Instead of replying to individual comments, I'll put all my stuff here. The speed of sound in an object is a equal to sqrt( E / rho ) where E is the Young's modulus (think stiffness) and rho is the density of the material. For liquids (no shear stress) E reduces to the bulk modulus (1/compressibility). Hence, speed does not increase because density increases.
It will be extremely difficult to have an operational sonar with a superfast platform. Anybody read Tom Clancy? Remember how he mentions that subs go acoustically blind if they go too fast. Here's a simple underwater (not air) acoustic lesson. A decibel (dB) is defined as 20 log10( P/Po ) with respect to a microPascal (uPa) at 1 m distance. There are additional rules that apply for the frequency content (1 Hz bandwidth) and signal duration (1 sec), but I'll neglect this for simplicity. P is the pressure of the signal, and Po is the reference pressure (1 uPa). 10^5 uPa = 1 dyne/(cm^2) = 10^-6 atmosphere. Hence 1 atmosphere = 10^11 uPa = 20*11 dB = 220 dB.
Now consider geometrical spreading loss. For distances under 10 km, we have spherical loss = 20 log10(D/1m), where D is distance in meters. So for 10m there is a 20dB loss, for 100m there is a 40dB loss, for 1km a 60dB loss.
Put it all together. A good active sonar will put out a 235dB signal. If it travels 50 m out and 50 m back, and if the target is a perfect reflector, and if there is no absorption loss, then the received signal is 195dB=10^-1.25 atmospheres. I would guess that the pressure fluctuations by a superfast system will easily exceed this value. And note, I have chosen to use very conservative numbers.
There is no hard scientific evidence that Navy sonars harm mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (dolphins), or pinnapeds (seals). In terms of physical damage to their hearing mechanisms, the animal would have to be very close. Suppose 1 atm fluctuations are deadly (this is a very conservative value), then the animal would have to be less than 10 m away from a 235dB source. Now if we are talking about long-term hearing loss, then we also need to consider other, more continuous noise sources in the water; namely shipping noise.
Final notes: the dB reference pressure is different for underwater versus air. The dB's I talk about are peak-to-peak dB's. You need to factor in frequency bandwidth and time duration if you want to convert to watts.
The easiest way to monitor internet traffic is by tapping/using the servers. The servers already do this monitoring, that why they are servers. Yahoo and Hotmail use servers. Web sites use servers. IRC and Usenet use servers. If you cannot use the servers/ISP, then monitor traffic at the next router. Routers are designed to monitor internet traffic. If the feds want to tap into the servers then they are smarter than those ppl that want to tap into the physical connection. Think! This means that they understand the workings of the internet.
The feds have devised a system to better monitor the internet. If you think otherwise then good, don't worry as they will be inept.
Carnivore should be able to pull out tcp msgs b/c of the e-mail system in place. UDP, I don't know. But it wouldn't be hard to place a UDP packet sniffer in place.
The Third Amendment is not at all related to this issue.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Soldier? Quartered in any house? There is no hidden meaning to this amendment with regard to wiretapping or intercepting e-mail. This amendment was put in because the British used to quarter their soldiers in private homes. This sort of pissed ppl off. Instead read the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularily describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
The key words and phrases are: 1) unreasonable, 2) probable cause, 3) supportedby Oath or affirmation, and 4) describing the place... This is the basis and rules for court issued search warrants, and in this case, for court issued interception of e-mail. What the courts have continuously debated is the meaning of unreasonable and probable cause. The accidental discovery of incriminating evidence is something that the Supreme Court has recently ruled on.
One thing to consider is the issue of profiling that is conducted by some law enforcement agencies. The most well-known/publicized is that of racial profiling, and more specifically that of DWB (Driving while Black). In this case, it has been documented that certain state troopers routinely pull over African Americans in an disproportionately high ratio. Routine traffic stops in search of an unknown crime. This type of action is also occuring at airports where African American women seem to be more often detained when returning from an overseas trip. Once again, a stop in search of a "crime".
Racial profiling has also been raised in the Wen Ho Lee (Los Alamos) case. It is suspected that Mr Lee is being denied his rights (due process) because he is a Chinese American and because the PRC is one of the bad guys.
