever, but it is clear that you (or the article) shouldn't be jumping to conclusions. Here, the article says it clearly:
... however the documents were heavily sensored, including the bureau's basis for the investigation
We don't know why the FBI is investigating this guy, apart from some suspicions about his involvement with cryptography and some vague paranoia about "challenging authority and laws".
Slashdot Mirror
I was in a similar situation less than two months back. In my case, it was not about a patent that was too broad or over-reaching. It was about a patent for an incredibly obvious and simple use of some data. What's worse, while the method was totally software-based, my company was trying to pass it off as something more than your regular "if-then-else" hack.
I refused to participate. My problem was not really the management. In fact, the PHBs probably didn't even know that there was a potential patent application going on. It was rather my co-workers, you know, oh-so enthusiastic, "Ooh, ooh, I am actually applying for a patent".
I told my co-workers "No" and quit soon after (due to other reasons too). Of course, I was a small fry in the organization and have no delusions about being missed. Most likely, the patent application will be rejected (on grounds of being too obvious). If it does get through (obfuscated by overly technical jargon), it still won't be of any likely consequence. If however, eventually it is used as a tool to persecute somebody, I'll be around to say, "I was one of the, ahem, "inventors", and the patent was filed without my signature".
Sreeram.----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
This is coming from Singapore, half-way across the globe for most of you. I have a personal perspective to share with you.
I don't call our favourite OS "GNU/Linux". I say "Linux", only because it takes fewer syllables. As RMS said in an interview, it doesn't matter much when you are talking amongst us, but it matters a lot when you talk to others.
Why? I started using computers and programming seriously about 8 years back, in school. At that time, I started off using a lot of GNU tools - Emacs, GCC, etc. Yet, I had not even heard the word "GNU". About three years after that, I started playing with Linux. And I still had not ever heard about RMS or GNU. In 1998, when RMS visited Singapore, I finally heard about RMS and GNU.
And since then, I've learnt a lot. I now insist on explaining what the "free" in "free software" means, to people who are still largely apathetic. Why is this important?
Well, until now, people in Singapore have had no need to distinguish between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". This was (and to some extent, still is) a pirates' haven, and you could get MS-Win2K-Enterprise for about US$5. There was no need to worry about licensing issues or copyright. Now, with the pressure from MNCs mounting, the government has started to crack down seriously on illegally copied software. People are feeling it. Few people want to pay US$50 for a CD.
Now is the time we really appreciate how much RMS and others have done for us. By allowing us to copy and share, free software lets us maintain our cost-of-living. People need to be told of this difference. When they see me with a CD-R with "Red Hat" written on it, they ask me, "Ah, pirated software, eh? Where did you manage to get it?" (now that it's becoming increasingly difficult to get illegally copied software). I tell them, "No, this is not pirated. Yes, it's not original Red Hat, but free software lets me copy and share". Then they pay attention when I tell them, "GNU/Linux can never be pirated, because it's always free."
Sreeram.----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
My feelings exactly. Other than what was already quoted in the Slashdot intro to this article, there was pretty much nothing else. And this teeny weeny bit of redemption for Unix comes from none other than..., er, Mr. Anonymous.
What a pathetic excuse for an "article". If you take out all the crap about Randi, Lane, weekends and lambchops, there isn't even enough material for a morsel.
Of course, Slashdot had to jump on it nevertheless. After all, a puny jab at Microsoft's expense is still worth headlines. Bah.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Yabbut that's not what mIEcrosoft wants. duh!
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
There was a similar competition sometime back - the Prisoner's Dilemma Contest run by the Perl Journal. Your program played against two other programs in a series of matches, and the organizers would plant dumb robots.
The winning strategy there was actually a team of three entries: two of which (slaves) were bent on losing to the third (master). I read through the rock-paper-scissors contest rules, and I can see that such cooperation is not precluded. Try coding a master and a bunch of slaves, so that when they meet (and can recognize such a meeting), master will always beat slave. Of course, play sensibly when the master and slave are not playing against each other.
Come to think of it, Iocaine Powder + master-slave would be really powerful indeed.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Q: To your knowledge, was MORE or any members of MORE involved in the decrypting of DeCSS?
A: Can you define "decrypting"?
Mr. Garbus: Withdraw the question.
Q: CSS-auth we have agreed is a Linux BSD program written by the Livid Group?
...
A: It is a Linux program written by Derek Fawcus.
Q: Do you know who developed CSS-cat?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you know whether or not it is a Linux BSD program?
A: Can you describe Linux BSD?
Q: Where would that hard drive be?
A: It would be in a computer in my office.
Mr. Garbus: Will you produce that?
