After consideration, the type of hovercraft I believe the grandparent was talking about was a sea-based hovercraft, whereas I was thinking an air hovercraft. Because the craft would still be making contact with the ground, I will bet that it would be considered alright under DARPA rules, although I am not certain of this.
That said: A sea hovercraft would likely work over large flat stretches of sand. However, that would be a severe limitation around thorns and barbed wire, which was obviously on the course in the previous competition. Most hovercrafts are made of a soft, air-filled platform which I would think would tear. I could be wrong.
There is also the problem of climbing. Given the first brick wall or long obstacle (that is not easily gone around), the hovercraft would find much trouble climbing over the obstacle and still maintaining mechanical-to-ground contact.
However, towing a balloon behind a robot that travels at an average 30 mph would present a problem.
For a demonstration: Fill a balloon with helium and then try to run with it. Instead of staying afloat, it will sink.
Then there is another problem. Compressed air cartridges would only dispense AIR into the balloon.
You cannot simply fill a balloon with air and have it float. You would need something like helium.
But then, you still run into the issue of trying to manage a balloon at high speeds. It would work if your strategy was to stop and then release the balloon, then retract it before resuming. Problem with this is that a balloon would be more subject to the wind (deserts are notorious for horrible winds), accidental tears in the bushes, and a lack of stability (what is to stop it from being blown to turn around in the opposite direction?) A helicopter would offer steering power, and some thrust to counter what the wind is sending at you.
Overall, I think a small helicopter (or propelled aerial vehicle of some sort) would offer more stability.
We had considered a similar solution in our own autonomous robotics competition, but our competition sets size limits and so, technically, when the helicopter flies up in the air, it increased the "height" of our robot to illegal dimensions, according to the rules.
There is also the consideration that once it seperates, even if it is communicating with the primary ground robot, it is technically a second robot. One solution to this would be to tether a communication link between the ground bot and the helicopter bot, and call them the same bot. That way, the helicopter can get an aerial view of the track and the robot can map its way around what the helicopter sees, offering a sort of foresight. But, since they are one continuous physical entity, they are technically one robot.
I am not sure if DARPA has the same restrictive size rules that our own competition does. Otherwise, this is a very sound solution.
You can't use a hover-craft, though. I am sure that is the first thing on *everyone's* mind. (I know it was mine)... why not just build a helicopter and make it take the most direct route? There is a reason no one did that:
The rules limit entrants to mechanical-to-ground travel. No hover crafts allowed.
However, there are other non-DARPA competition where flying autonomous bots are preferable. DARPA's competition, however, is limited to road vehicles.
If the prior entrants are any indication, than no. Those entrants shows just how unprepared they were. As a engineering student on a team that has built/is building an autonomous robot (not associated with DARPA), my evaluation of the vehicle designs left me terribly disappointed. In fact, part of me things my own team could have thrown our present navigation hardware/software onto an ATV and been more competitive than the other DARPA entrants. In fact, had DARPA not been so selective in their choosing of robots to enter the competition (which, in my opinion went against the spirit of an open competition), we might have done just that.
A few responders have said that the technology just isn't there for autonomous navigation. I disagree. It just needs to be refined. Robots for the IGVC can navigate unknown environments respectably, and these are unfunded, poorly staffed projects ran by undergraduate students.
I believe that the next competition's entrants will make it much further than this years, but looking at the stock, similar designs that DARPA let through, looking at bells and whistles rather than creativity, my hopes are not high for having a winner. They need to re-evaluate the meaning behind an "open" competition of ingenuity and consider that the most expensive, technologically-advanced robot is not always the answer.
Look at the first year IGVC. Colleges spent thousands of dollars on big, relatively the same robots and the University of Tulsa came in with a PC bungeed to a child's car and beat them all. I don't pretend that the IGVC robots are competitive against the Grand Challenge ones, but the point is still the same: make it an open competition, and perhaps we might see some *real* ingenuity and then, in the future, a winner.
Money d.n.e. ingenuity
That said, I tip my hat to the previous entrants. How neat is this competition!? (even with its limitations)
I don't understand the "price increase" idea. When my professor bought his hybrid, the sticker price, brand new, was $19,000 (comparable to most new cars) and the federal government gave him $2000 for buying one, and the state gave him $1000, bringing the price of his new hybrid to $16,000. I don't see this as being too much more expensive than other vehicles given the toys the hybrid has. He got 50 mpg (he was a lead foot, too), and the inside has all sorts of touch screen toys that would normally drive the price of a car to ridiculous numbers.
