Quake 3 was not another version of Unreal Tournament, since it was released BEFORE Unreal Tournament. Release for Quake 3 was Dec 2 and release for UT was Dec 12, both in 1999.
Incidentally, I completely agree that the gameplay between Q2 and Q3 was completely different, I just thought I'd mention that Q3 was not a derivative of UT - it was actually the first of its kind, insofar as they made multiplayer action a single-player game through the use of bots.
What? It's called desktop because it is Google [for the] Desktop...i.e. NOT Google on the web. The point is that it is used to search your desktop. Not that it IS the desktop.
On the Windows front, well, yeah, I'm kind of wondering when they'll release a version for my OS.
My thoughts too. I'm into privacy/security probably more then even the average Slashdotter, but I actually would love to see all the commercials for sleep aids, floor wax and paper towels go and instead see commercials for video games, computer hardware, sci-fi movies/tv shows, etc.
I hate advertising, but I've found that if it is targetted well, I actually have some interest in the product, and it is therefore not a burden to see it assuming it isn't too high of a percentage of the time I'm sitting in front of the tube.
As far as tracking viewing habits, well, what can I say, of all the things to track, I think I care least about that. Internet tracking is more invasive IMHO.
As I said above, any software that patches the kernel's system service table to redirect system calls to trojan software without permission while hiding (and making itself impossible for your average user to remove) is a rootkit. It only makes it worse that it *never stops running* and *starts up even in safe mode*. These are all hallmarks of a rootkit. Just because it doesn't send spam and all your passwords/credit card numbers to a server in Russia doesn't mean it isn't a rootkit.
Err, he provides plenty of evidence. The one I can mention here off the top of my head is that the software patches the system service table to intercept system calls and redirects those calls to the drivers that came with the CD.
Sorry, but any software that is patching the *kernel's system service table* and intercepting calls to those services without my permission is a rootkit. It alters the fundamental behavior of the machine, does so without user's permission, and tries to cover it up. Not OK.
Well, you said you had a "problem" with it - what kind of problem would that be? Usually, when someone says they have a problem with something philosophical, they are referring to a problem that has to do with right and wrong (i.e. I interpretted what you said to be "I have a moral problem with helping others break the law."). Even assigning a judgement to the action (i.e "I have a problem with helping others break the law because I think it is wrong.") ties it in with morals since a moral system is the only system under which you can determine right and wrong.
In short, I don't think GP was off-base in addressing the disambiguation of morality and legality. Which brings me to the next question:
If the connection between legality and morality is "irrelevant", under what reasoning do you have a problem with helping someone break the law? It can't be moral, because you said the connection was irrelevant, and it can't be legal, since Chinese laws don't apply here (in the United States). If they did, then it might be a practical problem, because you don't want to be arrested. =)
Well, to his credit, my first reaction to the floods in New Orleans (other than "Holy Crap!") was "What did they think was going to happen when they built a coastline city below sealevel??" It really was only a matter of time.
I understand the tragedy of it all, and I understand that you can't simply tear down a city because it *might* get flooded, but now that is *has* been flooded, it might be a good time to address the fundamental issues that caused the problem in the first place.
Actually, yes, it has. One of the biggest areas of development in KDE has been (and continues to be) cleaning up code and streamlining the system. I run KDE on 5 of my personal computers, and I can tell you: later version systematically run cleaner and faster than earlier versions, expecially 2.x.
I never really understood this attitude...is this news for nerds? You bet...I'm pretty interested when the #1 windows gaming emulation environment has a new product.
There is a fine line between an ad an something that is news...it is all about targeting. That is why people that hate advertising (like me) don't mind Google adwords and posts like this. At least Gav didn't post as AC...there was nothing really dishonest about this post.
Besides, anyone could have submitted a Transgaming-related post...take mine from last year...was that an ad? Because if so, I want some payment! =)
Interesting...my only question is whether it can tell the difference between "playing" and "ripping". Even with DRM, the scheme will eventually be cracked, allowing people like me (who buy DVDs and then rip them so they can be played anywhere in the house without having to tote the disk around) to buy them much more cheaply and achieve the same goal.
On the same note, will there be some sort of click-wrap agreement to forbid this? If not, it would seem to be well within fair use to rip the discs after buying them for a fraction of the cost of a normal DVD.
The article was a little light on details...I wish they had addressed the more technical side of things.
Perhaps, but for many people in the US, their PS2 *was* their first DVD player (even thought the format has been out for years). It helped entrench the format. When the release of a console coincides with the release of a format, there is an opportunity. Very often it is the early adopters that determine the direction the market will take, even if they are in the minority.