Mr. Gold: The entire computer in his office?
Mr. Garbus: The hard drive.
Mr. Gold: You want the whole hard drive?
Mr. Garbus: Yes.
Mr. Gold: I object to that as irrelevant.
Mr. Garbus: So it is your position that all the questions I would have after January 14th of this witness are subject to the attorney-client privilege?
Mr. Gold: I don't know. I don't think I could answer that question now. I don't know what you are going to ask.
Q: What was the difference in time, if you remember, between the time you downloaded the DeCSS and you downloaded the materials?
A: It was infinite.
Q: When you say you have spoken to people at those companies, who is it that you have spoken to at each of the companies? For example, Universal.
Mr. Gold: If it was after January of 00, don't answer. If it was before, don't answer.
A: I assume my business -- confidential information is covered under the confidentiality clause, the earlier confidentiality issue.
Q: You have a lawyer there.
Q: Did you download any materials in addition to that which was sent to you by the MPAA from either of these websites prior to January 14th?
A: How do you describe "download"?
Q: Take it off the machine and print it.
Mr. Garbus: It occurs to me, Mr. Gold, that you just might have an objection if I ask for that file.
Mr. Gold: I think I would. Although you might have been so amazingly clever I wouldn't have recognized it. I gave him a compliment and I think it deserved to be on the record.
Q: What is his background?
A: He is an IT professional.
Q: What does that mean?
Q: Do you know what strings are?
A: Strings?
Q: Yes.
A: In the computer sense?
Q: Yes.
A: I believe so, yes.
Q: Tell me what they are.
A: Strings is typically a term used to define a sequence of text characters.
A: It's clearly an area that is an area of, I guess, hot development, if you will, or interesting development and is, at this point, obviously gotten attention.
Q: When you say "hot", what do you mean by "hot"?
A: Hot as an area of developmental activity.
Q: Be more specific. Can you?
A: By "hot", I referred to by having public focus on it, if you will.
Mr. Gold: He testified to a lot of --
Mr. Garbus: We disagree. We will get a ruling on it.
Mr. Gold: What you won't do is interrupt me. So if you will hold your horses and your fire for just a few seconds, I will finish.
By the way, if you haven't realized, Mr. Garbus is the guy on "our" side, asking the questions. The witness answering is a stooge for the MPAA. The above collection is only meant to point out some funny things and is not representative of the whole deposition. Towards the latter half, Mr. Garbus asked some real pointed questions that bolstered the defendants' case.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
I am slowly losing hope for the future, save for free software. I remember being aware of the problems with shrinkwrap licenses more than a year or so back, and thinking to myself, "This is trash; the courts will eventually throw out such licensing.". But on the contrary, things have gotten worse. UCITA has become law in several states. Courts have upheld these licenses (ok, so the linked article talks about a specific contract and not mass-market licenses, but hey, the EULAs are also specific contracts, if Big Company will have its way).
It is deja vu time. I get this feeling that hardware, software, cars, telephones, you-name-it-what-not will all be licensed in the future. Nothing will ever be sold. Except your soul. And Big Company would have found the perfect way to screw copyright law, and you.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
So tell me, who appreciates closed standards? In other words, proprietary standards? The real power of standards lies in their openness, no?
Everyone knows that standards are regularly ignored and "embraced and extinguished" (to borrow a phrase from the M$ toolkit). So apart from raising a stink about it (e.g., Kerberos), is there any other way to "coerce" adherence to the standards? Specifying "strict" standards will not be useful as it leaves no room for changing the standards in an upward-compatible way. Any other options?
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Yes, plenty of them qualify as free software licenses, in RMS's/FSF's opinion. You see, RMS applies his criteria and priorities consistently, which is something most people can't do (and are jealous of), which is probably why so many trolls can't stand him.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
FTC Calls for Privacy Legislation to Protect Internet Users. On May 22, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report (PDF) on the results of its latest survey of website privacy policies. The survey documented that only 20% of a random sample of websites addressed basic elements of Fair Information Practices. Based on the findings of the survey, a majority of the FTC Commissioners have recommended that legislation is needed. On Thursday, the FTC will formally present its findings and recommendations in front of the Senate Commerce Committee. EPIC's latest survey, "Surfer Beware 3: Privacy Policies without Privacy Protection", also found that self-regulation provided an inadequate level of online privacy protection.