Considering I paid $10,000 for my car brand used, and it does not have half the options as my professor's hybrid does, I think that the sticker price on hybrids are fair. Especially given the money saved on gas.
I love biodiesel. The main problem with them, though, is running temperature. When the temperature drops down to a few degrees above freezing, your biodiesel baby has to be garaged.
I personally like being able to drive the same vehicle, regardless of time of year.
That is why I like hybrids; you don't have that temperature concern like you do with biodiesel, although it is admittedly less straining on the environment and biodiesels usuallly have better gas mileage, in my experience.
Interesting note: ANY diesel vehicle, AFAIK, can be converted to biodiesel. Many people work out deals with their local fast food restaurants to recycle the crud they normally would throw away. However, you have to be very careful when refining the crud (yes, it has to be refined with alcohol) before putting it in your vehicle.
In my undergraduate days, I was on a team that built a hybrid electric "sports car" (picture rendered, not photo) which gets up to 55 mpg.
We were also given a Prius and I can attest to its getting 50 mpg. It gets even more, depending on who is driving it. I can vary my gas mileage by up to 10 mpg just depending on how hard I drive the cars.
It is interesting to note that while gas mileage is optimized on the highway for "normal" cars, its exactly the opposite for hybrids. AFAIRemember, our cars always got better gas mileage in the city than on the highway, which is opposite of what most people expect.
If anyone wants to know more about the car I helped design, you can do so by visiting Hurricane Motor Works.
I am aware of the bounds on which I am allowed to talk about this stuff.
When we did our air-droppable testing, we used a news helicopter. There is a certain amount of leadway we have in discussing these things.
Of course I am not going to come on here and give away secrets, exact locations, frequencies, etc. lol. I guess that I should have clarified that.
I worked for a company that made these
on
Privacy in the Woods?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
As a person that worked for a company that designed people tracking and intrusion detection/defense systems for military and govenment agencies, I can tell you that there are devices available (not commercially, though) that do this without saving information about the person who passed, only that there was a human that passed. Our main customers were the DOD, Border Patrol, and Special Ops, as well as several "friendly" countries.
And, for all of the tin-foil hatters out there, you might be suprised to know that the forestry service already uses such devices. So does border patrol. We have also sold units that have been deployed at Area 51. These are passive infrared detectors, vibrational sensors (some contained within air-droppable cones that burrow into the ground), and magnetic sensors among others.
I can't go into specifics about design, but I would be happy to answer any questions (non-design related) that anyone has.
I worked at this company up until last December, when I quit. However, I might be doing consulting work for them in the future.
Privacy aside, these are already in use in some cases, and no one even realizes it because they are highly covert. Privacy concerns, IMO, do not come into play with devices deployed on government land, especially when no identifying information is given. Its like walking through a door beeper in a store, except that this one counts direction of travel and the presense of movement. Stuff that has more information tagged on, however, gets shaky in the privacy area, I will admit.
"I got my PowerBook back today, but it's not nearly as nice as I'd hoped. The technician where I brought it failed to image the drive (like he said he would) before shipping it to Apple so now while the hard drive works perfectly again, I've lost all my files. The point of catching the hard drive failure early before losing any data has now been completely negated. Looking at my PowerBook which is now clean as a slate makes me just want to smash it, knowing the hours of work I've lost." (emphasis mine)
I asked pudge about it and his response was: "It deserved it"
And I agree that if they advertise them as secure, then they should be held responsible for selling a service that they didn't live up to. Bait and switch?
It has been made clear by another poster that MS indeed advertises security and stability (although, in the EULA, this is sort of negated, so that is a gray area, IMO) and although they never say completely secure, so far as I have found, if they choose to make their business selling secure operating systems and then don't, then they should be called on that.
My example was meant to be more in the theoretical. Suggesting that an operating shouldn't have to offer security. (And, they can lose business to those who do) I think it was a big can of worms the OS companies opened when they started down this road of "security"; they lost sight of their core business. Now, people think that they can simply buy MS products and not need a firewall or antivirus program. In that respect, the OS companies went down a bad road, one that they weren't equipped to handle.
I am just pointing out that one can't drive a car and have the windows busted in and then blame the car company. But indeed, if the company advertises 100% unbreakable windows, and you don't sign a EULA agreeing to hold harmless that company if the windows break, and the windows do break, then it is your right to go after that company for failing to provide the service you paid for.
I guess its the user's responsibility to know exactly what service they are paying for. In this case, if it was advertised security, then they should reasonably be able to expect security.