As internet "crimes" increase, will we witness geek profiling? I personally don't think this will apply in this specific instance (FBI e-mail taps) mainly because the courts are involved. Then again, I could be wrong. Finally, additional means of monitoring internet message traffic will emerged, and some of these will not need court approval. Geek profiling will start (if it hasn't already), and abuses will take place.
I was also thinking about the issue of tapping the physical phones lines. However, what the FBI appears to want to do is reduce the amount of information that needs to be sifted thru. In the article it mentions that only the To: and From: address fields will be scanned. This is best accomplished after the mail server has deciphered the bit stream. Then "tap" the server; this is why the ISP's are involved.
E-mail works on a client-server basis. IMHO, I think that it is easier to tap the server. The physical lines of communication to the server are not an issue. The server-client argument will also hold for any other forms of computer related messaging.
On a non-serious note, can you imagine if the FBI monitored all packets including those of a network fragfest. I can just hear the feds saying, "Yup, the suspect got guns, rocket launchers, bombs, flame throwers, you name it, he got it!".
The DUMAND Project (underwater neutrino detectors) was initially pitched to the Office of Naval Research over twenty years ago. I believe that the initial funding proposal failed. But why would the US Navy be interested in neutrinos in the first place?
Nuclear reactors generate neutrinos. Neutrino emissions cannot be shielded. Big Ruskie subs with rockets that go boom have nuclear reactors. It would be real nice to be able to detect those subs. As it turns out, the US Navy already had a pretty good system for detecting subs; it's called SOSUS. Unfortunately, SOSUS at that time was a tightly kept secret.
Anyway, maybe in the future somebody will build a practical, relatively small neutrino detector. Excuse me sir, but your carry on bag is emitting neutrinos. Can we take a look inside?
There has been much discussion about Apple's new cube and the connection to the Next. What most ppl don't realize is that these were/are not Steve Jobs only cube shaped computers. IIRC, Pixar, which Jobs bought from Lucasfilms, also produced a cube shaped computer (graphic rendering box) to run Renderman. I vaguely remember something called chaps.
It was back around 1989 when I first saw one. The Pixar cube was bigger than the Next cube and was sort of gray/granite in color. It was also pretty expensive. I had the opportunity to use one, but I decided not to.
Not sure I fully understand what you are doing but the central issue raised by the poster would be to make your info secure, not the OS. If the goons come and take your disk, they will have the tools to "inspect" your disk. Does your (and other's) method stop anyone from mounting the various partitions using whatever means they might have? I'm curious and would like to find out more about this.
As I have a beer in my hand right now I can properly reply, Cheers.
The reason why Bastille did a chmod on a bunch of executables is because it asked you if you wanted to do it. You then answered yes, do the chmod. As for the kernel, Bastille is meant to be run after installing RedHat Linux (note: the latest version of Bastille runs on non-virgin systems). This means having the stock RedHat kernel that comes with the distro. AFAIK, the firewall support is compiled in. I'm not totally certain of this b/c I always end up compiling my own (newer) version of the kernel than the one that is shipped out.
Bastille has its quirks but securing a system is a non-trivial task.
After saying all of this, I'll sheepishly admit that I didn't fully run Bastille on my systems. I went to the entire procedure but didn't execute the changes. I realized that most of them were already in place. Furthermore, some of the screen msg's were kind of "funny" (curses, foiled again!). I wasn't sure that my answers were properly being handled. So rather that trust some mysterious script, I just made the few additional changes myself. Maybe this explains your mysterious chmods. I dunno.
Back in February,/. ran a story about the Berkman Center (Harvard Law School) setting up a section on the DVD issue. This was to take place within the context of their experimentalOpenlaw program. IMHO, the Berman Center has done a fine job of organizing the various issues involved on their web site.
But what I really like is this link of a harvard.edu/Law School website. For of those of you who are curious, the title of the page is, "Where can you find DeCSS?" I guess they have a bunch a ppl running around saying, IAAL...
Some of this post is somewhat related to this story. A few years ago the American Geophysical Union had an election for their next president. One candidate was an Italian (IIRC), while the other candidate was James Van Allen. Van Allen was going to be the obvious winner but there was a need for two candidates. Anyway, Van Allen opponent said that it was a honor to run against this worthy candidate and that he had no pretext of winning. To paraphrase what he said: I read a newspaper article in Italy describing the shape of a donut as being similar in shape to Van Allen Belts instead of being described the other way around.
