When I see things like:
We need a unifying identity metasystem that can protect applications from the internal complexities of specific implementations and allow digital identity to become loosely coupled. This metasystem is in effect a system of systems that exposes a unified interface much like a device driver or network socket does.
I think, "why is it a metasystem?"
Isn't it just a "system"? If I compose some systems, I just have a bigger system, right? I thought a "metasystem" was something different -- e.g. a system of rules for analyzing or processing systems (like a metaprogram -- a program that processes programs).
When I see people using words like "metasystem", but without using some sort of formal definitions or formal notation (aka "math"), I get a bit nervous, because it starts to sound like a bunch of marketroid speak. Then I figure it is a pile of shit, being built by a bunch of shitheads (who want to sound important by using fancy made up words), and I don't pay any attention.
And maybe a few years later I read about its total failure.
"Whether it wins the Nebula on Saturday or not, the series will retain a unique place in cinematic history thanks to the first installment, which boasts the first explicit sex scene shot in zero gravity conditions.
The scene was filmed by flying an airplane to an altitude of 11,000 feet. The plane, containing performers Sylvia Saint and Nick Lang, then went into a steep dive, creating the momentary illusion of weightlessness.
Insiders described the filming process as particularly messy from a technical and logistical standpoint.
Budgeting constraints allowed Saint and Lang, who portray astronauts, only one shot at a perfect zero-G take, leaving the actors with only a narrow 20-second window of time in which to launch themselves toward one another and complete the scene. "
It's been documented that if someone knows he's got an email/voicemail, he'll go crazy if he can't at least see who sent it, or knowing that, what it is about.
This is quite terrible, given that most stuff can be ignored, yet we get emails and voice mails all the time.
I think this is one reason why people totally despise spam.
I remember in '91 there was a guy who would go on "vacation" (with the vacation program) even when in the office. You'd mail him and get a note that he was realy busy, and would respond later. If you went and interrupted him, it needed to be really, really urgent, or he'd have a fit.
I thought it was odd then, but now it makes perfect sense.
I just wish someone big (e.g. Rockstar Games) would go unrated on their next big hit, thereby making the ESRB superfluous. They'd have to decide to either be cowed or be irrelevant.
If a kid has access to a computer, he's got access to porn. ESRB ratings don't help one bit.
"DO you have some reason why MS, Apple, or ANY OTHER FOR PROFIT software company wouldnt do the same? Oh yeah, you pay for theirs too."
Well, one reason to not do what they did is that when you break the law, it can cost you money.
The device makers broke the license. By doing that, they are violating the Copyright of the glibc authors by not following the license.
In the US, the glibc Copyright holders can get a preliminary injuction, forbidding the sale of those devices. I'd love to see that; we'd see if the (L)GPL is for real or not.
Also, I don't pay MS or Apple for anything -- I run OpenBSD. You are quite a presumptuous ass to presume that I pay Apple or MS anything. Go fuck yourself, shithead!
"Aeronix Inc. originally did not post any of the GPL and LGPL source code used in the Zipit. After we confirmed that they used Linux, we politely asked that they comply with the license terms. I am one of the copyright holders in the code they use. I am pleased to see that they have at least posted pointers to the tools they used. They are still in violation of the terms of the LGPL for glibc."
Supposedly the tech is not just a copy of Russian stuff, and the Chinese are talking about what they are doing because they want to make money off of space services. You have to talk about it to sell it.
I'm seeing various posts saying, "boycott Amazon" -- they are evil IP mofos. That is pretty silly! Micro$oft and Apple are doing similarly (or more) reprehensible things, and boycotts of them are not popular enough to make any difference in their behavior.
Amazon is really huge these days -- $600 billion or so a year in sales. That revenue is coming from non-ideologically motivated schmucks, not geeks who think and care about IP issues. A geek boycott will be about as successful as Jesse Jackson's boycott of Nike (he couldn't get blacks to do it).
Haven't these ssh-based attacks been going on since sometime like July of 2004?
The deal was that there was a SSH vulnerability in non-OpenBSD implementations of sshd. The automated stuff kicked off then -- and they've gotten a bit worse in the last few months.
I had not thought about the problem of virtual servers.