Why is that the Operating System companies responsibility, though? When does the act of booting a machine and writing a document imply security? An operating system, in the beginning, likely did not have security in mind at all. It was crimminal behavior that forced them, at the cry of the market, to start securing the system. However, how much responsibility is it of the OS company to provide security against crimminal behavior when that isn't a part of their business model? Why not leave that responsbility to the companies for whom it is their business model, like Norton or McAfee?
In assuming security is the responsibility of the OS company, then yes, they are selling you an inferior part (which you still bought). However, I know we have insisted that it is their responsibility, but the question is: is it really?
Why exactly is it incumbant of the provider to include state of the art security when third party security programs are available? Why can't an OS company focus on its core business without branching into crime prevention? And, with alternative operating systems available and the track record of MS insecurity, then why don't people make the switch over to another system if the OS they currently use doesn't live up to their expectations?
I agree that it isn't appropriate, but we in the U.S. have seen the application of the DMCA extend beyond its original intentions to be used to prosecute anyone who violates not only copy protection, but basically any sort of protection scheme. The DMCA has grown beyond simple copyright legislation, unfortunately, and that is why I suggested it.
I don't believe that it should be used in such as way, but if it is used to go after the "good" guys, then why not the bad as well?
Lately, it seems, the DMCA is trying to become the all-encompasing way to prosecute anyone who peeks somewhere they "shouldn't." This wouldn't work if someone explicitly opened the virus and it infected the system. However, if the virus sat there and hammered at holes in the software until it wormed its way in, then I don't see why they couldn't use the DMCA against that, as well.
I wasn't really suggesting it so much as putting it out there as a thought open for discussion...
Interesting. I didn't consider the not clicking on some EULA. However, wouldn't the liability still only be manslaughter. If a car directly runs over someone, but the intent was not to kill, then isn't it still manslaughter, not murder? In this case, I doubt that the virus was intended to kill. So, perhaps limited liability might not apply here. However, I have been toying with the idea of also being able to get the virus writer with the DMCA.
The idea of the admin being responsible intrigues me. What if they don't have a system administrator? Can one still argue legally that since the average user is not technologically savvy and that they bought a product with the idea that it performed its function (especially in the case that the company claims it is secure), then could they argue that it is not their responsibility to make sure that the internal workings of the system work? I mean, you and I know better, but can an ignorant user rightfully claim that it is the software writer's responsibility to provide the service they paid for, without requiring the end user to pay for experts to monitor their system?
You and I know that is bunk, but I wonder how that would hold up legally...
I wonder if they couldn't get the virus writers under the DMCA, if the writer is based in the United States (since they would be prosecuted in the country they are from).
If not the Patriot Act, then I am sure they could find some break with the DMCA to prosecute them under.
Does the U.K. have their own version of the DMCA? Anyone know?
You see, I disagree. I see this another way: If this were a car company, security would be an issue that wouldn't even be feigned with interest from the court system.
Operating systems are designed to be just that...an operating system. No matter how secure they make it, there will be some dirty virus writer out there that shatters that security. Now, I think it is good business practice for software companies to protect the best that they can against hackers, scripts, viruses, etc. However, that really isn't the business they are in... security. The deplorable human state has forced them into this position, but I pose the question: is it fair?
I mean, back to your car reference: If you drove through a bad neighborhood and a guy runs out, beats your window in with a baseball bat, and steals your backback, is the car company responsible for not making unbreakable windows? (pun intended) This would probably be laughed out of court, so I don't see how we can really blame the Operating System companies for a lack of security when all they are selling is an operating system.
Now, again, I think that they should secure it to the best of their ability... and that some of the security holes I have seen are ridiculous. And, if they tout complete security as a feature, then they are taking on that part of the business. But, and correct me if I am wrong, I don't think most companies advertise 100% security anymore for this very reason. Because that is just a pipedream.
If someone breaks into my house, I am not suing the person who built my house. I am buying a security system (firewall) and using it. However, I assume that this isn't 100% effective, either.
In addition, I was fairly sure that there was a limited liability policy on software that limited damages that could be recovered from death or other injuries caused by software (this includes both the Microsoft product, since people have mentioned their potential liability, and the virus itself, if you want to extend the definition of software to viruses) to the price of the CD. In this case, since it was a virus propagating, then the price of the CD is nothing, which would limit the liability of the virus writer to nothing. I know that this is true of the United States; I am not sure about the U.K., however.
On the other hand, one could take the Patriot Act into consideration, at least in the U.S. If it were shown that the attack was intentional to take down the system of rescue personnel, this could consider an act of terror and thus the virus writers could be tried as terroritsts.
We must also consider the administrator who did not patch the system. He might not be legally held responsible, but I am sure that his bosses will see this another way.
