posix_fadvise and
posix_madvise seem to be standard posixy way to give hints to the cache. madvise(..) and fadvise(..) also exist granted some of the kernels don't properly use the hints.
Yes, the two lawyers are likely wrong; if you distribute binaries then you must also distribute the source codes whether or not you have modified them. The mere act of distribution is the triggering action for that.
However it is true that unless s/he wants to keep his bandwidth bill down or have you maintain an off-site backup then s/he is unlikely to push the issue.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." â'Linus Torvalds.
So there is at least two valid reasons why it goods for to host even if you don't modify. One you pointed out yourself.
Well many people mentioned collusion attacks against watermarks so the real size of the encoded id has to be greater. factorial(P)/factorial(P-C) where P is population and C is number of colluders. so to find out which ten out of 6 billion people conspired -- you need to robustly recover around 32.48*10 or 324.8 bits. each colluder might knock out around half the bits -- so 2**9 is 512 times that. around 166310 bits or 20,789 bytes . that has to fit in realm where the end-users don't complain and where lossy compressors don't stomp on it anyway.
Also will how bad peoples computer security is it could be hard to pin the leak on the person(s) assigned the id(s) anyway.
I see references to persons and the accused not to citizens. So the protections within "the bill of rights" arguably applies to whomever we excercise governmental powers towards.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was almost written as "life, liberty and property". The founding fathers were very strong believers in strong property rights as a needed foundation for other rights. Your property, houses, papers, and effects are a bubble around your person. If they can be violated then your person is also violated. R2.0 is 100% correct, it does refer to writings in your possesion whether you are the author or not; That includes but is not limited to poetry, short stories, computer programs, blueprints, books, grocery lists, memos, newspapers, diaries, letters, maps, and pictures.
ATT&T Vs Microsoft is extremely relevant. It was held that pure information aka software without hardware can't be patented -- that puts the usa and the uk on par.
Yes the laws of both the usa and uk are different -- I linked to both so you can determine things for yourself. I suggest you calm down and do so.
Yes you can't hold a patent on software alone in either the usa or the uk at this present time. However mp3 does involve hardware, namely speaker(s) -- so like I mentioned it depends on how they wrote the patent. If they didn't mention hardware then you are maybe sott free in the usa, all thanks to the AT&T Vs. Microsoft decision.
I am not trying to FUD(fear-uncertainty-doubt) at all. I am trying to respond with trueful information. The problem is that you really have is with the truth, not with me.
pure software patents now only exist in Japan and Australia. Both USA and UK software can be part of a handware device and thus covered with protections. Good luck listening to you music or watching a video without hardware. It is still a problem. If you'd calm down and read what I wrote you'd notice that everytyhing I wrote is true, but the strawman that you've made it out to be isn't.
You are obviously very angry and I would just like you to relax and actually read what it is I wrote. I support Linux and I am against sftware patents either pure or in conjunction with hardware. So why are you attacking someone who agress with your political viewpoints on these matters. Please grow-up a little.
I meant help with actually making Linux more wide-spread. If this kind of confrontation attitude is what you take with people then I don't see how that can be very effective.
Actually a few more allow software as part of the patented invention including the UK. With a recent Supreme court decision in AT&T Vs. Microsoft the usa is now on par with EU and UK concerning software patents. Also in case you haven't noticed the USA and Japan have a large influence in the world. Now only Japan and Austrilia have totally unrestricted patentability of software.
I don't know which countries patents over mp3 have been filed, so besides the usa I don't know which others have a grey problem with it. The UK in theory might be one of them so please don't be so smug. However depending on how the mp3 patents were written challenging them might now be much easier in the usa.
I use linux all the time, in fact I haven't had any other os installed on any of my machines for years. I also prefer ogg vorbis and ogg speex more than mp3 anyway. However I can see why patents can be a damper on progress and no it's not linuxes fault; however sometimes bad effects happen to things that didn't cause them. It is also not the only issue.
Being all emotional and antagonistic about the situation doesn't really help. Putting fingers in your ears and saying it's someone elses problem doesn't help. Having some patiences and knowing that these things will work themselves out over time would be nice.
