If all of these judges would put temporary injunctions in place, banning the cell makers in their case(s) from selling infringing phones, the cell industry would come to a screeching halt. That's what the cell industry has effectively asked for, by everyone suing everyone else for patent infringement. Just take them all at face value, and stop all of these infringers from shipping anything. These patents are mutually assured destruction, right? Let the MAD begin!
SCO still wants to pursue the IBM case
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The jury part of the trial is over, but there are still some issues that are to be decided by the judge. The big one is SCO's claim of "specific performance." Their argument is that if the copyrights didn't transfer (which the jury just said they didnt), that APA2 is a promise to transfer them, so Novell should be forced to transfer them now. If the judge rules against SCO, it's over, barring an appeal that SCO can't afford.
If the Empire had OSHA, Darth Maul would still be alive today.
Handrail technology clearly was known in the Star Wars universe -- even Ewoks had handrail technology. Yet it's surprisingly absent from the more advanced civilizations in the Star Wars universe. As an example, there are numerous stairs on Tatooine with no handrails. And the Death Star, the pinnacle of Empire technology, had numerous bottomless pits without handrails, or any other safety equipment. Clearly the lack of an appropriate regulatory agency is to blame for the sad state of safety in the Start Wars universe.
OSHA requires the following for bottomless pits:
"Every pit and trapdoor floor opening, infrequently used, shall be guarded by a floor opening cover of standard strength and construction. While the cover is not in place, the pit or trap opening shall be constantly attended by someone or shall be protected on all exposed sides by removable standard railings."
Had proper safety equipment been in place at the bottomless pit where Darth Maul flung Obi Wan Kennobi over the side, Obi Wan would have remained in view of Darth Maul, or Obi Wan would have been spotted by the pit attendant, and Obi Wan would not have been able to engage in the sneak attack the lead to Darth Maul's untimely death.
Revoking keys would have a huge negative impact on the adoption of HD-DVD and Blue-Ray. Look at the backlash from the Sony rootkit -- that was something a lot of consumers were/are unaware of. It's harder to be unaware of the fact that your $900 dvd player no longer works, or your $2000 HDTV doesn't work. The inevitable lawsuits aren't worth it.
Community built software works, if there's enough demand for the software. Niche applications are going to find very little developer support, but widely used apps like: GNU/Linux, Apache, Tomcat, PHP, MySQL, PostGres, Bind, dhcpd, sendmail, qmail, etc. find lots of support. It is in everyone's interest (minus a few commercial software companies like Microsoft) to make this software work better.
I don't have a clue what 'dragonrealms' is. I doubt there's widespread demand, so you don't have much of a pool of people to pull resources from. Given that it's an 'old game', you're probably going to find most people interested in playing, rather than coding. That doesn't mean that the open source model doesn't work -- just that it doesn't work for that particular niche application.
Since it will be an open source project on Source Forge, I am not very fearfull about some big plot to embrace, extend and Extinguish(it can be forked or whatever).
Are you positive it can be forked? Doesn't Microsoft have patents on their XML format, which they've licensed under terms that are incompatible with open source projects? From what I recall, you aren't allowed to re-distrubute without explicit permission from Microsoft. So, you can't fork unless you get their permission first.
It does seem that perhaps it would have been cheaper for IBM to have settled long ago rather than fighting this for so long.
Cheaper in the short term, perhaps. But, in the grand scheme of things, the next SCO wannabe will probably think twice before picking a fight with IBM, given that IBM doesn't just give in and go the cheaper route. IBM is going to put SCO out of business. If you don't have a rock solid case, you really don't want to pick on IBM. If you pick a fight, they will fight back. Even if you do have a rock solid case, you still probably don't want to mess with IBM...
It's a deterent, like mutually assured destruction was in the cold war, only in this case it's not mutual...
They want MS to dislose API type information so that competitors can better interface with Windows. i.e. Samba.
not API information, but rather they are required to disclose how their protocols work (actually they may be required to disclose the undocumented APIs they use as well). APIs are just useful if you're programming on windows. To make competing servers, you need to know how the protocols work. Describing how protocols work does not require providing any source code, which is why Microsoft's offer to license their souce code (under unreasonable terms (if you write open source software, that is)) didn't meet the EU's demands.
Of course, the rampant speculation is that Microsoft doesn't have documentation on how their protocols are supposed to work -- that they just rely on the source code. That theory explains a number of things, like why they're having such a hard time getting Vista out the door (how many times did they have to start over?).
Re:Speaking as a Scarepoint user
on
Lotus vs. SharePoint
·
· Score: 4, Informative
God forbid anyone use something other than IE.
It's pretty much not usable with anything other than IE on Windows. IE on OS X (when they Microsoft provided such a thing) was unusable. Fortunately I had my laptop with me when the Microsoft folks were pimping Sharepoint to management. They said things like, "oh, yeah, it will work as long as it's IE. No problem." So I asked them to show me how since I was having problems with their Sharepoint site using IE on OS X.