Sony isn't the only backer of Blu-Ray. To say that Blu-Ray is a purely Sony thing is flawed. The association is actually supported by computer makers (including Apple, Dell and Hewlett-Packard), and lots of popular hardware providers, including Panasonic, Hitachi, Pioneer, Philips (the creators of the CD), Samsung, Sharp, Sony (obviously) and TDK.
Combine this with the fact that the PS3 will be putting a Blu-Ray player in millions of homes by the end of 2006 and you have a pretty good lead on HD-DVD - so much so that it will be a travesty to call HD-DVD an "industry standard". Very few people I know will be purchasing an HD-DVD player along with a Hi-Def set just so they can re-purchase all the DVDs they already have.
However, when you look to Blu-Ray, many people will want to buy the PS3 for the new games, and this will automatically provide them with a Blu-Ray player. They can upgrade to a Hi-Def TV whenever they like, and will be able to enjoy Hi-def content with their new PS3 games. Sometime down the line, they can consider whether or not to re-purchase their DVD collection. By spreading out the cost to the consumer, this scenario is easier to stomach than the HD-DVD scenario, where you'd basically have to purchase a new HD-DVD player, TV and new movies to see any quality increase in your media. These are costs that most people won't want to bear all at once. The PS3 scenario solves this.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of the DRM, etc. involved with next gen media, but I've got to say that Blu-Ray has a bright future indeed without even getting into the fact that it is a technically superior format (i.e. holds more data). I don't know if PS3 will support single or dual layer media, but in general, in an apples-to-apples comparison, Blu-Ray holds more data. If you think this is irrelevant, simply look back at anyone who ever said that a certain amount of storage was "enough" - they were always shown to be wrong by history. We've simply never gotten to a point where more space was useless to us - we merely figured out ways to make use of it. Soon, we'll get to a place where we can store lossless versions of all our music and movies on our computers. The 50GB Blu-Ray will be obsolete by that time for backing up our data, just as DVDs are a cumbersome method of backing up now.
First, you can read Mozilla's policy on using the name "Mozilla" in domain names:
If you want to include all or part of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from Mozilla. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Almost any use of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name is likely to confuse consumers, thus running afoul of the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing. If you would like to build a Mozilla, Firefox Internet browser or Thunderbird e-mail client promotional site for your region, we encourage you to join an existing official localization project. source
So Mozilla does state a policy regarding exactly what has occurred here. The problem is, U.S. trademark laws don't have any teeth in Korea. In fact, there is a U.S. government-run site that goes into great detail about how companies that have registered trademarks in the U.S. should not try to do business in Korea (or enforce their trademarks, of course) until they have registered their trademark in Korea, as well:
Basic intellectual property laws exist in Korea. However, protection of intellectual property and the laws governing enforcement of these protections are not necessarily extra-territorial. What is understood and practiced in the United States is not always practiced in Korea. U.S. companies wishing to sell their products or services in Korea should first and foremost find out if they have to register their intellectual property rights (copyright, trademark or patents) in Korea...One of the most frequent IPR problems facing U.S. businesses in Korea is trademark protection. source
Now, the last piece relates to trademark use by localization teams. The site distributing the binaries was in fact run by a Korean Firefox localization team, however, Mozilla has yet to refuse their right to use the trademarks, as per Mozilla Foundation policy, which allows use by localization teams in general, and rejects only in specific instances:
It is very important that Community Releases of Firefox and Thunderbird maintain (or even exceed!) the quality level people have come to associate with Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird. We need to ensure this, but we don't want to get in people's way. So, we are taking an optimistic approach.
Official L10n teams can start using the "Firefox Community Edition" and "Thunderbird Community Edition" trademarks from day one, but the Mozilla Foundation may require teams to stop doing so in the future if they are redistributing software with low quality and efforts to remedy the situation have not succeeded. Doing things this way allows us to give as much freedom to people as possible, while maintaining our trademarks as a mark of quality (which we are required to do in order to keep them). source
I'll readily admit that I have no idea whether Mozilla has attempted to reject their right to use the Mozilla trademark, but given the warning found on U.S. government sites regarding trademark enforcement, I'd say it would be prodigal use of the foundation's limited resources. Further, there is nothing to indicate that there is in fact any "affiliation" whatsoever, as nowhere does Mozilla Foundation acknowledge the presence of the Korean site (although its URL does appear on a Mozilla-run wiki - who knows who put it there).
In any case, this reflects poorly only on the part of the Korean Localization Team, as Mozilla Foundation likely lacks the resources to succesfully pursue a trademark infringement case abroad in Korea, and we have already established that the site is not an official Mozilla site (unlike, for example, http://www.mozilla-europe.org/ or
It was released in a binary for MOZILLA'S BROWSER. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but doesn't that mean it has SOMETHING to do with Mozilla?