In the U.S., the virus writers probably wouldn't be prosecuted for software-caused manslaughter (because of the limited liability thing), but they would still get charged with felonies, as you pointed out.
The U.K, on the other hand... that is something different entirely.
The question is, if the Virus Writers themselves even came from the U.K. Wouldn't they be prosecuted under their country's laws unless expediated? Which, since we don't know who they are, this question shall remain unanswered.
I am a cheap college student, so I haven't bought books in over two years. However, when I did buy books, I found bestbookbuys.com to be an excellent place to get books since it searches other sites online and finds the best deals. I buy my $150 engineering books there for $50 in excellent condition. You can also buy non-school books there as well.
For my computer accessories, I use Tiger Direct, and subscribe so I get the email deals. I bought my Logitech wireless mouse for $5 there.
My family buys their desktop computers at ibuypower.com, although I prefer to buy my laptops on Tigerdirect. Ibuypower has some awesome desktop deals.
Occasionally, I like to check Dealtime, although I have never purchased anything there. It occasionally gives me an idea of the going market price for things.
*shakes your hand* I am a studio artist as well. (and not just simply as a hobbyist necessarily; my art hangs in several businesses, has been in art galleries, etc.) I suppose that I should have made that clear in my introduction because it does sound rather odd for a technology geek to be lecturing about art. I appologize. I should have made it clear that before I ever got my engineering degree and even now, I am a studio artist. (It still doesn't change my point)
Posting to KDE.org just implies non-commercial use of your art for desktop wallpaper use. It does not imply free do-what-ever-you-want-and-make-money-on-it use. A copyright notice is not necessary on art. It is protected as property, even in digital form.
I believe that the artist has contacted Lindows. And its not a presentation really, if you notice. Its the intro on their main flagship page to their product. No matter whether Lindows (or Linspire) is a successful company and "rakes in the dough," the fact is that they are using it for commercial reasons and never had the decency to contact the artist nor even to credit the artist.
The problem in this situation is the artist decided to share his work (as you pointed out), but no one thought to ask what the terms and conditions were. It isn't really helpful to display the artist's work when you don't once credit the artist. At least on KDE-look.org, the artists name is displayed beside his/her work. No one knew if commercial use was okay or if the work was in the public domain because no one thought to ask. And there is where the problem lies.
Could the artist have handled it better? Perhaps. But ultimately, if you decide to use another person's work (be it art, code, or research) for commercial reasons, you are obligated to contact that person first for permission.
He ought to be happy that they give him and others a place to display their work.
You are wrong. Art is not a simple matter of display. Some people actually try to make money off of their art and its not fair that people should get to use it and make money off of it without the author seeing a penny.
Lets pretend that all of the pointy haired bosses (PHBs) in the world walk in tomorrow and tells everyone "sorry, not going to pay you anymore. You ought to be happy that we give you and others a place to display your work."
Why would that not be okay in engineering, and yet be perfectly fine for an artist? Its not. If artists want to share their art for free, then that is fine. However, when a clear copyright notice is used, then users ought to beware and respect that artist's wishes. They have to eat, too.
Actually (and I can attest to this as a studio artist), I believe that laws do indeed protect derivative work. There has to be a certain percentage changed in the picture for it not to be attributed as a "stolen idea."
For example, lets say that you draw a picture of a dog laying on the lawn with a ball. Now, lets say that I replicate this picture almost exactly except that I change the color of the ball. I have violated your protected rights.
I think this is one of those gray areas. But I am fairly sure, and I could be wrong, that in watching the Flash intro, some of those images were exact replications of art I have seen before. And, if they weren't, this just goes to solidify the point of having to change a certain percentage to make the images clearly different.
I could be wrong, though. But this is what I remember being told by an artist long, long ago who was looking at some art I replicated, only in a different medium. I was suprised to hear that it was not kosher to do that. Lesson learned.
I think you ought to watch the entire flash intro once again. Its not a matter of using tux images. Its a matter of using specific art without permission. The Linspire flash intro is not a matter of making their own versions of tux and showing it. I believe you misunderstand.
It was that they used this guy's specific images. For example, the picture of tux snowboarding. That was not created by an artist for Linspire. That image was created by another artist and lifted without permission.
This is not a matter of derivative art. It's a matter of stolen art.
Slashdot Mirror
After consideration, the type of hovercraft I believe the grandparent was talking about was a sea-based hovercraft, whereas I was thinking an air hovercraft. Because the craft would still be making contact with the ground, I will bet that it would be considered alright under DARPA rules, although I am not certain of this.