Thank god this planet does have a decent magnetic field (thank you Earth's outer core). One day we can discus helioseismology and magnetopause.
Some ppl have commented about the Northern Lights. I once saw a great display of them except that we had to look to the south and, later on, overhead, to see them. Did I mention that it was freaking cold.
This may be (likely?) related to this story. This manuscript was sold at auction a couple of years ago. There is another article that I read online that gave a little bit more detail about the manuscript.
Maybe the reason why this is well known joke is because it was essentially the title of a book by Mike Wilson. This book, published in 1998 was titled, The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison*: Inside Oracle Corporation. In smaller letters on the cover page was, *God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison.
Actually this is an old joke albeit not necessarily in reference to Ellison.
Lot's of OT's and trolls here. So I guess I'll add me dumb comments.
The printer can be located anywhere on the Internet, from the supply room around the corner to a field office overseas to a commercial printing shop in town. I know that they then mention security, but there's going to be a lot of misconfigured printers. Portscan for insecure printers then bombs away.
IPP is built on top of HTTP, which in turn runs over TCP/IP. Oh good. Does this mean ppl are going to also follow the HTTP standard?
More than 50 products already support an experimental 1.0 Version of IPP. Wow, this must be a MS product numbering scheme. Experimental 1.0 Version? Alpha? Beta? Gamma? (This is a scientific joke; there was a paper with the authorship being, Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe, George Gamow) Shouldn't this be a 0.9999999 version like it was for Gnome?
Users will be able to print documents either within their enterprises or among enterprises instead of sending faxes. Yeah! Printing is available on the NC-1701's star ships.
IPP provides a universal way for an end user to find out about a printer's capabilities, submit a print job to a printer, check on the status of a printer or print job and cancel a print job. IPP will also notify users when some other schmuck finally decides to put paper in the empty printer.
The IETF's IPP working group is planning an interoperability demonstration in October that will include several IPP-compliant firewall packages. Wow, it must be tough to add to add a new port number to a firewall package.
From a help desk perspective, companies are going to be able to converge three or four or five protocols, which makes the support issue much easier. The help desk problem is with stupid users, not with printer protocols. Where I work we use postscript (and PCL to a lesser degree) printers in a heterogeneous computing environment. The problem is stupid users.
I repeat, Stupid Users. I repeat again, Stupid Users. A printer jam does not magically clear itself. A printer that is out of paper does not magically refill itself. A printer out of toner or ink has printing problems. You cannot print on a printer that is turned off (don't laugh, I had to tell this to someone while looking at the printer).
Betcha didn't know that Lessig was an invited guest at a formal White House dinner. Not sure if it was him or his wife that was the initee. I also cannot remember who the guest of honor was as this took place at least a year ago. I post this late because the anti-Clinton trollers would start posting random comments.
I like what Lessig writes. I was 1st introduced to him via/. Many moons ago,/. featured the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School. If you don't understand what this means then I suggest that you search the web to figure this out.
Anyway, I'm out of here. I'm going on vacation. If you see me post when I'm on vacation, then you know that I'm one sick puppy.
Many, many moons ago, I used an Apollo DN300 workstation (68000 cpu?) that used to make different tones dependent on the type of calculations that were being performed. We never quite figured out the source of the noise, but we did determine that *,/,-, and + operations created sounds will create noise with different frequencies.
I used to run the same number crunching problem over and over again and got familiar with the sound sequence when the program was nearing completion. So I would run the program, close my eyes and rest, then get up when I heard the closing sound sequence. It would freak ppl out if they watch me get up just before the program would end.
BTW, the DN300 was a great computer. Big monochrome display, 1.5 MB memory, a few MIPS, DomainOS, trackpad, 30 MB HD, and networking. We could actually cross-mount disk partitions on different computers. The OS came on about a dozen 8" floppies. But the best thing was this was the 1st computer that I had the chance to do sys admin work. lvolfs! (list volume free space, aka df).
There have been several comments about why hasn't a particular person been inducted into this Hall of Fame. Go look at the list. This is for ppl that led to development of physical devices. No wait, there seems to be another indication of honor.