No. For purposes of this discussion, ANY binary could have been infected. And the site that distributing it could have been ANY site; the site that was mentioned had no affiliation with the Mozilla.org, hell, it might as well have been download.com.
So, in reality, the story wouldn't have been much different if it had been an Opera binary on download.com or a Openoffice.org binary on simtel.net, except that those examples wouldn't have confused half of Slashdot's readership into thinking it was a browser security issue or a Mozilla.org security issue.
What is really ineteresting is why Linux users were downloading binaries by hand from ANY site. I run Gentoo, Kubuntu and SUSE on my 3 machines at home and I hardly ever install binaries I download on websites. And I certainly never install programs that are FOSS from the web - 99% of the time they are already compiled, hashed and stored in whatever distro's official repositories. Once you have someone that compiled it that you trust (i.e. the creator of your distro) and it gets hashed, you have fairly good security to prevent this kind of thing.
I've found that privoxy is much more effective at blocking all ads than adblock, etc. Sure, you're surfing through a local proxy, but it cleans up html (removing ads, etc), removes annoyances and pop-ups even on browsers that don't support pop-up blocking (are there any?) and scrubs a lot of personal information from your outgoing connections.
I haven't tried to change this, but one thing some people might find annoying is that is leaves white blocks where ads were removed that notify you that the ad was removed by privoxy. I'm not sure if it is configurable to simply remove the ads altogether the way adblock does.
Anyway, I've never had an ad get through when I was using privoxy. Give it a shot and see if you like it.
Not really. The DMCA makes it illegal to traffik in copy-protection circumvention devices, i.e. software programs or physical devices primarily design to circumvent copy protection. In this case, the users already have all the equipment and software they need to perform the circumvention (although they do mention CDex, which isn't primarily a circumvention program).
Besides, the DMCA has a specific provision that allows for fair use, and this certainly qualifies. It is directed at owners of the CD, who are protected under fair use provisiosn to make caopies for personal use to allow them to listen to the music on the device of their choosing.
And if that doesn's convince you, the band is merely excercising free speech - it is perfectly legal to post a website detailing how to circumvent copy protection for whatever reason. You simply cannot distribute tools that implement what you wrote about.
I have a friend who works in IBM's fabs for nVidia chips and he was explaining to me that when you buy a top end chip, you have to pay for all the failed chips produced in order to get a good one. In the case of the 6800, he mentioned numbers along the lines of 20% when the 6800 was new. Obviously, as the 90nm (or 120, I forget) matured, this number goes up, but even so, they have to offset 4 other failed chips for every chip they ship.
This is probably not as bad for x86 chips, as they can just underclock less well fabed chips, but the point remains: at $40 a pop failure can get expensive fast. The article mentions that the $40 figure doesn't take this into account...it is a fairly big omission, IMHO.
Coupled with them ignoring other huge expenses like the entire cost of the design of the chip, $40 seems kind of high. I wonder if it takes into account the creation, operation and maintenance of the fab facilities. I get the feeling they are simply pricing the cost of raw materials here, and the article is skimpy on details about what exactly IS included.
I see your point with Spotlight, but, as far as I can tell, WinFSis a file system.
Of course, wikipedia's article says it isn't a file system, because it uses NTFS underneath, or is at least based on NTFS. Even so, most sources can agree that the best definition is WinFS is a file system with some added features.
Anyway, I don't think the comparison is so bad. Spotlight, WinFS and Reiser4 may not technically work the same, but they all have the goal of presenting the user with a database interface and allowing the user to query that interface, much like a desktop search, only built into the OS itself. It is this level, the interface level, at which comparison is apporpriate. Not at the implementation level, as you already mentioned.
Yes well, while it may seem logically that Wikipedia is filled with inaccurate information, it doesn't actually bear out in truth. While it may not be hard to "make stuff like that up", you can do research elsewhere and check the information.
This is an age old Slashdot debate, but I have found through several hundred hours of browsing topics I know very well that Wikipedia very rarely has an error that lasts for any significant time. Too many people check the "recent changes" for significant errors to go unnoticed.
If you care to do further research, you'll find that sites like Merriam Webster also list the perferred pronunciation of Giga- to be with a soft g.
Actually, I always thought the *real* way to pronounce it was "jiga", and Back to the Future actually got it right. Apparently, I'm only sort of right. From the wikipedia entry for "Giga":
The accepted English pronunciation of the initial G of giga was once soft, (like gigantic), but now the hard pronunciation, (like giggle), is significantly more common. However, both pronunciations are likely to be understood by most English speakers, though the second is likely to be preferred. As example of the soft g sound is found in the 1985 movie Back to the Future, where gigawatts was pronounced like jigawatts. This was before units like gigabyte were commonly used.
