There are certainly exceptions to this rule. For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it.
I remember a conference in which a guy from a lab told us that they did not look for certain efficient molecules because they were partly based on mecanisms patented by other labs. Thus, there are good molecules out there that could cure serious disease, but because they involve several mecanisms patented by different companies, nobody will ever look for them.
Tell me smartass, if a student does not pay for his dorm, they could put video cams there too ?
I love this moral of "who own decides". Wake up dear friend. Mankind went a bit farther than that during the last century. The idea is that *privacy* is more important than your sordid considerations.
Maybe you could, say, shut the hell up, and try to think a bit?
From a pure PR point of view, I do not know how it look in the US, but I am convinced that for european minds it sounds a bit too tough cow-boy style and corporate justice.
European people have a bad feeling when it comes to money and justice, and they usually have a very bad opinion of the people who sell their friends / neighbours / whatever.
This could be acceptable for child abuse or serious matter... but for computer virii ?
> Slashdotters, please take note. Not only does this guy have a good point, he's
> the first Slashdotter in nearly a month to spell "ridiculous" correctly. On
> that basis, I suspect he can spell "ludicrous" as well.
And I have the exact same accent as Lambert Wilson in Matrix. You should behave dude.
If I remember well lessons from a grand master: NEVER download an URL automatically. I can already imagine viagra commercials with links to the sites the sender wants to see down...
AFAIU, the DMCA criminalizes the design of circumvention devices, whatever their usage may be. Then, everything is in the definition of 'circumvention' ?
For instance interoperability between a remote controler and a garage door is allowed, but interoperability between an OS and a DVD is not ? What matters is the state of mind of the guy who made the thing one try to deal with ? If I make my DVD standard to be a "protection", then bypassing it is circumvention ? Then the garage trial would have had finished another way if, say, the protocole had been encrypted or something ?
Do we both agree that it's sort of hard/impossible to predict by advance what is and what is not allowed ?
Hm. Maybe I should have added a non-cynical translation. Okay, here it is:
I am wondering to what extent Yahoo could use the DMCA to prevent this kind of initiative ? It seems to me that unfortunately this is to prevent this sort of thing that the DMCA was created. Am I wrong ?
From http://gaim.sourceforge.net/ Our friends over at Cerulean Studios managed to break my speed record at cracking Yahoo authentication schemes with an impressive feat of hackery.
Can't Yahoo use the DMCA to send all those people to Guantanamo?
I remember a linux newsgroups in 94 or something. Some guy was asking why linux people were not more agressive in the group, at least compared to what he could see at that time on other groups (this was 94, linux trolls came a bit later).
And a linux guy just replied "why should we be agressive ? We will win, like we always did." I never understood clearly what this "we" was, but he was so confident. I trust him.
Diversity is good. Everywhere I go, I see the same shops, the same food, the same tv programs, the same clothes. May it be in europe, USA or asia. This is depressing. The uniformisation may be a good idea on the short term and from an ecomonical point of view, it's a disaster in term of comfort and happiness on the long term. And, as in genetic, it's obviously a disaster from a memetic point of view.
--
Go debian!
If they were distributed with a null mean value, I would have no problem summing computations with that sort of error. The law of large number ensures the result would be close to the good answer with high proba.
I admit that at first I was really wondering. The fact that SCO seems to be used to dirty litigation and won against MS in the past (if I remember well?) made me doubt, not about their rights, but about their nuisance capabilities.
But the more this pathetic story goes on, the more I feel like this is going to be a disaster for SCO. I am convinced that this will serve free-software. It will mark the history with the example of a big company anihilited when it tried to mess with the free-software community.
It is going to be difficult in the future for a lawyer to enter the office of the CEO saying "hey I have this great idea to get money from free-software users!"
Of course the idea of the crazy communist scientist creating monsters is pleasant to many people (even here as I can see), but there may be real scientific and medical purposes in this project.
From the article The approach could help scientists wishing to mass-produce human embryos as sources of human embryonic stem cells. I doubt china invests money in science-fictionesque freaky experiments just to piss off theologians all over the world. And I doubt crazy researchers trying to create monsters would publish in Cell Research.
There is no hope to get from a verdict stating that one can patent technology for "plug-ins" and "applets". Every single case like this is one more argument to be used by the bad guys in the future. This is on more sad day in the infamous world of IP.
It does surprise me a bit. It's surprising they are that honnest with themselves and with the reader. Usually, military personnal are more used to double-speech (the "I do not kill people, I protect people").