Canonical is registered in the tax haven Isle of Man and employs staff around the world, along with their main offices in London and support office in Montreal. Isle of Mann is not part of the United Kingdom, but external relations, defence, and ultimate good-governance of the Isle of Man are the responsibility of the government of the UK. So no it's not UK based and it has a global reach; So laws around the world impact upon it. That includes but is not limited to UK, Canadian, Usa, Chinesse, Polish, Liechtenstein and Monaco laws.
Every nation has bad laws, welcome to planet Earth. It is interesting that you are so blase; people accuse usian of being ethnocentric jingoistic, however it seems that's a more universal trait;-) Thanks for demonstrating that.
I'm more of a fan of ogg speex and ogg vorbis than mp3 . I think I finaly added a repo that had the mp3 codec after a long time. I might be liable for a civil tort, *shrug* oh well. I won't go with fluendo no matter what.
Happily as far as I know only 3 countries allowed patents on software: US, Japan, and Australia. EU which UK is part of allows patents for "Technical contributions" that might include software. Actually from the two recent Supreme Court rulings, the UK and USA might now be on even par concerning the patentability of software; so wipe that smirk from your face.
As for end-users being liable, in the usa I am fairly certain that they are. It been that way since 1903 at least. As for software being patentable -- from 1981 to 2007 pure software was patentable in the usa. Whether end-user in the uk are liable look at EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION and UK Acts, Rules and Directions and the case law. I have a gut feeling it would be similar to the usa in that regards though.
One issue might be that I am talking usa law and you are talking uk law. In usa, use of a patented codec by an end-user without authority would be *direct* infringement. What case law do you have that suggests otherwise? I think Selden threating to sue people who bought Ford's Model Ts seem to indicate that in the usa that end-users can be held liable... and it's been that way since at least 1903. I sure have not heard of any updates on that aspect. Please tell me where I am wrong.
I once thought that maybe secret contracts should simply be limited to what kind of damages a court would award in a case. Cap it at about $1,000,000USD . That way things like deals between Microsoft and OEMs would most likely be public, or just in relative terms a gentlemens handshake. However the idea of distinguishing between corporations and natural persons does have good sound to it. Maybe $500,000USD limit for corporations, and $1,000,000USD for natural persons. Corporations are chartered for the public good and they offer protections to the people behind them, so discriminating against them in this small fashion could be justified.
Woman can piss standing up. I have heard of a Basic tutorial for women to pee standing and a few other references to woman peeing while standing.
I don't know if the above method works as I can't experiment using it, and I haven't asked any woman if they could please confirm or deny if that method actually works.
Geico commercial featuring caveman.
TV Announcer MALE: At Geico.com, you can handle all your car insurance needs online. It's so easy, a caveman could do it!
Seriously, we apologize, we had no idea you guys were still around.
Caveman1 MALE: Yes, next time maybe do a little research.
Waiter MALE: Gentlemen, are we ready to order?
Caveman2 MALE: I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.
Caveman1 MALE: And I don't have much of an appetite, thank you.
TV Announcer MALE: Geico, 15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance.
gtk+ runs on win32 and Mac OS X quartz.
so it's really as simple as: QT, or gtk+ . If you like c++ then gtkmm or qt. There are also java and c# bindings.
No dead reckoning is a form of navigation method of estimating the global position of something by advancing a known position using course, speed, time and distance to be traveled.
It probably means it has a inertial guidance system with a gyrocompass
and accelerometers and ANGULAR RATE sensors (GYROs) etc....
It's for when you can't get a gps signal for a while it can still figure out where you are.
I think French Cafe technique is best description of what samba did to find out what the protocol was.
Now one problem with the "French Cafe" technique is that you can only
learn words that the customers use. What if you want to learn other
words? Say for example you want to learn to swear in French? You would
try ordering something at the cafe, then stepping on the waiters toe
or poking him in the eye when he gives you your order. As you are
being kicked out you take copious notes on the words he uses.
So you need to be more active than just a passive listening in....
What you seem to be talking about is a Man-in-the Middle attack.
However the symetrical session key wouldn't be used for anything sensitive until both sided have authenticated. There are already a wealth of techniques for protecting against MITM attacks; if there weren't then ssl and tls would be just as broken.
For this application you can use mutual authentication to be even more resistant to MITM attacks. Both sides should have certs. The website has a cert to prove who it is, and the client(cpu-only, not generaly accessible) has a cert to prove what it is running.