They've already got a pretty good solution to deal with the "problem" of students returning books -- it's called new editions. There are some texts that have a new edition every single year. Sure, the publishers are "getting screwed" out of one semesters worth of money, but that just means they need to release a new edition every semester instead of every year. It's not as if there are significant changes between editions as is, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Imagine some random geek gets a copy of the source code, and posts an anonymous reverse-engineered description of the entire NTFS filesystem in his own words.
Two comments:
1. The EU ordered Microsoft to do this. They didn't order Microsoft to make code available so that someone else can break the law, and do it for them.
2. Once the random geek has finished, you've got a document for how the NTFS filesystem is currently implemented. What you don't have is the actual specification for the NTFS filesystem. For a filesystem, that may not be as big a deal as for a network protocol. We've certainly seen over the years how the lack of a specification allows Microsoft to change protocols in such a way as to break 3rd party applications (Samba). With a published specification, Microsoft would then be guilty of not following the specification (assuming things in Samba were implemented according to the specification), which would probably result in further anti-trust action by the EU. It's a subtle difference they probably hope the EU will overlook.
Essentially what the EU has demanded is that they stop the "extend" part of "embrace, extend, extinguish" -- or at least only extend if they have made public the specifications for their extension, so that others can create interoperable products. I imagine the EU hopes without the extend step, there will be less extinguishing going on.
Do any of you windows folks know these security folks?
Yes.
SANs has some top notch security folks, and if they've vetted this patch and believe that it's safe and is the best thing to do right now, I trust them. I should probably qualify the yes above -- I've been a Linux user since 1995, use Mac OS X on my laptop which is essentially my primary system, and have racks full of Windows servers (that I'm fortunately not primary on).
The "trustworthy computing" remark was sarcasm. See, in a world with trustworthy computing, the unofficial patch wouldn't be possible. So, you would be left completely vulnerable. But somehow you're better off, because your software is "trusted". This is the same model by which future "Sony rootkits" will be possible, because we all trust big corporations, but open source software will not be trusted. Obviously trust == security... yeah.
No hands across America was a project in 1995 where a car was driven across the US, and the steering was handled by the computer for most of the trip.
Journal of the trip: NHAA journal
and information on the software, RALPH
NHAA showed that it's possible to do at highway speeds (60+ mph), using 1995 technology. The construction issues are a challenge. From the journal, it sounds like RALPH handled construction reasonably well, but there certainly are construction sites that even many humans can't successfully navigate...
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Essex (gun only held 5 rounds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre (used a kitchen knife, so 0 round capacity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan_kindergarten_attack (used gasoline, so 0 round capacity)
Unarmed woman shot multiple times by multiple intruders: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/20501099/home-intruders-shoot-injure-woman-in-fulton-county So, it may take multiple shots per attacker, and there may be more than one of them. Fortunately calling the police will keep you completely safe. Oh, wait...
You'll find slackers in most every group of people...
It's a patent RedHat is accused of "abusing".
Well, it is an eyePad...
The White House recently added a section to their website that allows people to create petitions. Here's the link to the one against TSA: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/abolish-tsa-and-use-its-monstrous-budget-fund-more-sophisticated-less-intrusive-counter-terrorism/c7L94bFB
If all of these judges would put temporary injunctions in place, banning the cell makers in their case(s) from selling infringing phones, the cell industry would come to a screeching halt. That's what the cell industry has effectively asked for, by everyone suing everyone else for patent infringement. Just take them all at face value, and stop all of these infringers from shipping anything. These patents are mutually assured destruction, right? Let the MAD begin!
"Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM"
The jury part of the trial is over, but there are still some issues that are to be decided by the judge. The big one is SCO's claim of "specific performance." Their argument is that if the copyrights didn't transfer (which the jury just said they didnt), that APA2 is a promise to transfer them, so Novell should be forced to transfer them now. If the judge rules against SCO, it's over, barring an appeal that SCO can't afford.
If the Empire had OSHA, Darth Maul would still be alive today. Handrail technology clearly was known in the Star Wars universe -- even Ewoks had handrail technology. Yet it's surprisingly absent from the more advanced civilizations in the Star Wars universe. As an example, there are numerous stairs on Tatooine with no handrails. And the Death Star, the pinnacle of Empire technology, had numerous bottomless pits without handrails, or any other safety equipment. Clearly the lack of an appropriate regulatory agency is to blame for the sad state of safety in the Start Wars universe. OSHA requires the following for bottomless pits: "Every pit and trapdoor floor opening, infrequently used, shall be guarded by a floor opening cover of standard strength and construction. While the cover is not in place, the pit or trap opening shall be constantly attended by someone or shall be protected on all exposed sides by removable standard railings." Had proper safety equipment been in place at the bottomless pit where Darth Maul flung Obi Wan Kennobi over the side, Obi Wan would have remained in view of Darth Maul, or Obi Wan would have been spotted by the pit attendant, and Obi Wan would not have been able to engage in the sneak attack the lead to Darth Maul's untimely death.
No you may not
They should just hire some telemarketers to call people during dinner, to see if they would like to re-register for the do not call list...