Anyway, I kind of like to say the G soft every now and then...people tend to look at me funny more often than the Wikipedia article would suggest. =)
This isn't really that big of a deal according to the article. All the clause would say is that if you file against a piece of free software for patent infringement, you lose your right to use *that piece of software*.
I simply don't understand why Linux couldn't be released under this license...it is a great idea. It doesn't even mean that the big guys like MS and IBM can't hold software patents...it simply encourages them not to file against free software in those patents by revoking their license to use the free software they file against. In IBM's case, they have already vowed not to enforce some of their software patents with free software, so adoption there wouldn't be such a stretch.
Honestly, I can see some reasons why the GPL v3.0 won't get widespread adoption, but none of the reasons in this article are compelling. The main debate is whether the measures the new GPL would take would be effective in curbing the commercial industries enthusiasm for software patents. Time will tell.
Not really. When you insert the game, it merely says you can't play until you upgrade, and the upgrade is located on the UMD. You still have to manually run the update program. This is good, because you can't get "stealth" upgraded...you have to actually tell the PSP to upgrade.
If you have doubts, see "Coded Arms" for an example of how the system has been working (so far). Of course, this could change in future releases.
I think they answered this one quite nicely on April Fool's with their Google Gulp FAQ:
11. When will you take Google Gulp out of beta?
Man, if you pressure us, you just drive us away. We'll commit when we're ready, okay? Besides, what's so great about taking things out of beta? It ruins all the romance, the challenge, the possibilities, the right to explore. Carpe diem, ya know? Maybe we're jaded, but we've seen all these other companies leap headlong into 1.0, thinking their product is exactly what they've been dreaming of all their lives, that everything is perfect and hunky-dory - and the next thing you know some vanilla copycat release from Redmond is kicking their butt, the Board is holding emergency meetings and the CEO is on CNBC blathering sweatily about "a new direction" and "getting back to basics." No thanks, man. We like our freedom.
I am particularly interested in patent law, though I am nothing more than a computer programmer, much less a lawyer.
Groklaw is a very good place to get more of a handle on some of what software patents are about. I have yet to come across a good all-around resource regarding the state of software patents, so I end up perusing the patent office's site quite often.
To answer your main question, software patents are thought to be a "bad thing" because patents were designed to protect an implementation of an idea...Edison didn't patent "creating light with an electrical device", he patented the incandescent lightbulb. Software makes this otherwise simple model a mess, because there is no clear line between the *effect* of something, and it's *implementation* in software. Sure, there are a bunch of clean cut cases, but there are also a lot of muddy cases.
Worse, software patents are very easy to abuse. For example, companies have patented things like the "double click", scrollbars, and drop-down menus. These days, it becomes a veritable mine-field of patents to avoid when writing even the simplest of GUI applications.
In one of the most astonishing software patent debacles, a shadow-rendering trick presented by John Carmack thereafter known as "Carmack's Reverse" was patented by a company later bought by Creative (of Sound Blaster fame) and used a scant week before Doom 3's release date to strong-arm Carmack into coding EAX support into his Doom 3 engine to avoid litigation.
The idea that a company spends lots of money to develop algorithms, and that those algorithms should be protected is a good one. The problem is that the vast majority of software patents are not used in cases like that; they are used in cases where a company likes to lie in wait for their competitors, and only after a competitor becomes a serious threat to they negotiate with their patent portfolio. Because patents (unlike copyrights) cost so much to apply for (not just application fees, but technical writing and legal fees), the software patent system keeps companies like Microsoft in their monopolistic lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, often at the expense of their competitors and, ultimately, the consumer.
Free software in particular is a fundamentally generous act, and is capable of providing great benefits to areas of the world that would not otherwise be able to afford computing. Similarly, it frees those who choose to use it in first-world countries from the monopoly that Microsoft enjoys, allowing us to run operating systems that do not require re-registration when the hardware in the comuter is altered, or keeping track of registration keys. But Free Software's future is in jeopardy because of the patent system that benefits the large corporations. You would be hard pressed to find a piece of free software that doesn't violate someone else's software patent one way or another.
There are many approaches to correcting the system, but one of the most obvious would be to raise the bar for what qualifies as innovative enough to deserve a patent. The article earlier today about highlighting numbers is a perfect example: a concept so simple that it seems like a good excercise for a beginner's book on C or Java, not a patent for a multi-billion dollar corporation to be filing. The ease with which something can be programmed is not the sole measure by which we should judge a patent, but it is a starting point. Other factors might include things like the amount of resources it would take to develop such a design.