So fast forwarding to the part after the client has gotten the AIK and more fleshed out this time:
Client establishes ssl/tls connection and sends request.
At this point an Mallory might have a hard time even knowing what exactly a valid request might look like.
Server send back a random number cookie. At this point Mallory shouldn't even know what that cookie is.
Client send back an AIK and that random key properly signed. Properly signed includes timestamp and yet more random numbers thrown in the mix to help fix against replay attacks. Server verifies the signature is correctAt this time the client and server have an authenticated connection both ways. However Mallory is still left out in the cold.
It is only after both sides have sufficiently authenticated to each other that the session key is used for anything sensitive. You could be even more secure and wait to send the exact request until after both sides have danced the full protocol.
There are some devils in the details.. like it is posible to misuse rsa in certain ways.
When used in practice, RSA must be combined with some form of padding scheme, so that no values of M result in insecure ciphertexts. . Also the protocol that I gave is a real rough draft, for real one you'd would want to study the cryptographic protocols literature for a good list of known issues that people have run into in the past. However this is a well worn part of the crypto-protocols area. It's not like digicash, blind signatures, bit commitement, time-stamps, zero-proofs, mental poker, or some of the other things you can learn about in books like Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier that however don't see quite as much use; secure key exchange and authentication is the bread and butter stuff. So it a little more tried and true; you can see where people in the past failed in some parts of a subtle nature and thus avoid them yourself.
PS not that sll/tls doesn't have problems see Ten Risks of PKI: What You're not Being Told about Public Key
Infrastructure By Carl Ellison and Bruce Schneier.
Slashdot Mirror
posix_fadvise and posix_madvise seem to be standard posixy way to give hints to the cache. madvise(..) and fadvise(..) also exist granted some of the kernels don't properly use the hints.
Yes, the two lawyers are likely wrong; if you distribute binaries then you must also distribute the source codes whether or not you have modified them. The mere act of distribution is the triggering action for that.
However it is true that unless s/he wants to keep his bandwidth bill down or have you maintain an off-site backup then s/he is unlikely to push the issue.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." â'Linus Torvalds.
So there is at least two valid reasons why it goods for to host even if you don't modify. One you pointed out yourself.
Well many people mentioned collusion attacks against watermarks so the real size of the encoded id has to be greater. factorial(P)/factorial(P-C) where P is population and C is number of colluders. so to find out which ten out of 6 billion people conspired -- you need to robustly recover around 32.48*10 or 324.8 bits. each colluder might knock out around half the bits -- so 2**9 is 512 times that. around 166310 bits or 20,789 bytes . that has to fit in realm where the end-users don't complain and where lossy compressors don't stomp on it anyway.
Also will how bad peoples computer security is it could be hard to pin the leak on the person(s) assigned the id(s) anyway.
5th: No *PERSON* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any *PERSON* be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I see references to persons and the accused not to citizens. So the protections within "the bill of rights" arguably applies to whomever we excercise governmental powers towards.6th: In *all* criminal prosecutions, the *ACCUSED* shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was almost written as "life, liberty and property". The founding fathers were very strong believers in strong property rights as a needed foundation for other rights. Your property, houses, papers, and effects are a bubble around your person. If they can be violated then your person is also violated. R2.0 is 100% correct, it does refer to writings in your possesion whether you are the author or not; That includes but is not limited to poetry, short stories, computer programs, blueprints, books, grocery lists, memos, newspapers, diaries, letters, maps, and pictures.
ATT&T Vs Microsoft is extremely relevant. It was held that pure information aka software without hardware can't be patented -- that puts the usa and the uk on par.
Yes the laws of both the usa and uk are different -- I linked to both so you can determine things for yourself. I suggest you calm down and do so.
Yes you can't hold a patent on software alone in either the usa or the uk at this present time. However mp3 does involve hardware, namely speaker(s) -- so like I mentioned it depends on how they wrote the patent. If they didn't mention hardware then you are maybe sott free in the usa, all thanks to the AT&T Vs. Microsoft decision.
I am not trying to FUD(fear-uncertainty-doubt) at all. I am trying to respond with trueful information. The problem is that you really have is with the truth, not with me.
pure software patents now only exist in Japan and Australia. Both USA and UK software can be part of a handware device and thus covered with protections. Good luck listening to you music or watching a video without hardware. It is still a problem. If you'd calm down and read what I wrote you'd notice that everytyhing I wrote is true, but the strawman that you've made it out to be isn't.