This is a national hall of fame. National? I guess this means that it only pertains to one Nation. Nobel is an obvious exception. Why? I have no idea except that making things that blow things up has to be included.
Look at one of the sponsors. USPTO. Dah, Dah, Dah,, dum de dumb, dum de dumb (I'm humming the Darth Vader theme song from Star Wars).
Okay, software folks are left off, but consider this. Most ppl here seem to think that hardware patents are okay, but object to software patents. So if software should be considered into inclusion then this sort of implies that software patents are okay. Hmmm, the inductees are also identified by their patents.
Great! One day one click may be inducted. Sorry folks, but I'm going to bed.
The National Inventors Hall of Fame was established in 1973 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the National Council of Intellectual Property Law Associations.
This is a US hall of fame. I don't think that they make claims that this is all inclusive. Hmmm, what does National mean?
Re-read what I said. We are in agreement. And I know that VA has put off the date for the enforcement of the UCITA. However, VA kisses up to the AOL's (and other high tech) of northern VA. We provide 40% of the state funds while we receive back 25%. The folks in Richmond do not care about the quality of life in the VA suburbs of DC. They just want our money. Gilmore and the powers to be will not change the VA version of UCITA. They just put in this provision so that they can appear to be consumer friendly.
It was pretty "funny" how both states work on the UCITA. VA first to pass in order to attract high tech, and MD follows to counter this local battle. At least MD did it better than VA.
You make a good point about the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court and its relationship to this case. For many recent decisions, the breakdown has been Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor versus Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg. But ultimately, it really should come down to the relevance of the Sherman Act. And who knows how these Justices will view this with respect to the Constitution.
AFAIK, Rehnquist has normally taken a hands-off policy with regard to government intervention. Scalia is a strict Constitutional nut (Internet? Jefferson said nothing about the Internet:)), and Thomas is also hands-off. The more liberal members have taken a past position that government intervention is acceptable. That leaves O'Connor and Kennedy. They are the swing votes.
Your main point is insightful. This is somewhat uncharted waters with respect to this court. Furthermore, many ppl seem to think that the Court of Appeal will have the final say in this case. I get the feeling that most ppl think that the Court of Appeal that has overturned previous Jackson decisions against MS has the ultimate power.
Finally, MS has indicated that there were flaws in the procedure in which the Finding of Facts were derived. This is significant as the FoF serves as critical basis for many of the suits against MS. You indicated that the FoF is important and I agree. Therefore it should be interesting to see is the FoF survive the appeal's process.
IANAL:) but I believe the notice of appeal goes to both the US Court of Appeal and to Jackson. Jackson, OTOH cannot deny the appeal process. Once the appeal process is filed by MS, then the DoJ can move to ask Jackson to go directly to the Supreme Court. After asked by DoJ, then Jackson can petition the Supreme Court to by-pass the US Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court then votes whether or not to take this case (four votes needed, IIRC), while by-passing the Court of Appeal.
When I talked about Jackson's role, I should have more explicitly stated that Jackson cannot stop MS from filing their appeal. Many ppl here seem to think that Jackson can petition the Supreme Court to directly take this case before MS filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeal.
BTW, do you live in MD? I live in VA. He share one common point. We both live in the two states that have passed a rather dubious law, if you know what I mean.
Read what I wrote. I discussed the very fact that the Supreme Court could be petitioned to directly take this case thereby bypassing the Court of Appeal. My point was that this will probably not happen. I don't believe that there are four Supreme Court members that will vote to by-pass the lower court.
The US Supreme Court (SC) is *not* going to take this case directly away from the US Court of Appeals. The DoJ may, if they are stupid, ask Jackson to petition the SC to take it. Jackson, if he is smart, will likely turn down the DoJ request.
Why? It is extremely unusual to by-pass the Court of Appeals. Unless the SC wants to make this a precident, they will just follow the normal procedure. The Court of Appeals is showing all signs that they are taking this seriously. They were willing to have all the Justices hear this case; three have opted out, leaving four Republican President appointees, and three Democrat appointees. This move is also unusual, but it tells everybody, Hey! We are serious and are willing to devote a lot of our resources to this case.
The Court of Appeals moved very quickly. While a schedule has not been release AFAIK, they will undoubtably expedite the hearing of this case. This would take away some of the arguments for taking this directly to the SC.