At some point we need to admit to ourselves that our notions of intellectual property must change in an era where media can be so freely copied and exchanged. The nature of the economies that support industries resting on intellectual properties must shift, perhaps acknowledging that intellectual property should not be a luxury, but a commonplace product in most everyone's lives. This would allow more people to enjoy t
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a retard. Disregard above post...UT released on 22 Nov, not 12 Dec. =)
Speaking of getting facts straight:
Quake 3 was not another version of Unreal Tournament, since it was released BEFORE Unreal Tournament. Release for Quake 3 was Dec 2 and release for UT was Dec 12, both in 1999.
Incidentally, I completely agree that the gameplay between Q2 and Q3 was completely different, I just thought I'd mention that Q3 was not a derivative of UT - it was actually the first of its kind, insofar as they made multiplayer action a single-player game through the use of bots.
What? It's called desktop because it is Google [for the] Desktop...i.e. NOT Google on the web. The point is that it is used to search your desktop. Not that it IS the desktop.
On the Windows front, well, yeah, I'm kind of wondering when they'll release a version for my OS.
My thoughts too. I'm into privacy/security probably more then even the average Slashdotter, but I actually would love to see all the commercials for sleep aids, floor wax and paper towels go and instead see commercials for video games, computer hardware, sci-fi movies/tv shows, etc.
I hate advertising, but I've found that if it is targetted well, I actually have some interest in the product, and it is therefore not a burden to see it assuming it isn't too high of a percentage of the time I'm sitting in front of the tube.
As far as tracking viewing habits, well, what can I say, of all the things to track, I think I care least about that. Internet tracking is more invasive IMHO.
As I said above, any software that patches the kernel's system service table to redirect system calls to trojan software without permission while hiding (and making itself impossible for your average user to remove) is a rootkit. It only makes it worse that it *never stops running* and *starts up even in safe mode*. These are all hallmarks of a rootkit. Just because it doesn't send spam and all your passwords/credit card numbers to a server in Russia doesn't mean it isn't a rootkit.
Err, he provides plenty of evidence. The one I can mention here off the top of my head is that the software patches the system service table to intercept system calls and redirects those calls to the drivers that came with the CD.
Sorry, but any software that is patching the *kernel's system service table* and intercepting calls to those services without my permission is a rootkit. It alters the fundamental behavior of the machine, does so without user's permission, and tries to cover it up. Not OK.
Well, you said you had a "problem" with it - what kind of problem would that be? Usually, when someone says they have a problem with something philosophical, they are referring to a problem that has to do with right and wrong (i.e. I interpretted what you said to be "I have a moral problem with helping others break the law."). Even assigning a judgement to the action (i.e "I have a problem with helping others break the law because I think it is wrong.") ties it in with morals since a moral system is the only system under which you can determine right and wrong.
In short, I don't think GP was off-base in addressing the disambiguation of morality and legality. Which brings me to the next question:
If the connection between legality and morality is "irrelevant", under what reasoning do you have a problem with helping someone break the law? It can't be moral, because you said the connection was irrelevant, and it can't be legal, since Chinese laws don't apply here (in the United States). If they did, then it might be a practical problem, because you don't want to be arrested. =)
Well, to his credit, my first reaction to the floods in New Orleans (other than "Holy Crap!") was "What did they think was going to happen when they built a coastline city below sealevel??" It really was only a matter of time.
I understand the tragedy of it all, and I understand that you can't simply tear down a city because it *might* get flooded, but now that is *has* been flooded, it might be a good time to address the fundamental issues that caused the problem in the first place.
Actually, yes, it has. One of the biggest areas of development in KDE has been (and continues to be) cleaning up code and streamlining the system. I run KDE on 5 of my personal computers, and I can tell you: later version systematically run cleaner and faster than earlier versions, expecially 2.x.
There is a fine line between an ad an something that is news...it is all about targeting. That is why people that hate advertising (like me) don't mind Google adwords and posts like this. At least Gav didn't post as AC...there was nothing really dishonest about this post.
Besides, anyone could have submitted a Transgaming-related post...take mine from last year...was that an ad? Because if so, I want some payment! =)
Interesting...my only question is whether it can tell the difference between "playing" and "ripping". Even with DRM, the scheme will eventually be cracked, allowing people like me (who buy DVDs and then rip them so they can be played anywhere in the house without having to tote the disk around) to buy them much more cheaply and achieve the same goal.
On the same note, will there be some sort of click-wrap agreement to forbid this? If not, it would seem to be well within fair use to rip the discs after buying them for a fraction of the cost of a normal DVD.