You are obviously very angry and I would just like you to relax and actually read what it is I wrote. I support Linux and I am against sftware patents either pure or in conjunction with hardware. So why are you attacking someone who agress with your political viewpoints on these matters. Please grow-up a little.
I meant help with actually making Linux more wide-spread. If this kind of confrontation attitude is what you take with people then I don't see how that can be very effective.
Actually a few more allow software as part of the patented invention including the UK. With a recent Supreme court decision in AT&T Vs. Microsoft the usa is now on par with EU and UK concerning software patents. Also in case you haven't noticed the USA and Japan have a large influence in the world. Now only Japan and Austrilia have totally unrestricted patentability of software.
I don't know which countries patents over mp3 have been filed, so besides the usa I don't know which others have a grey problem with it. The UK in theory might be one of them so please don't be so smug. However depending on how the mp3 patents were written challenging them might now be much easier in the usa.
I use linux all the time, in fact I haven't had any other os installed on any of my machines for years. I also prefer ogg vorbis and ogg speex more than mp3 anyway. However I can see why patents can be a damper on progress and no it's not linuxes fault; however sometimes bad effects happen to things that didn't cause them. It is also not the only issue.
Being all emotional and antagonistic about the situation doesn't really help. Putting fingers in your ears and saying it's someone elses problem doesn't help. Having some patiences and knowing that these things will work themselves out over time would be nice.
In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). I wrote a longer post about the more limited scope of this exemption on groklaw but I can't seem to find it now. It is fairly narrow, and it's based on common law not on explicit law.
Canonical is registered in the tax haven Isle of Man and employs staff around the world, along with their main offices in London and support office in Montreal. Isle of Mann is not part of the United Kingdom, but external relations, defence, and ultimate good-governance of the Isle of Man are the responsibility of the government of the UK. So no it's not UK based and it has a global reach; So laws around the world impact upon it. That includes but is not limited to UK, Canadian, Usa, Chinesse, Polish, Liechtenstein and Monaco laws.
Every nation has bad laws, welcome to planet Earth. It is interesting that you are so blase; people accuse usian of being ethnocentric jingoistic, however it seems that's a more universal trait;-) Thanks for demonstrating that.
I'm more of a fan of ogg speex and ogg vorbis than mp3 . I think I finaly added a repo that had the mp3 codec after a long time. I might be liable for a civil tort, *shrug* oh well. I won't go with fluendo no matter what.
Happily as far as I know only 3 countries allowed patents on software: US, Japan, and Australia. EU which UK is part of allows patents for "Technical contributions" that might include software. Actually from the two recent Supreme Court rulings, the UK and USA might now be on even par concerning the patentability of software; so wipe that smirk from your face.
As for end-users being liable, in the usa I am fairly certain that they are. It been that way since 1903 at least. As for software being patentable -- from 1981 to 2007 pure software was patentable in the usa. Whether end-user in the uk are liable look at EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION and UK Acts, Rules and Directions and the case law. I have a gut feeling it would be similar to the usa in that regards though.
One issue might be that I am talking usa law and you are talking uk law. In usa, use of a patented codec by an end-user without authority would be *direct* infringement. What case law do you have that suggests otherwise? I think Selden threating to sue people who bought Ford's Model Ts seem to indicate that in the usa that end-users can be held liable ... and it's been that way since at least 1903. I sure have not heard of any updates on that aspect. Please tell me where I am wrong.
TITLE 35--PATENTS, PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS, CHAPTER 28--INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS has section 271 that says among other things "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
the whoever includes end-users and uses includes mere use. So your assertation that there is no law is clearly erroneous.
I once thought that maybe secret contracts should simply be limited to what kind of damages a court would award in a case. Cap it at about $1,000,000USD . That way things like deals between Microsoft and OEMs would most likely be public, or just in relative terms a gentlemens handshake. However the idea of distinguishing between corporations and natural persons does have good sound to it. Maybe $500,000USD limit for corporations, and $1,000,000USD for natural persons. Corporations are chartered for the public good and they offer protections to the people behind them, so discriminating against them in this small fashion could be justified.
Woman can piss standing up. I have heard of a Basic tutorial for women to pee standing and a few other references to woman peeing while standing. I don't know if the above method works as I can't experiment using it, and I haven't asked any woman if they could please confirm or deny if that method actually works.