There is a lot of legal paperwork, review, hearings, etc... that will be generated by this appeals. Decisions will be made. All this generates a papertrail that is the foundation for a Supreme Court hearing. If they by-pass the Court of Appeals, then the SC has do this background work. The Supreme Court under Rehnquist does not hear as many cases than the SC did, let's say, 30 years ago. They would not want to venture into this without the background, nitty-gritty work that the Appeals Court would do.
The SC will not take this one away from the Court of Appeals. If Jackson asks, he will be turned down. Then guess who will be perturbed by this audacious move?
BTW, the SC is not a liberal court. In the past few years, the conservatives have been in the slim majority. The Court of Appeals will also have a slim (4:3) conservative slant.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be extremely difficult to have an operational sonar with a superfast platform. Anybody read Tom Clancy? Remember how he mentions that subs go acoustically blind if they go too fast. Here's a simple underwater (not air) acoustic lesson. A decibel (dB) is defined as 20 log10( P/Po ) with respect to a microPascal (uPa) at 1 m distance. There are additional rules that apply for the frequency content (1 Hz bandwidth) and signal duration (1 sec), but I'll neglect this for simplicity. P is the pressure of the signal, and Po is the reference pressure (1 uPa). 10^5 uPa = 1 dyne/(cm^2) = 10^-6 atmosphere. Hence 1 atmosphere = 10^11 uPa = 20*11 dB = 220 dB.
Now consider geometrical spreading loss. For distances under 10 km, we have spherical loss = 20 log10(D/1m), where D is distance in meters. So for 10m there is a 20dB loss, for 100m there is a 40dB loss, for 1km a 60dB loss.
Put it all together. A good active sonar will put out a 235dB signal. If it travels 50 m out and 50 m back, and if the target is a perfect reflector, and if there is no absorption loss, then the received signal is 195dB=10^-1.25 atmospheres. I would guess that the pressure fluctuations by a superfast system will easily exceed this value. And note, I have chosen to use very conservative numbers.
There is no hard scientific evidence that Navy sonars harm mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (dolphins), or pinnapeds (seals). In terms of physical damage to their hearing mechanisms, the animal would have to be very close. Suppose 1 atm fluctuations are deadly (this is a very conservative value), then the animal would have to be less than 10 m away from a 235dB source. Now if we are talking about long-term hearing loss, then we also need to consider other, more continuous noise sources in the water; namely shipping noise.
Final notes: the dB reference pressure is different for underwater versus air. The dB's I talk about are peak-to-peak dB's. You need to factor in frequency bandwidth and time duration if you want to convert to watts.
The feds have devised a system to better monitor the internet. If you think otherwise then good, don't worry as they will be inept.
Carnivore should be able to pull out tcp msgs b/c of the e-mail system in place. UDP, I don't know. But it wouldn't be hard to place a UDP packet sniffer in place.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Soldier? Quartered in any house? There is no hidden meaning to this amendment with regard to wiretapping or intercepting e-mail. This amendment was put in because the British used to quarter their soldiers in private homes. This sort of pissed ppl off. Instead read the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularily describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
The key words and phrases are: 1) unreasonable, 2) probable cause, 3) supportedby Oath or affirmation, and 4) describing the place... This is the basis and rules for court issued search warrants, and in this case, for court issued interception of e-mail. What the courts have continuously debated is the meaning of unreasonable and probable cause. The accidental discovery of incriminating evidence is something that the Supreme Court has recently ruled on.
Racial profiling has also been raised in the Wen Ho Lee (Los Alamos) case. It is suspected that Mr Lee is being denied his rights (due process) because he is a Chinese American and because the PRC is one of the bad guys.
As internet "crimes" increase, will we witness geek profiling? I personally don't think this will apply in this specific instance (FBI e-mail taps) mainly because the courts are involved. Then again, I could be wrong. Finally, additional means of monitoring internet message traffic will emerged, and some of these will not need court approval. Geek profiling will start (if it hasn't already), and abuses will take place.
E-mail works on a client-server basis. IMHO, I think that it is easier to tap the server. The physical lines of communication to the server are not an issue. The server-client argument will also hold for any other forms of computer related messaging.