If I may do some cheap psycho-socio-geopolotic, I'd say it may be one more example of a certain US behavior those days. It's like they feel they do not need anymore to hide their real goals may they be economical, ideological or military.
I have hardly ever seen a major publication (of any sort!) refer to Linux as anything except "an open-source operating system", or the like. It is not an operating system-- it is a kernel. (It is not even "open-source"-- it is "free software"! Not to wax RMSish...)
Another common misconception about Linux is that it's a complete operating system. In reality Linux refers to the kernel--or core--of the operating system. Combining Linux with a set of open-source GNU programs from the Free Software Foundation turns it into what most people know as Linux
Well, my friend, you will certainly love TCPA and other trusted-computer stuff. Basically they will be able to dialog with your computer in a totally encrypted maniere, and you would have no way to even known what it is about.
From the beginning it has been my main concern about TCPA: with such an architecture, corporations could transform customers PCs into storing nodes for data they completely disagree with (child porn of course, but we can imagine other examples related to politic, religion, etc.)
The good news is that it would upset all sort of people, not only the leftist-geeks. I wonder what a creationnist would think of such a situation in wich he may be forced to store articles about darwinism on his PC ?
From what I understand, it seems very unlikely for SCO to hurt Linux. Even if "stolen" portions of code could be found, they could be removed and rewritten in days - okay, I am not a lawyer. This said, isn't all this mess just pushing IBM to abandon AIX and completely convert to Linux ?
Slashdot Mirror
There are certainly exceptions to this rule. For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it.
I remember a conference in which a guy from a lab told us that they did not look for certain efficient molecules because they were partly based on mecanisms patented by other labs. Thus, there are good molecules out there that could cure serious disease, but because they involve several mecanisms patented by different companies, nobody will ever look for them.
--
Go debian!
Tell me smartass, if a student does not pay for his dorm, they could put video cams there too ?
I love this moral of "who own decides". Wake up dear friend. Mankind went a bit farther than that during the last century. The idea is that *privacy* is more important than your sordid considerations.
Maybe you could, say, shut the hell up, and try to think a bit?
From the article:
The students -- who expressed the most excitement about the CD burner and chat software -- will find that there are some limitations.
Their computers will be locked, meaning they cannot download any additional software, Hindes said.
Any Web sites deemed objectionable will be blocked, and the district could shut off the chat software if messaging between students gets out of hand.
Losing a laptop or having one stolen carries a $125 penalty, he said.
In addition, the district has software that tells administrators exactly what the students are doing on their computers, he said.
"We're entitled to monitor it and we will be able to do that," he said.
Is this legal ? Does giving a computer for free allow you to monitor and filter whatever you want ? Isnt'it similar to public library computers ?
Whatever the law says, such a deal sucks. The poor guy will have a big-brother computer while is wealthy friend will buy a spyless one.
--
Go debian!!!
Well, when you migrate from MS, Sun and SCO .. what remains ? I Think Gartner group is trying to send a message here.
--
Go debian!
From a pure PR point of view, I do not know how it look in the US, but I am convinced that for european minds it sounds a bit too tough cow-boy style and corporate justice.
... but for computer virii ?
European people have a bad feeling when it comes to money and justice, and they usually have a very bad opinion of the people who sell their friends / neighbours / whatever.
This could be acceptable for child abuse or serious matter
> Slashdotters, please take note. Not only does this guy have a good point, he's
> the first Slashdotter in nearly a month to spell "ridiculous" correctly. On
> that basis, I suspect he can spell "ludicrous" as well.
And I have the exact same accent as Lambert Wilson in Matrix. You should behave dude.
> Particularly shocking is the line: "If voting could really change things,
> it would be illegal."
This is ridiculous. The guy was using this quote as a signature. Come on!
If I remember well lessons from a grand master: NEVER download an URL automatically. I can already imagine viagra commercials with links to the sites the sender wants to see down ...
--
Go debian!
AFAIU, the DMCA criminalizes the design of circumvention devices, whatever their usage may be. Then, everything is in the definition of 'circumvention' ?
For instance interoperability between a remote controler and a garage door is allowed, but interoperability between an OS and a DVD is not ? What matters is the state of mind of the guy who made the thing one try to deal with ? If I make my DVD standard to be a "protection", then bypassing it is circumvention ? Then the garage trial would have had finished another way if, say, the protocole had been encrypted or something ?
Do we both agree that it's sort of hard/impossible to predict by advance what is and what is not allowed ?
Maybe I completely missed the point, but then why DeCSS prohibited ?