I just hope the EU doesn't fall for the same bait as did TrustE. Self-regulation isn't.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
ICANN has long since adopted a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which is adhered to by all ICANN-accredited registrars. The policy is quite fair to you. There is no danger of Mattel bullying you or ICANN into giving up your domain name, simply because: ICANN (or a registrar) will not transfer/cancel a domain name unless it receives a court order or your written approval (as part of a settlement or whatever). In rare cases (such as cybersquatting or cyberpiracy), ICANN could cancel/transfer the domain name on advice from a neutral Administrative Panel, but only after the complainant shows that you have violated all three of their stringent criteria (see the link for more details). It is quite clear to me that Mattel doesn't have a case if it goes to ICANN.
It is also clear to me that Mattel doesn't have a case if it goes to court. You are clearly protected under the "non-commercial use" clause. This itself should save your goat. On top of it, the trademark dilution claim is tenuous at best. I would bet that a court will throw out the claim that "The Barbies" sounds confusingly similar to "Barbie" so much so that it dilutes their trademark. Alas, I have no money to offer on the bet, though. If you can live through a suit (if Mattel brings one against you), you will have achieved sweet victory.
On my part, I am writing to Mattel to complain.
By the way, IANAL.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Yeah, and a lot of other people are going to get sued as well. mp1.com through mp25.com are all taken up. mp26.com is available, at least when I checked just now. It may be gone already.
:)
Why doesn't the MPEGroup just rename the damn standard to something else
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
I found this paragraph quite interesting. Early on, they describe how URLs work:
Cool! A technical description written in lawyerspeak. Can we have the next RFC in this format, please?As an aside, wouldn't it have been enough for the judge to be sent a link to the article (along with the hardcopy)? I am sure he could have figured out what role URLs play on the Web, then.
To finish up, here is a choice quote: Sreeram.----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Although I support the LPF's point of view, I agree that there is room for argument here, especially on the side of small inventors who worry about getting ripped off by companies.
But I can never reconcile two of the fundamental flaws in the patent system:
Licensing: Currently, I am not obliged to license my patent to anyone. What good does it do to the public if I patent something and sit my ass on it, refusing to license it to anybody. Progress is stifled in the patented area for atleast 17 years. Shouldn't the system allow for mandatory licensing to whoever wishes to do so, of course in return for a monetary benefit to the patent holder? Of course, the license fees should have a cap on them, otherwise I could set the fees so sky-high as to make licensing impractical.
Independent invention: Currently, even if someone else independently invents my patented stuff, they are violating my patent. I don't understand the logic for this. Copyright system allows for a perfect reproduction to be possible, if I can show that it was done totally without reference to the original. Why should the patent system be any different in this regard? It seems very hypocritical and outright unjust to hold a true inventor liable in this case.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Against: If you open the source code, you are making it much easier for crackers to find flaws in your system.
For: Yeah, but there will also be good guys finding flaws too, which will let us fix the bugs faster.
For: If you close the source code, it doesn't mean that crackers won't find flaws. A determined cracker will get in, eventually.
Against: Yeah, but just look around. There are a lot of good guys finding holes in closed source software as well, e.g., Bennett Haselton of Peacefire.
For: Yeah, but the many eye-balls effect is a unique advantage of open source. Closed source software doesn't have that.
Against: Well, the many eye-balls principle is just that, a principle. As this article shows, a lot of people just assume that others are doing the security audit; most are not competent to find flaws even if they are looking; nobody wants to look at a tangled mess of C code, etc. In reality, if your program is not an obviously security-related product (say it's your run-of-the-mill application), you've to admit that many eye-balls won't find any problems there. But a lot of systems are still put at risk because of these "applications".
I think what the critics of open source security are missing is the deterrent power of open source. If they are really right in their claim that more crackers than good guys will be finding flaws in my program, then that's a strong deterrent for me to just code away as I wish. I have a sort of moral responsibility for the code I write (the warranty disclaimers notwithstanding) and I would be peeved if a cracker penetrated a system because of gaping security holes in my work.
The incentive for writing better code is that much lesser if I know that "hell, who's going to be spending time disassembling this code, I've got a deadline to meet".
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
I hated this movie.
...
Yeah, so you've heard it all from others how this shitty movie has no plot. Some apologise for it saying this is meant to be "action" flick.
As if that somehow exonerates its crappy "action". I have no problem watching senseless violence, explosions or action sequences that defy physics, especially if the movie's setting already allows for it, like Matrix or sci-fi.
But M:I2 is just a pathetic excuse. The action doesn't make ANY sense.
1. Jousting motorcyclists: This has got to be the worst of the lot. People are supposed to be fighting for their lives, but no, they would rather tease you with a school-kid-type-i-dare-you stunt first instead of just using their guns.
2. The villain knows exactly how the hero is going to penetrate the building and that his aim is to destroy the virus. But no, instead of doing something about it, the villain and his cronies would rather wait to get their asses kicked. See, that's so much more cool.