On a non-serious note, can you imagine if the FBI monitored all packets including those of a network fragfest. I can just hear the feds saying, "Yup, the suspect got guns, rocket launchers, bombs, flame throwers, you name it, he got it!".
Joke? Baaah. I find your lack of faith...
Nuclear reactors generate neutrinos. Neutrino emissions cannot be shielded. Big Ruskie subs with rockets that go boom have nuclear reactors. It would be real nice to be able to detect those subs. As it turns out, the US Navy already had a pretty good system for detecting subs; it's called SOSUS. Unfortunately, SOSUS at that time was a tightly kept secret.
Anyway, maybe in the future somebody will build a practical, relatively small neutrino detector. Excuse me sir, but your carry on bag is emitting neutrinos. Can we take a look inside?
It was back around 1989 when I first saw one. The Pixar cube was bigger than the Next cube and was sort of gray/granite in color. It was also pretty expensive. I had the opportunity to use one, but I decided not to.
As I have a beer in my hand right now I can properly reply, Cheers.
Bastille has its quirks but securing a system is a non-trivial task.
After saying all of this, I'll sheepishly admit that I didn't fully run Bastille on my systems. I went to the entire procedure but didn't execute the changes. I realized that most of them were already in place. Furthermore, some of the screen msg's were kind of "funny" (curses, foiled again!). I wasn't sure that my answers were properly being handled. So rather that trust some mysterious script, I just made the few additional changes myself. Maybe this explains your mysterious chmods. I dunno.
But what I really like is this link of a harvard.edu/Law School website. For of those of you who are curious, the title of the page is, "Where can you find DeCSS?" I guess they have a bunch a ppl running around saying, IAAL...
Thank god this planet does have a decent magnetic field (thank you Earth's outer core). One day we can discus helioseismology and magnetopause.
Some ppl have commented about the Northern Lights. I once saw a great display of them except that we had to look to the south and, later on, overhead, to see them. Did I mention that it was freaking cold.
Hmmm, 600X800. You must an old FORTRAN programmer.:)
This may be (likely?) related to this story. This manuscript was sold at auction a couple of years ago. There is another article that I read online that gave a little bit more detail about the manuscript.
Actually this is an old joke albeit not necessarily in reference to Ellison.
The printer can be located anywhere on the Internet, from the supply room around the corner to a field office overseas to a commercial printing shop in town. I know that they then mention security, but there's going to be a lot of misconfigured printers. Portscan for insecure printers then bombs away.
IPP is built on top of HTTP, which in turn runs over TCP/IP. Oh good. Does this mean ppl are going to also follow the HTTP standard?
More than 50 products already support an experimental 1.0 Version of IPP. Wow, this must be a MS product numbering scheme. Experimental 1.0 Version? Alpha? Beta? Gamma? (This is a scientific joke; there was a paper with the authorship being, Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe, George Gamow) Shouldn't this be a 0.9999999 version like it was for Gnome?
Users will be able to print documents either within their enterprises or among enterprises instead of sending faxes. Yeah! Printing is available on the NC-1701's star ships.
IPP provides a universal way for an end user to find out about a printer's capabilities, submit a print job to a printer, check on the status of a printer or print job and cancel a print job. IPP will also notify users when some other schmuck finally decides to put paper in the empty printer.
The IETF's IPP working group is planning an interoperability demonstration in October that will include several IPP-compliant firewall packages. Wow, it must be tough to add to add a new port number to a firewall package.
From a help desk perspective, companies are going to be able to converge three or four or five protocols, which makes the support issue much easier. The help desk problem is with stupid users, not with printer protocols. Where I work we use postscript (and PCL to a lesser degree) printers in a heterogeneous computing environment. The problem is stupid users.
I repeat, Stupid Users. I repeat again, Stupid Users. A printer jam does not magically clear itself. A printer that is out of paper does not magically refill itself. A printer out of toner or ink has printing problems. You cannot print on a printer that is turned off (don't laugh, I had to tell this to someone while looking at the printer).
I like what Lessig writes. I was 1st introduced to him via /. Many moons ago, /. featured the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School. If you don't understand what this means then I suggest that you search the web to figure this out.
Anyway, I'm out of here. I'm going on vacation. If you see me post when I'm on vacation, then you know that I'm one sick puppy.