Revoking keys would have a huge negative impact on the adoption of HD-DVD and Blue-Ray. Look at the backlash from the Sony rootkit -- that was something a lot of consumers were/are unaware of. It's harder to be unaware of the fact that your $900 dvd player no longer works, or your $2000 HDTV doesn't work. The inevitable lawsuits aren't worth it.
To nitpick your nitpick, Kerberized telnet supports session encryption.
Sure, some people lie. So how do you explain use of an electronic voting machine making people more likely to lie?
Community built software works, if there's enough demand for the software. Niche applications are going to find very little developer support, but widely used apps like: GNU/Linux, Apache, Tomcat, PHP, MySQL, PostGres, Bind, dhcpd, sendmail, qmail, etc. find lots of support. It is in everyone's interest (minus a few commercial software companies like Microsoft) to make this software work better.
I don't have a clue what 'dragonrealms' is. I doubt there's widespread demand, so you don't have much of a pool of people to pull resources from. Given that it's an 'old game', you're probably going to find most people interested in playing, rather than coding. That doesn't mean that the open source model doesn't work -- just that it doesn't work for that particular niche application.
Gets me through life...
Are you positive it can be forked? Doesn't Microsoft have patents on their XML format, which they've licensed under terms that are incompatible with open source projects? From what I recall, you aren't allowed to re-distrubute without explicit permission from Microsoft. So, you can't fork unless you get their permission first.
Cheaper in the short term, perhaps. But, in the grand scheme of things, the next SCO wannabe will probably think twice before picking a fight with IBM, given that IBM doesn't just give in and go the cheaper route. IBM is going to put SCO out of business. If you don't have a rock solid case, you really don't want to pick on IBM. If you pick a fight, they will fight back. Even if you do have a rock solid case, you still probably don't want to mess with IBM...
It's a deterent, like mutually assured destruction was in the cold war, only in this case it's not mutual...
not API information, but rather they are required to disclose how their protocols work (actually they may be required to disclose the undocumented APIs they use as well). APIs are just useful if you're programming on windows. To make competing servers, you need to know how the protocols work. Describing how protocols work does not require providing any source code, which is why Microsoft's offer to license their souce code (under unreasonable terms (if you write open source software, that is)) didn't meet the EU's demands.
Of course, the rampant speculation is that Microsoft doesn't have documentation on how their protocols are supposed to work -- that they just rely on the source code. That theory explains a number of things, like why they're having such a hard time getting Vista out the door (how many times did they have to start over?).
It's pretty much not usable with anything other than IE on Windows. IE on OS X (when they Microsoft provided such a thing) was unusable. Fortunately I had my laptop with me when the Microsoft folks were pimping Sharepoint to management. They said things like, "oh, yeah, it will work as long as it's IE. No problem." So I asked them to show me how since I was having problems with their Sharepoint site using IE on OS X.
Needless to say, we're not running Sharepoint.
They've already got a pretty good solution to deal with the "problem" of students returning books -- it's called new editions. There are some texts that have a new edition every single year. Sure, the publishers are "getting screwed" out of one semesters worth of money, but that just means they need to release a new edition every semester instead of every year. It's not as if there are significant changes between editions as is, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Two comments:
1. The EU ordered Microsoft to do this. They didn't order Microsoft to make code available so that someone else can break the law, and do it for them.
2. Once the random geek has finished, you've got a document for how the NTFS filesystem is currently implemented. What you don't have is the actual specification for the NTFS filesystem. For a filesystem, that may not be as big a deal as for a network protocol. We've certainly seen over the years how the lack of a specification allows Microsoft to change protocols in such a way as to break 3rd party applications (Samba). With a published specification, Microsoft would then be guilty of not following the specification (assuming things in Samba were implemented according to the specification), which would probably result in further anti-trust action by the EU. It's a subtle difference they probably hope the EU will overlook.
Essentially what the EU has demanded is that they stop the "extend" part of "embrace, extend, extinguish" -- or at least only extend if they have made public the specifications for their extension, so that others can create interoperable products. I imagine the EU hopes without the extend step, there will be less extinguishing going on.
Yes.
SANs has some top notch security folks, and if they've vetted this patch and believe that it's safe and is the best thing to do right now, I trust them. I should probably qualify the yes above -- I've been a Linux user since 1995, use Mac OS X on my laptop which is essentially my primary system, and have racks full of Windows servers (that I'm fortunately not primary on).
The "trustworthy computing" remark was sarcasm. See, in a world with trustworthy computing, the unofficial patch wouldn't be possible. So, you would be left completely vulnerable. But somehow you're better off, because your software is "trusted". This is the same model by which future "Sony rootkits" will be possible, because we all trust big corporations, but open source software will not be trusted. Obviously trust == security... yeah.
Journal of the trip: NHAA journal and information on the software, RALPH
NHAA showed that it's possible to do at highway speeds (60+ mph), using 1995 technology. The construction issues are a challenge. From the journal, it sounds like RALPH handled construction reasonably well, but there certainly are construction sites that even many humans can't successfully navigate...