That said: A sea hovercraft would likely work over large flat stretches of sand. However, that would be a severe limitation around thorns and barbed wire, which was obviously on the course in the previous competition. Most hovercrafts are made of a soft, air-filled platform which I would think would tear. I could be wrong.
There is also the problem of climbing. Given the first brick wall or long obstacle (that is not easily gone around), the hovercraft would find much trouble climbing over the obstacle and still maintaining mechanical-to-ground contact.
A balloon is a fine idea for slow-moving robots.
However, towing a balloon behind a robot that travels at an average 30 mph would present a problem.
For a demonstration:
Fill a balloon with helium and then try to run with it. Instead of staying afloat, it will sink.
Then there is another problem. Compressed air cartridges would only dispense AIR into the balloon.
You cannot simply fill a balloon with air and have it float. You would need something like helium.
But then, you still run into the issue of trying to manage a balloon at high speeds.
It would work if your strategy was to stop and then release the balloon, then retract it before resuming. Problem with this is that a balloon would be more subject to the wind (deserts are notorious for horrible winds), accidental tears in the bushes, and a lack of stability (what is to stop it from being blown to turn around in the opposite direction?)
A helicopter would offer steering power, and some thrust to counter what the wind is sending at you.
Overall, I think a small helicopter (or propelled aerial vehicle of some sort) would offer more stability.
We had considered a similar solution in our own autonomous robotics competition, but our competition sets size limits and so, technically, when the helicopter flies up in the air, it increased the "height" of our robot to illegal dimensions, according to the rules.
There is also the consideration that once it seperates, even if it is communicating with the primary ground robot, it is technically a second robot. One solution to this would be to tether a communication link between the ground bot and the helicopter bot, and call them the same bot. That way, the helicopter can get an aerial view of the track and the robot can map its way around what the helicopter sees, offering a sort of foresight. But, since they are one continuous physical entity, they are technically one robot.
I am not sure if DARPA has the same restrictive size rules that our own competition does. Otherwise, this is a very sound solution.
You can't use a hover-craft, though. I am sure that is the first thing on *everyone's* mind. (I know it was mine)... why not just build a helicopter and make it take the most direct route? There is a reason no one did that:
The rules limit entrants to mechanical-to-ground travel. No hover crafts allowed.
However, there are other non-DARPA competition where flying autonomous bots are preferable. DARPA's competition, however, is limited to road vehicles.
If the prior entrants are any indication, than no. Those entrants shows just how unprepared they were. As a engineering student on a team that has built/is building an autonomous robot (not associated with DARPA), my evaluation of the vehicle designs left me terribly disappointed. In fact, part of me things my own team could have thrown our present navigation hardware/software onto an ATV and been more competitive than the other DARPA entrants. In fact, had DARPA not been so selective in their choosing of robots to enter the competition (which, in my opinion went against the spirit of an open competition), we might have done just that.
A few responders have said that the technology just isn't there for autonomous navigation. I disagree. It just needs to be refined. Robots for the IGVC can navigate unknown environments respectably, and these are unfunded, poorly staffed projects ran by undergraduate students.
I believe that the next competition's entrants will make it much further than this years, but looking at the stock, similar designs that DARPA let through, looking at bells and whistles rather than creativity, my hopes are not high for having a winner. They need to re-evaluate the meaning behind an "open" competition of ingenuity and consider that the most expensive, technologically-advanced robot is not always the answer.
Look at the first year IGVC. Colleges spent thousands of dollars on big, relatively the same robots and the University of Tulsa came in with a PC bungeed to a child's car and beat them all. I don't pretend that the IGVC robots are competitive against the Grand Challenge ones, but the point is still the same: make it an open competition, and perhaps we might see some *real* ingenuity and then, in the future, a winner.
Money d.n.e. ingenuity
That said, I tip my hat to the previous entrants. How neat is this competition!? (even with its limitations)
I don't understand the "price increase" idea. When my professor bought his hybrid, the sticker price, brand new, was $19,000 (comparable to most new cars) and the federal government gave him $2000 for buying one, and the state gave him $1000, bringing the price of his new hybrid to $16,000. I don't see this as being too much more expensive than other vehicles given the toys the hybrid has. He got 50 mpg (he was a lead foot, too), and the inside has all sorts of touch screen toys that would normally drive the price of a car to ridiculous numbers.
Considering I paid $10,000 for my car brand used, and it does not have half the options as my professor's hybrid does, I think that the sticker price on hybrids are fair. Especially given the money saved on gas.
I love biodiesel. The main problem with them, though, is running temperature. When the temperature drops down to a few degrees above freezing, your biodiesel baby has to be garaged.