I used to run the same number crunching problem over and over again and got familiar with the sound sequence when the program was nearing completion. So I would run the program, close my eyes and rest, then get up when I heard the closing sound sequence. It would freak ppl out if they watch me get up just before the program would end.
BTW, the DN300 was a great computer. Big monochrome display, 1.5 MB memory, a few MIPS, DomainOS, trackpad, 30 MB HD, and networking. We could actually cross-mount disk partitions on different computers. The OS came on about a dozen 8" floppies. But the best thing was this was the 1st computer that I had the chance to do sys admin work. lvolfs! (list volume free space, aka df).
This is a national hall of fame. National? I guess this means that it only pertains to one Nation. Nobel is an obvious exception. Why? I have no idea except that making things that blow things up has to be included.
Look at one of the sponsors. USPTO. Dah, Dah, Dah,, dum de dumb, dum de dumb (I'm humming the Darth Vader theme song from Star Wars).
Okay, software folks are left off, but consider this. Most ppl here seem to think that hardware patents are okay, but object to software patents. So if software should be considered into inclusion then this sort of implies that software patents are okay. Hmmm, the inductees are also identified by their patents.
Great! One day one click may be inducted. Sorry folks, but I'm going to bed.
The National Inventors Hall of Fame was established in 1973 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the National Council of
Intellectual Property Law Associations.
This is a US hall of fame. I don't think that they make claims that this is all inclusive. Hmmm, what does National mean?
It was pretty "funny" how both states work on the UCITA. VA first to pass in order to attract high tech, and MD follows to counter this local battle. At least MD did it better than VA.
AFAIK, Rehnquist has normally taken a hands-off policy with regard to government intervention. Scalia is a strict Constitutional nut (Internet? Jefferson said nothing about the Internet:)), and Thomas is also hands-off. The more liberal members have taken a past position that government intervention is acceptable. That leaves O'Connor and Kennedy. They are the swing votes.
Your main point is insightful. This is somewhat uncharted waters with respect to this court. Furthermore, many ppl seem to think that the Court of Appeal will have the final say in this case. I get the feeling that most ppl think that the Court of Appeal that has overturned previous Jackson decisions against MS has the ultimate power.
Finally, MS has indicated that there were flaws in the procedure in which the Finding of Facts were derived. This is significant as the FoF serves as critical basis for many of the suits against MS. You indicated that the FoF is important and I agree. Therefore it should be interesting to see is the FoF survive the appeal's process.
When I talked about Jackson's role, I should have more explicitly stated that Jackson cannot stop MS from filing their appeal. Many ppl here seem to think that Jackson can petition the Supreme Court to directly take this case before MS filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeal.
BTW, do you live in MD? I live in VA. He share one common point. We both live in the two states that have passed a rather dubious law, if you know what I mean.
Read what I wrote. I discussed the very fact that the Supreme Court could be petitioned to directly take this case thereby bypassing the Court of Appeal. My point was that this will probably not happen. I don't believe that there are four Supreme Court members that will vote to by-pass the lower court.
Why? It is extremely unusual to by-pass the Court of Appeals. Unless the SC wants to make this a precident, they will just follow the normal procedure. The Court of Appeals is showing all signs that they are taking this seriously. They were willing to have all the Justices hear this case; three have opted out, leaving four Republican President appointees, and three Democrat appointees. This move is also unusual, but it tells everybody, Hey! We are serious and are willing to devote a lot of our resources to this case.
The Court of Appeals moved very quickly. While a schedule has not been release AFAIK, they will undoubtably expedite the hearing of this case. This would take away some of the arguments for taking this directly to the SC.
There is a lot of legal paperwork, review, hearings, etc... that will be generated by this appeals. Decisions will be made. All this generates a papertrail that is the foundation for a Supreme Court hearing. If they by-pass the Court of Appeals, then the SC has do this background work. The Supreme Court under Rehnquist does not hear as many cases than the SC did, let's say, 30 years ago. They would not want to venture into this without the background, nitty-gritty work that the Appeals Court would do.
The SC will not take this one away from the Court of Appeals. If Jackson asks, he will be turned down. Then guess who will be perturbed by this audacious move?
BTW, the SC is not a liberal court. In the past few years, the conservatives have been in the slim majority. The Court of Appeals will also have a slim (4:3) conservative slant.