Hm. Maybe I should have added a non-cynical translation. Okay, here it is:
I am wondering to what extent Yahoo could use the DMCA to prevent this kind of initiative ? It seems to me that unfortunately this is to prevent this sort of thing that the DMCA was created. Am I wrong ?
From http://gaim.sourceforge.net/ Our friends over at Cerulean Studios managed to break my speed record at cracking Yahoo authentication schemes with an impressive feat of hackery.
Can't Yahoo use the DMCA to send all those people to Guantanamo?
I remember a linux newsgroups in 94 or something. Some guy was asking why linux people were not more agressive in the group, at least compared to what he could see at that time on other groups (this was 94, linux trolls came a bit later).
And a linux guy just replied "why should we be agressive ? We will win, like we always did." I never understood clearly what this "we" was, but he was so confident. I trust him.
This letter is worth reading ...
Diversity is good. Everywhere I go, I see the same shops, the same food, the same tv programs, the same clothes. May it be in europe, USA or asia. This is depressing. The uniformisation may be a good idea on the short term and from an ecomonical point of view, it's a disaster in term of comfort and happiness on the long term. And, as in genetic, it's obviously a disaster from a memetic point of view.
-- Go debian!
If they were distributed with a null mean value, I would have no problem summing computations with that sort of error. The law of large number ensures the result would be close to the good answer with high proba.
I admit that at first I was really wondering. The fact that SCO seems to be used to dirty litigation and won against MS in the past (if I remember well?) made me doubt, not about their rights, but about their nuisance capabilities.
But the more this pathetic story goes on, the more I feel like this is going to be a disaster for SCO. I am convinced that this will serve free-software. It will mark the history with the example of a big company anihilited when it tried to mess with the free-software community.
It is going to be difficult in the future for a lawyer to enter the office of the CEO saying "hey I have this great idea to get money from free-software users!"
--
Go debian!
The debates and criticisms on debian-legal about the FDL demonstrate that may there be devotion, it would definitely not be devotion to the FSF.
Go debian!
Of course the idea of the crazy communist scientist creating monsters is pleasant to many people (even here as I can see), but there may be real scientific and medical purposes in this project.
From the article The approach could help scientists wishing to mass-produce human embryos as sources of human embryonic stem cells. I doubt china invests money in science-fictionesque freaky experiments just to piss off theologians all over the world. And I doubt crazy researchers trying to create monsters would publish in Cell Research.
There is no hope to get from a verdict stating that one can patent technology for "plug-ins" and "applets". Every single case like this is one more argument to be used by the bad guys in the future. This is on more sad day in the infamous world of IP.
As far as I know, many of those filters are based on a decision rule of the form
... are in it) > 1-epsilon
...
P(mail is spam | words X, Y, Z,
The computation is then done using Bayse's rule (P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)) under certain independance assumption which makes it tractable.
So this is actually bayesian filtering
My favorite filter is spamoracle
It does surprise me a bit. It's surprising they are that honnest with themselves and with the reader. Usually, military personnal are more used to double-speech (the "I do not kill people, I protect people").
If I may do some cheap psycho-socio-geopolotic, I'd say it may be one more example of a certain US behavior those days. It's like they feel they do not need anymore to hide their real goals may they be economical, ideological or military.
I have hardly ever seen a major publication (of any sort!) refer to Linux as anything except "an open-source operating system", or the like. It is not an operating system-- it is a kernel. (It is not even "open-source"-- it is "free software"! Not to wax RMSish...)
Check Oracle Magazine July/Augut 2003:
Another common misconception about Linux is that it's a complete operating system. In reality Linux refers to the kernel--or core--of the operating system. Combining Linux with a set of open-source GNU programs from the Free Software Foundation turns it into what most people know as Linux
Actually, the whole article is accurate.
Well, my friend, you will certainly love TCPA and other trusted-computer stuff. Basically they will be able to dialog with your computer in a totally encrypted maniere, and you would have no way to even known what it is about. From the beginning it has been my main concern about TCPA: with such an architecture, corporations could transform customers PCs into storing nodes for data they completely disagree with (child porn of course, but we can imagine other examples related to politic, religion, etc.) The good news is that it would upset all sort of people, not only the leftist-geeks. I wonder what a creationnist would think of such a situation in wich he may be forced to store articles about darwinism on his PC ?
From what I understand, it seems very unlikely for SCO to hurt Linux. Even if "stolen" portions of code could be found, they could be removed and rewritten in days - okay, I am not a lawyer. This said, isn't all this mess just pushing IBM to abandon AIX and completely convert to Linux ?