I personally like being able to drive the same vehicle, regardless of time of year.
That is why I like hybrids; you don't have that temperature concern like you do with biodiesel, although it is admittedly less straining on the environment and biodiesels usuallly have better gas mileage, in my experience.
Interesting note: ANY diesel vehicle, AFAIK, can be converted to biodiesel. Many people work out deals with their local fast food restaurants to recycle the crud they normally would throw away. However, you have to be very careful when refining the crud (yes, it has to be refined with alcohol) before putting it in your vehicle.
In my undergraduate days, I was on a team that built a hybrid electric "sports car" (picture rendered, not photo) which gets up to 55 mpg.
We were also given a Prius and I can attest to its getting 50 mpg. It gets even more, depending on who is driving it. I can vary my gas mileage by up to 10 mpg just depending on how hard I drive the cars.
It is interesting to note that while gas mileage is optimized on the highway for "normal" cars, its exactly the opposite for hybrids. AFAIRemember, our cars always got better gas mileage in the city than on the highway, which is opposite of what most people expect.
If anyone wants to know more about the car I helped design, you can do so by visiting Hurricane Motor Works.
I set up a discussion area in my journal for anyone who has questions or wants to dicuss this.
Click here to visit that thread
Feel free to post under your user IDs, or Anonymously.
Please keep in mind that I cannot answer specific design questions.
No idea. lol. I have never been there. We just have units deployed there. I have not been fortunate enough to visit.
;)
I have never seen an alien or UFO... but I suppose that you knew that already.
I am aware of the bounds on which I am allowed to talk about this stuff.
When we did our air-droppable testing, we used a news helicopter. There is a certain amount of leadway we have in discussing these things.
Of course I am not going to come on here and give away secrets, exact locations, frequencies, etc. lol. I guess that I should have clarified that.
As a person that worked for a company that designed people tracking and intrusion detection/defense systems for military and govenment agencies, I can tell you that there are devices available (not commercially, though) that do this without saving information about the person who passed, only that there was a human that passed. Our main customers were the DOD, Border Patrol, and Special Ops, as well as several "friendly" countries.
And, for all of the tin-foil hatters out there, you might be suprised to know that the forestry service already uses such devices. So does border patrol. We have also sold units that have been deployed at Area 51. These are passive infrared detectors, vibrational sensors (some contained within air-droppable cones that burrow into the ground), and magnetic sensors among others.
I can't go into specifics about design, but I would be happy to answer any questions (non-design related) that anyone has.
I worked at this company up until last December, when I quit. However, I might be doing consulting work for them in the future.
Privacy aside, these are already in use in some cases, and no one even realizes it because they are highly covert. Privacy concerns, IMO, do not come into play with devices deployed on government land, especially when no identifying information is given. Its like walking through a door beeper in a store, except that this one counts direction of travel and the presense of movement. Stuff that has more information tagged on, however, gets shaky in the privacy area, I will admit.
But I believe that it was Cowboyneal who found the most efficient way to disassemble a Powerbook.
He found this method of disassembling the powerbook after a long battle with his failing hardrive, and less than helpful Apple technicians.
Before the disassembly, Cowboyneal was heard to say:
"I got my PowerBook back today, but it's not nearly as nice as I'd hoped. The technician where I brought it failed to image the drive (like he said he would) before shipping it to Apple so now while the hard drive works perfectly again, I've lost all my files. The point of catching the hard drive failure early before losing any data has now been completely negated. Looking at my PowerBook which is now clean as a slate makes me just want to smash it, knowing the hours of work I've lost." (emphasis mine)
I asked pudge about it and his response was:
"It deserved it"
And I agree that if they advertise them as secure, then they should be held responsible for selling a service that they didn't live up to. Bait and switch?
It has been made clear by another poster that MS indeed advertises security and stability (although, in the EULA, this is sort of negated, so that is a gray area, IMO) and although they never say completely secure, so far as I have found, if they choose to make their business selling secure operating systems and then don't, then they should be called on that.
My example was meant to be more in the theoretical. Suggesting that an operating shouldn't have to offer security. (And, they can lose business to those who do) I think it was a big can of worms the OS companies opened when they started down this road of "security"; they lost sight of their core business. Now, people think that they can simply buy MS products and not need a firewall or antivirus program. In that respect, the OS companies went down a bad road, one that they weren't equipped to handle.
I am just pointing out that one can't drive a car and have the windows busted in and then blame the car company. But indeed, if the company advertises 100% unbreakable windows, and you don't sign a EULA agreeing to hold harmless that company if the windows break, and the windows do break, then it is your right to go after that company for failing to provide the service you paid for.