3. The hero is trapped behind a small desk at the laboratory. Instead of just killing the guy, the villains want to engage in conversation. "Oh, let's chat, for we may die soon."
4. The hero could have taken out the last remaining sample of virus with a single gunshot. But no, he would rather take longing looks at it, hiding behind a desk, waiting for the bimbo to do something stupid with it. And don't tell me the hero can't aim. We all know how many times in the movie he takes out grenades/villains with a bullet from afar.
5. The building is worth less 10 seconds of free fall (anyone bother to note how long it took for the hero to free-fall-penetrate or which floor the laboratory was on?). But, it's apparently enough for a parachute to save the guy.
... oh and list goes on
I am just so irritated that even the action doesn't deliver.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Unfortunately, a lot of people here are going to trip over this wording. The scents in question have not been patented. They have been trademarked. Please stop to consider this before rushing to post your flurry of claims for royalties and absurd patents. Dammit. The logo for this article doesn't help either.
I wouldn't be surprised even if scents were patentable. Harley-Davidson has long since patented their motorcycles' rumbles, no? Sounds, scents, visual art, music - they are the same in one "sense", no?
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
The way I see it, these are some of the major issues we are debating about:
1. Ownership (Copyright vs Authorship)
... most bullitain boards claim ownership of anything posted on them.
Most bulletin boards do say that they own the copyright on the posts, so you can't go and freely copy the bulletin board posts without their consent. But, BBSes won't (or can't) claim authorship of the posts. If they did, they would have to ensure that the content is non-offensive (which is a big headache for them). Copyright is (by default) owned by the author of original work, so the "Terms and Conditions" of the site probably say something like "you hereby relinquish all copyrights on the posts you make and instead transfer them to so-and-so.com". This protects them from getting sued over objectionable content, yet gives them power to sue you for copyright violation. Sort of like the editorials or opinion columns in magazines. The magazine will claim copyright, but say something like "these opinions don't necessarily reflect those of the official blah blah". But I do agree with you that claiming such things doesn't make BBS/website hosts invulnerable. They probably can be successfully sued with the help of a sympathetic jury.
2. Editing/Moderation (Power vs Obligation)
I think the power to edit doesn't necessarily constitute an obligation to do so. To take the oft repeated telephone example, surely the carriers have the power to edit, but they make it a policy not to, so they are really not liable for the content they carry. Again, I don't think this will insulate all. This will probably be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on whether the defendant is a publisher or a carrier, whether there was intent (for the objectionable material) or not, whether there was opportunity to edit or not (like someone pointed it out and the ISP still didn't do anything), etc.
3. Amount of editing
This seems to me the most ambiguous issue. ISPs can protect themselves to a large extent through Content Neutrality. But it is unclear how this applies to, say the newsgroups that they carry. Because (usually) ISPs don't moderate the newsgroups they carry, they are thus "content neutral" as far as each newsgroup is concerned. However, most ISPs don't carry a lot of the alt.some.really.objectionable.newsgroups, so can they be held liable if they let one of such newsgroups slip through (by accident or not)?
I am sure there are more and finer issues, but things are hazy as it is in my head, I better stop now.
Sreeram.
Oh no! Now you can't even hide your *ahem* private endeavours behind the glare of your headlights. Thermal images, really! Reminds me of "R" in TWINE - must be a Y2K glitch!
Sreeram.
Sreeram.
This should simply have been included as part of the "dumb laws" article (posted just two stories back), where it would fit perfectly.
Sreeram.
Your everyday /usr/games/fortune has a lot of this crap as well. Quite a number of them are untrue and totally made up. IIRC, there was a guy who purposely made up some of these "laws" and circulated them around long enough to get some into the default fortune list. It is on record somewhere on the net. Go find it. The same applies to this website as well. Many of the so-called "laws" are just bad interpretations of legal speak. Come on, when was the last time you saw a law that said in simple words, "Lollipops are banned"? I know it is meant to be funny and all that, but give me a break. It doesn't take wit to interpret laws in a twisted way, take them out of context and translate into something weird. Go ahead and laugh. But don't spread the word and fool a lot of the naive out there as well. Or add a pinch of salt to go.
Sreeram.
First of all, note that there is nothing "groundbreaking" in this discovery. All this happens only if you are unlucky enough to have your email address in the hands of spammers, which is already as bad as it gets.
What can you do to prevent such abuse? Several things: Turn off HTML enabling for your email clients (you may or may not have a choice depending on the client). Restrict (or disallow) cookies in your web browser. Use something like Junk Buster.
Sreeram.
Hold your fire.
Sreeram.