The article was a little light on details...I wish they had addressed the more technical side of things.
Perhaps, but for many people in the US, their PS2 *was* their first DVD player (even thought the format has been out for years). It helped entrench the format. When the release of a console coincides with the release of a format, there is an opportunity. Very often it is the early adopters that determine the direction the market will take, even if they are in the minority.
Sony isn't the only backer of Blu-Ray. To say that Blu-Ray is a purely Sony thing is flawed. The association is actually supported by computer makers (including Apple, Dell and Hewlett-Packard), and lots of popular hardware providers, including Panasonic, Hitachi, Pioneer, Philips (the creators of the CD), Samsung, Sharp, Sony (obviously) and TDK.
Combine this with the fact that the PS3 will be putting a Blu-Ray player in millions of homes by the end of 2006 and you have a pretty good lead on HD-DVD - so much so that it will be a travesty to call HD-DVD an "industry standard". Very few people I know will be purchasing an HD-DVD player along with a Hi-Def set just so they can re-purchase all the DVDs they already have.
However, when you look to Blu-Ray, many people will want to buy the PS3 for the new games, and this will automatically provide them with a Blu-Ray player. They can upgrade to a Hi-Def TV whenever they like, and will be able to enjoy Hi-def content with their new PS3 games. Sometime down the line, they can consider whether or not to re-purchase their DVD collection. By spreading out the cost to the consumer, this scenario is easier to stomach than the HD-DVD scenario, where you'd basically have to purchase a new HD-DVD player, TV and new movies to see any quality increase in your media. These are costs that most people won't want to bear all at once. The PS3 scenario solves this.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of the DRM, etc. involved with next gen media, but I've got to say that Blu-Ray has a bright future indeed without even getting into the fact that it is a technically superior format (i.e. holds more data). I don't know if PS3 will support single or dual layer media, but in general, in an apples-to-apples comparison, Blu-Ray holds more data. If you think this is irrelevant, simply look back at anyone who ever said that a certain amount of storage was "enough" - they were always shown to be wrong by history. We've simply never gotten to a point where more space was useless to us - we merely figured out ways to make use of it. Soon, we'll get to a place where we can store lossless versions of all our music and movies on our computers. The 50GB Blu-Ray will be obsolete by that time for backing up our data, just as DVDs are a cumbersome method of backing up now.
If you want to include all or part of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name, you have to receive written permission from Mozilla. People naturally associate domain names with organizations whose names sound similar. Almost any use of a Mozilla trademark in a domain name is likely to confuse consumers, thus running afoul of the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing. If you would like to build a Mozilla, Firefox Internet browser or Thunderbird e-mail client promotional site for your region, we encourage you to join an existing official localization project.
source
So Mozilla does state a policy regarding exactly what has occurred here. The problem is, U.S. trademark laws don't have any teeth in Korea. In fact, there is a U.S. government-run site that goes into great detail about how companies that have registered trademarks in the U.S. should not try to do business in Korea (or enforce their trademarks, of course) until they have registered their trademark in Korea, as well:
Basic intellectual property laws exist in Korea. However, protection of intellectual property and the laws governing enforcement of these protections are not necessarily extra-territorial. What is understood and practiced in the United States is not always practiced in Korea. U.S. companies wishing to sell their products or services in Korea should first and foremost find out if they have to register their intellectual property rights (copyright, trademark or patents) in Korea...One of the most frequent IPR problems facing U.S. businesses in Korea is trademark protection.
source
Now, the last piece relates to trademark use by localization teams. The site distributing the binaries was in fact run by a Korean Firefox localization team, however, Mozilla has yet to refuse their right to use the trademarks, as per Mozilla Foundation policy, which allows use by localization teams in general, and rejects only in specific instances:
It is very important that Community Releases of Firefox and Thunderbird maintain (or even exceed!) the quality level people have come to associate with Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird. We need to ensure this, but we don't want to get in people's way. So, we are taking an optimistic approach. Official L10n teams can start using the "Firefox Community Edition" and "Thunderbird Community Edition" trademarks from day one, but the Mozilla Foundation may require teams to stop doing so in the future if they are redistributing software with low quality and efforts to remedy the situation have not succeeded. Doing things this way allows us to give as much freedom to people as possible, while maintaining our trademarks as a mark of quality (which we are required to do in order to keep them).
source
I'll readily admit that I have no idea whether Mozilla has attempted to reject their right to use the Mozilla trademark, but given the warning found on U.S. government sites regarding trademark enforcement, I'd say it would be prodigal use of the foundation's limited resources. Further, there is nothing to indicate that there is in fact any "affiliation" whatsoever, as nowhere does Mozilla Foundation acknowledge the presence of the Korean site (although its URL does appear on a Mozilla-run wiki - who knows who put it there).