I guess its the user's responsibility to know exactly what service they are paying for. In this case, if it was advertised security, then they should reasonably be able to expect security.
Why is that the Operating System companies responsibility, though? When does the act of booting a machine and writing a document imply security? An operating system, in the beginning, likely did not have security in mind at all. It was crimminal behavior that forced them, at the cry of the market, to start securing the system. However, how much responsibility is it of the OS company to provide security against crimminal behavior when that isn't a part of their business model? Why not leave that responsbility to the companies for whom it is their business model, like Norton or McAfee?
In assuming security is the responsibility of the OS company, then yes, they are selling you an inferior part (which you still bought). However, I know we have insisted that it is their responsibility, but the question is: is it really?
Why exactly is it incumbant of the provider to include state of the art security when third party security programs are available? Why can't an OS company focus on its core business without branching into crime prevention?
And, with alternative operating systems available and the track record of MS insecurity, then why don't people make the switch over to another system if the OS they currently use doesn't live up to their expectations?
I agree that it isn't appropriate, but we in the U.S. have seen the application of the DMCA extend beyond its original intentions to be used to prosecute anyone who violates not only copy protection, but basically any sort of protection scheme. The DMCA has grown beyond simple copyright legislation, unfortunately, and that is why I suggested it.
I don't believe that it should be used in such as way, but if it is used to go after the "good" guys, then why not the bad as well?
Lately, it seems, the DMCA is trying to become the all-encompasing way to prosecute anyone who peeks somewhere they "shouldn't." This wouldn't work if someone explicitly opened the virus and it infected the system. However, if the virus sat there and hammered at holes in the software until it wormed its way in, then I don't see why they couldn't use the DMCA against that, as well.
I wasn't really suggesting it so much as putting it out there as a thought open for discussion...
Interesting. I didn't consider the not clicking on some EULA. However, wouldn't the liability still only be manslaughter. If a car directly runs over someone, but the intent was not to kill, then isn't it still manslaughter, not murder? In this case, I doubt that the virus was intended to kill. So, perhaps limited liability might not apply here. However, I have been toying with the idea of also being able to get the virus writer with the DMCA.
The idea of the admin being responsible intrigues me. What if they don't have a system administrator? Can one still argue legally that since the average user is not technologically savvy and that they bought a product with the idea that it performed its function (especially in the case that the company claims it is secure), then could they argue that it is not their responsibility to make sure that the internal workings of the system work? I mean, you and I know better, but can an ignorant user rightfully claim that it is the software writer's responsibility to provide the service they paid for, without requiring the end user to pay for experts to monitor their system?
You and I know that is bunk, but I wonder how that would hold up legally...
I wonder if they couldn't get the virus writers under the DMCA, if the writer is based in the United States (since they would be prosecuted in the country they are from).
If not the Patriot Act, then I am sure they could find some break with the DMCA to prosecute them under.
Does the U.K. have their own version of the DMCA? Anyone know?
You see, I disagree. I see this another way: If this were a car company, security would be an issue that wouldn't even be feigned with interest from the court system.
Operating systems are designed to be just that...an operating system. No matter how secure they make it, there will be some dirty virus writer out there that shatters that security. Now, I think it is good business practice for software companies to protect the best that they can against hackers, scripts, viruses, etc. However, that really isn't the business they are in... security. The deplorable human state has forced them into this position, but I pose the question: is it fair?
I mean, back to your car reference: If you drove through a bad neighborhood and a guy runs out, beats your window in with a baseball bat, and steals your backback, is the car company responsible for not making unbreakable windows? (pun intended) This would probably be laughed out of court, so I don't see how we can really blame the Operating System companies for a lack of security when all they are selling is an operating system.
Now, again, I think that they should secure it to the best of their ability... and that some of the security holes I have seen are ridiculous. And, if they tout complete security as a feature, then they are taking on that part of the business.
But, and correct me if I am wrong, I don't think most companies advertise 100% security anymore for this very reason. Because that is just a pipedream.
If someone breaks into my house, I am not suing the person who built my house. I am buying a security system (firewall) and using it. However, I assume that this isn't 100% effective, either.
Just I thought. I could be wrong.
In addition, I was fairly sure that there was a limited liability policy on software that limited damages that could be recovered from death or other injuries caused by software (this includes both the Microsoft product, since people have mentioned their potential liability, and the virus itself, if you want to extend the definition of software to viruses) to the price of the CD. In this case, since it was a virus propagating, then the price of the CD is nothing, which would limit the liability of the virus writer to nothing. I know that this is true of the United States; I am not sure about the U.K., however.