Geico commercial featuring caveman .
TV Announcer MALE: At Geico.com, you can handle all your car insurance needs online. It's so easy, a caveman could do it!
Seriously, we apologize, we had no idea you guys were still around.
Caveman1 MALE: Yes, next time maybe do a little research.
Waiter MALE: Gentlemen, are we ready to order?
Caveman2 MALE: I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.
Caveman1 MALE: And I don't have much of an appetite, thank you.
TV Announcer MALE: Geico, 15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance.
(pi), e and some other numbers are transcendental . most modern crypto keys would be an integer from a finite set.
gtk+ runs on win32 and Mac OS X quartz.
so it's really as simple as: QT, or gtk+ . If you like c++ then gtkmm or qt. There are also java and c# bindings.
Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
The 2007 report is not out yet.
ogg theora video of the same.
http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/l opment/latest/livecd/
http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/streams/deve
...I seriously doubt there is an integrated spellchecker available in those laptops (or otherwise) for the language the target audience uses...
WiktionaryZ (http://wiktionaryz.org) is a project developing an open content Wiki style dictionary in every language of the world, working with the University of Bamberg (http://www.uni-bamberg.de) to identify relevant word lists and develop needed applications. We are specifically working on a dictionary for children, to be included on the OLPC laptops.
I think it will have a spell checker...
I just ran across an interesting blog entry by Federico Mena Quintero that linked to two interesting papers : When should a test be automated? and Classic testing mistakes.
Automated tests are often more expensive to write than manual tests, so when should you do automated tests versus manual ones? The answer is not always automated tests. Also typical unit testing is only part of what kind of testing needs to happen.
Using Ring Buffer Logging to Help Find Bugs was also another good link that Federico had in another entry.
"I agree that Wikipedia has trouble dealing with locations"
Try wikimapia -- it's like a wiki mixed with google maps.
No dead reckoning is a form of navigation method of estimating the global position of something by advancing a known position using course, speed, time and distance to be traveled.
It probably means it has a inertial guidance system with a gyrocompass and accelerometers and ANGULAR RATE sensors (GYROs) etc....
It's for when you can't get a gps signal for a while it can still figure out where you are.
So you need to be more active than just a passive listening in....
What you seem to be talking about is a Man-in-the Middle attack. However the symetrical session key wouldn't be used for anything sensitive until both sided have authenticated. There are already a wealth of techniques for protecting against MITM attacks; if there weren't then ssl and tls would be just as broken.
For this application you can use mutual authentication to be even more resistant to MITM attacks. Both sides should have certs. The website has a cert to prove who it is, and the client(cpu-only, not generaly accessible) has a cert to prove what it is running.
So fast forwarding to the part after the client has gotten the AIK and more fleshed out this time:
Client establishes ssl/tls connection and sends request. At this point an Mallory might have a hard time even knowing what exactly a valid request might look like.
Server send back a random number cookie. At this point Mallory shouldn't even know what that cookie is.
Client send back an AIK and that random key properly signed. Properly signed includes timestamp and yet more random numbers thrown in the mix to help fix against replay attacks. Server verifies the signature is correctAt this time the client and server have an authenticated connection both ways. However Mallory is still left out in the cold.
It is only after both sides have sufficiently authenticated to each other that the session key is used for anything sensitive. You could be even more secure and wait to send the exact request until after both sides have danced the full protocol.
There are some devils in the details.. like it is posible to misuse rsa in certain ways. When used in practice, RSA must be combined with some form of padding scheme, so that no values of M result in insecure ciphertexts. . Also the protocol that I gave is a real rough draft, for real one you'd would want to study the cryptographic protocols literature for a good list of known issues that people have run into in the past. However this is a well worn part of the crypto-protocols area. It's not like digicash, blind signatures, bit commitement, time-stamps, zero-proofs, mental poker, or some of the other things you can learn about in books like Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier that however don't see quite as much use; secure key exchange and authentication is the bread and butter stuff. So it a little more tried and true; you can see where people in the past failed in some parts of a subtle nature and thus avoid them yourself.
PS not that sll/tls doesn't have problems see Ten Risks of PKI: What You're not Being Told about Public Key Infrastructure By Carl Ellison and Bruce Schneier.