In any case, this reflects poorly only on the part of the Korean Localization Team, as Mozilla Foundation likely lacks the resources to succesfully pursue a trademark infringement case abroad in Korea, and we have already established that the site is not an official Mozilla site (unlike, for example, http://www.mozilla-europe.org/ or
No. For purposes of this discussion, ANY binary could have been infected. And the site that distributing it could have been ANY site; the site that was mentioned had no affiliation with the Mozilla.org, hell, it might as well have been download.com.
So, in reality, the story wouldn't have been much different if it had been an Opera binary on download.com or a Openoffice.org binary on simtel.net, except that those examples wouldn't have confused half of Slashdot's readership into thinking it was a browser security issue or a Mozilla.org security issue.
What is really ineteresting is why Linux users were downloading binaries by hand from ANY site. I run Gentoo, Kubuntu and SUSE on my 3 machines at home and I hardly ever install binaries I download on websites. And I certainly never install programs that are FOSS from the web - 99% of the time they are already compiled, hashed and stored in whatever distro's official repositories. Once you have someone that compiled it that you trust (i.e. the creator of your distro) and it gets hashed, you have fairly good security to prevent this kind of thing.
I haven't tried to change this, but one thing some people might find annoying is that is leaves white blocks where ads were removed that notify you that the ad was removed by privoxy. I'm not sure if it is configurable to simply remove the ads altogether the way adblock does.
Anyway, I've never had an ad get through when I was using privoxy. Give it a shot and see if you like it.
privoxy.org
Not really. The DMCA makes it illegal to traffik in copy-protection circumvention devices, i.e. software programs or physical devices primarily design to circumvent copy protection. In this case, the users already have all the equipment and software they need to perform the circumvention (although they do mention CDex, which isn't primarily a circumvention program).
Besides, the DMCA has a specific provision that allows for fair use, and this certainly qualifies. It is directed at owners of the CD, who are protected under fair use provisiosn to make caopies for personal use to allow them to listen to the music on the device of their choosing.
And if that doesn's convince you, the band is merely excercising free speech - it is perfectly legal to post a website detailing how to circumvent copy protection for whatever reason. You simply cannot distribute tools that implement what you wrote about.
I have a friend who works in IBM's fabs for nVidia chips and he was explaining to me that when you buy a top end chip, you have to pay for all the failed chips produced in order to get a good one. In the case of the 6800, he mentioned numbers along the lines of 20% when the 6800 was new. Obviously, as the 90nm (or 120, I forget) matured, this number goes up, but even so, they have to offset 4 other failed chips for every chip they ship.
This is probably not as bad for x86 chips, as they can just underclock less well fabed chips, but the point remains: at $40 a pop failure can get expensive fast. The article mentions that the $40 figure doesn't take this into account...it is a fairly big omission, IMHO.
Coupled with them ignoring other huge expenses like the entire cost of the design of the chip, $40 seems kind of high. I wonder if it takes into account the creation, operation and maintenance of the fab facilities. I get the feeling they are simply pricing the cost of raw materials here, and the article is skimpy on details about what exactly IS included.
Take with a healthy dose of salt, I'd say.
Of course, wikipedia's article says it isn't a file system, because it uses NTFS underneath, or is at least based on NTFS. Even so, most sources can agree that the best definition is WinFS is a file system with some added features.
Anyway, I don't think the comparison is so bad. Spotlight, WinFS and Reiser4 may not technically work the same, but they all have the goal of presenting the user with a database interface and allowing the user to query that interface, much like a desktop search, only built into the OS itself. It is this level, the interface level, at which comparison is apporpriate. Not at the implementation level, as you already mentioned.
This is an age old Slashdot debate, but I have found through several hundred hours of browsing topics I know very well that Wikipedia very rarely has an error that lasts for any significant time. Too many people check the "recent changes" for significant errors to go unnoticed.
If you care to do further research, you'll find that sites like Merriam Webster also list the perferred pronunciation of Giga- to be with a soft g.
The accepted English pronunciation of the initial G of giga was once soft, (like gigantic), but now the hard pronunciation, (like giggle), is significantly more common. However, both pronunciations are likely to be understood by most English speakers, though the second is likely to be preferred. As example of the soft g sound is found in the 1985 movie Back to the Future, where gigawatts was pronounced like jigawatts. This was before units like gigabyte were commonly used.
Anyway, I kind of like to say the G soft every now and then...people tend to look at me funny more often than the Wikipedia article would suggest. =)
This isn't really that big of a deal according to the article. All the clause would say is that if you file against a piece of free software for patent infringement, you lose your right to use *that piece of software*.