On the other hand, one could take the Patriot Act into consideration, at least in the U.S. If it were shown that the attack was intentional to take down the system of rescue personnel, this could consider an act of terror and thus the virus writers could be tried as terroritsts.
We must also consider the administrator who did not patch the system. He might not be legally held responsible, but I am sure that his bosses will see this another way.
In the U.S., the virus writers probably wouldn't be prosecuted for software-caused manslaughter (because of the limited liability thing), but they would still get charged with felonies, as you pointed out.
The U.K, on the other hand... that is something different entirely.
The question is, if the Virus Writers themselves even came from the U.K.
Wouldn't they be prosecuted under their country's laws unless expediated? Which, since we don't know who they are, this question shall remain unanswered.
I am a cheap college student, so I haven't bought books in over two years. However, when I did buy books, I found bestbookbuys.com to be an excellent place to get books since it searches other sites online and finds the best deals. I buy my $150 engineering books there for $50 in excellent condition. You can also buy non-school books there as well.
For my computer accessories, I use Tiger Direct, and subscribe so I get the email deals. I bought my Logitech wireless mouse for $5 there.
My family buys their desktop computers at ibuypower.com, although I prefer to buy my laptops on Tigerdirect. Ibuypower has some awesome desktop deals.
Occasionally, I like to check Dealtime, although I have never purchased anything there. It occasionally gives me an idea of the going market price for things.
*shakes your hand* I am a studio artist as well. (and not just simply as a hobbyist necessarily; my art hangs in several businesses, has been in art galleries, etc.) I suppose that I should have made that clear in my introduction because it does sound rather odd for a technology geek to be lecturing about art. I appologize. I should have made it clear that before I ever got my engineering degree and even now, I am a studio artist. (It still doesn't change my point)
Posting to KDE.org just implies non-commercial use of your art for desktop wallpaper use. It does not imply free do-what-ever-you-want-and-make-money-on-it use. A copyright notice is not necessary on art. It is protected as property, even in digital form.
I believe that the artist has contacted Lindows. And its not a presentation really, if you notice. Its the intro on their main flagship page to their product. No matter whether Lindows (or Linspire) is a successful company and "rakes in the dough," the fact is that they are using it for commercial reasons and never had the decency to contact the artist nor even to credit the artist.
The problem in this situation is the artist decided to share his work (as you pointed out), but no one thought to ask what the terms and conditions were. It isn't really helpful to display the artist's work when you don't once credit the artist. At least on KDE-look.org, the artists name is displayed beside his/her work. No one knew if commercial use was okay or if the work was in the public domain because no one thought to ask. And there is where the problem lies.
Could the artist have handled it better? Perhaps. But ultimately, if you decide to use another person's work (be it art, code, or research) for commercial reasons, you are obligated to contact that person first for permission.
He ought to be happy that they give him and others a place to display their work.
You are wrong. Art is not a simple matter of display. Some people actually try to make money off of their art and its not fair that people should get to use it and make money off of it without the author seeing a penny.
Lets pretend that all of the pointy haired bosses (PHBs) in the world walk in tomorrow and tells everyone "sorry, not going to pay you anymore. You ought to be happy that we give you and others a place to display your work."
Why would that not be okay in engineering, and yet be perfectly fine for an artist? Its not. If artists want to share their art for free, then that is fine. However, when a clear copyright notice is used, then users ought to beware and respect that artist's wishes. They have to eat, too.
Actually (and I can attest to this as a studio artist), I believe that laws do indeed protect derivative work. There has to be a certain percentage changed in the picture for it not to be attributed as a "stolen idea."
For example, lets say that you draw a picture of a dog laying on the lawn with a ball. Now, lets say that I replicate this picture almost exactly except that I change the color of the ball. I have violated your protected rights.
I think this is one of those gray areas. But I am fairly sure, and I could be wrong, that in watching the Flash intro, some of those images were exact replications of art I have seen before. And, if they weren't, this just goes to solidify the point of having to change a certain percentage to make the images clearly different.
I could be wrong, though. But this is what I remember being told by an artist long, long ago who was looking at some art I replicated, only in a different medium. I was suprised to hear that it was not kosher to do that. Lesson learned.
I think you ought to watch the entire flash intro once again. Its not a matter of using tux images. Its a matter of using specific art without permission. The Linspire flash intro is not a matter of making their own versions of tux and showing it. I believe you misunderstand.
It was that they used this guy's specific images. For example, the picture of tux snowboarding. That was not created by an artist for Linspire. That image was created by another artist and lifted without permission.
This is not a matter of derivative art. It's a matter of stolen art.