I simply don't understand why Linux couldn't be released under this license...it is a great idea. It doesn't even mean that the big guys like MS and IBM can't hold software patents...it simply encourages them not to file against free software in those patents by revoking their license to use the free software they file against. In IBM's case, they have already vowed not to enforce some of their software patents with free software, so adoption there wouldn't be such a stretch.
Honestly, I can see some reasons why the GPL v3.0 won't get widespread adoption, but none of the reasons in this article are compelling. The main debate is whether the measures the new GPL would take would be effective in curbing the commercial industries enthusiasm for software patents. Time will tell.
Not really. When you insert the game, it merely says you can't play until you upgrade, and the upgrade is located on the UMD. You still have to manually run the update program. This is good, because you can't get "stealth" upgraded...you have to actually tell the PSP to upgrade. If you have doubts, see "Coded Arms" for an example of how the system has been working (so far). Of course, this could change in future releases.
11. When will you take Google Gulp out of beta?
Man, if you pressure us, you just drive us away. We'll commit when we're ready, okay? Besides, what's so great about taking things out of beta? It ruins all the romance, the challenge, the possibilities, the right to explore. Carpe diem, ya know? Maybe we're jaded, but we've seen all these other companies leap headlong into 1.0, thinking their product is exactly what they've been dreaming of all their lives, that everything is perfect and hunky-dory - and the next thing you know some vanilla copycat release from Redmond is kicking their butt, the Board is holding emergency meetings and the CEO is on CNBC blathering sweatily about "a new direction" and "getting back to basics." No thanks, man. We like our freedom.
You ask good and difficult questions.
I am particularly interested in patent law, though I am nothing more than a computer programmer, much less a lawyer.
Groklaw is a very good place to get more of a handle on some of what software patents are about. I have yet to come across a good all-around resource regarding the state of software patents, so I end up perusing the patent office's site quite often.
To answer your main question, software patents are thought to be a "bad thing" because patents were designed to protect an implementation of an idea...Edison didn't patent "creating light with an electrical device", he patented the incandescent lightbulb. Software makes this otherwise simple model a mess, because there is no clear line between the *effect* of something, and it's *implementation* in software. Sure, there are a bunch of clean cut cases, but there are also a lot of muddy cases.
Worse, software patents are very easy to abuse. For example, companies have patented things like the "double click", scrollbars, and drop-down menus. These days, it becomes a veritable mine-field of patents to avoid when writing even the simplest of GUI applications.
In one of the most astonishing software patent debacles, a shadow-rendering trick presented by John Carmack thereafter known as "Carmack's Reverse" was patented by a company later bought by Creative (of Sound Blaster fame) and used a scant week before Doom 3's release date to strong-arm Carmack into coding EAX support into his Doom 3 engine to avoid litigation.
The idea that a company spends lots of money to develop algorithms, and that those algorithms should be protected is a good one. The problem is that the vast majority of software patents are not used in cases like that; they are used in cases where a company likes to lie in wait for their competitors, and only after a competitor becomes a serious threat to they negotiate with their patent portfolio. Because patents (unlike copyrights) cost so much to apply for (not just application fees, but technical writing and legal fees), the software patent system keeps companies like Microsoft in their monopolistic lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, often at the expense of their competitors and, ultimately, the consumer.
Free software in particular is a fundamentally generous act, and is capable of providing great benefits to areas of the world that would not otherwise be able to afford computing. Similarly, it frees those who choose to use it in first-world countries from the monopoly that Microsoft enjoys, allowing us to run operating systems that do not require re-registration when the hardware in the comuter is altered, or keeping track of registration keys. But Free Software's future is in jeopardy because of the patent system that benefits the large corporations. You would be hard pressed to find a piece of free software that doesn't violate someone else's software patent one way or another.
There are many approaches to correcting the system, but one of the most obvious would be to raise the bar for what qualifies as innovative enough to deserve a patent. The article earlier today about highlighting numbers is a perfect example: a concept so simple that it seems like a good excercise for a beginner's book on C or Java, not a patent for a multi-billion dollar corporation to be filing. The ease with which something can be programmed is not the sole measure by which we should judge a patent, but it is a starting point. Other factors might include things like the amount of resources it would take to develop such a design.
At some point we need to admit to ourselves that our notions of intellectual property must change in an era where media can be so freely copied and exchanged. The nature of the economies that support industries resting on intellectual properties must shift, perhaps acknowledging that intellectual property should not be a luxury, but a commonplace product in most everyone's lives. This would allow more people to enjoy t