E.g. suppose I have a big-ass mainframe that emulates a few PCs, just to run Excel now and then (for legacy reasons). Once a month, we reconfigure the mainframe just for a batch job, so that some of its resources are used to simulate 10 PCs.
How do you price that? A mainframe license? 10 separate PC licenses? What about the fact that I'm only doing it now and then, and not using it regularly (8-10 hours a day)?
I just wish the article had used the term "price discrimination" -- that really explains it all.
Did he just break the DMCA, in a very public way? Or is this not the case.
It sure looks like the did the sort of thing that folks do, that can get them in huge trouble -- he attempted to circumvent a technological device there to protect Copyright.
I'm not defending Amazon's patents on things that seem obvious (once you start running a service business over the web) --- but they offered a bounty for prior art on "One Click" (TM), in an attempt to establish if their claims had merit. This was done with O'Reilly -- the book publisher.
It seemed to me, based on the results they got, that it actually was somewhat novel. It hadn't been done before.
This one is a bit similar: it seems obvious. But really, I think the problem here is that most ordering systems totally suck, and this is a version that sucks slightly less. So it seems obvious and intuitive. But that doesn't meant that anyone ever tried to do it properly.
It is a bit like a well-designed product; it is easy to use. But a lot of effort and attempts to make it usable went into it. If you take the time to compare it to the sucky stuff that came before, then you'll probably think it is more novel.
This reminds me of that Canadian Harry Potter injuntion: until the book has been "published", you can't do stuff with it. So a Canadian court issued an injunction to those who got it early, saying they can't copy/sell or talk about the contents --- until it gets "published" --- 4-real, in a few days.
How is the unintentional "leaking" of information via a website any different? Can Netflix say they haven't "published" anything yet, and then have the DOJ beat you down for Copyright violations?
Phrack editor Knight Lightning, aka Craig Neidorf, was arrested, charged with fraud and tried before a grand jury for reprinting most of a confidential document, known as the E911 document, stolen from the Bell South telephone company. Bell South claimed that the confidential E911 document contained sensitive information and put its value at $80,000.
The case became a cause celebre for the digital underground and Mr Neidorf's defence was organised by the fledgling Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The case against Mr Neidorf collapsed when it was shown that the E911 paper could be ordered by phone from Bell South for only $13.
But you can't use only some things from a namespace, and give them new names in the new namespace, can you?
Or how about making a namespace that is a union of subsets of other namespaces?
Or a namespace that takes some other namespaces (like a function takes arguments) and gives you a new namespace?
Its because of these missing features that I call C++ namespaces (as I last got to use them) "crappy" versions of the real thing. I'm guessing, based on your blithe answer, that you haven't experienced the true power of a module system.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw this in TFA too, and it made me laugh.
Maybe David Burd needs a visit from the SBA, to make sure he's all licensed up. It'd be a pity if he was running his company on "pirated" software.
I have the following proposed names for the next OS:
Windows "Monopoly" (TM)
Windows "Shitball" (TM)
Windows "Bukkake" (TM)
When I see things like: We need a unifying identity metasystem that can protect applications from the internal complexities of specific implementations and allow digital identity to become loosely coupled. This metasystem is in effect a system of systems that exposes a unified interface much like a device driver or network socket does.
I think, "why is it a metasystem?"
Isn't it just a "system"? If I compose some systems, I just have a bigger system, right? I thought a "metasystem" was something different -- e.g. a system of rules for analyzing or processing systems (like a metaprogram -- a program that processes programs).
When I see people using words like "metasystem", but without using some sort of formal definitions or formal notation (aka "math"), I get a bit nervous, because it starts to sound like a bunch of marketroid speak. Then I figure it is a pile of shit, being built by a bunch of shitheads (who want to sound important by using fancy made up words), and I don't pay any attention.
And maybe a few years later I read about its total failure.
Wow.
_ experiment_000516.html
Here it is:
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/uranus
"Whether it wins the Nebula on Saturday or not, the series will retain a unique place in cinematic history thanks to the first installment, which boasts the first explicit sex scene shot in zero gravity conditions.
The scene was filmed by flying an airplane to an altitude of 11,000 feet. The plane, containing performers Sylvia Saint and Nick Lang, then went into a steep dive, creating the momentary illusion of weightlessness.
Insiders described the filming process as particularly messy from a technical and logistical standpoint.
Budgeting constraints allowed Saint and Lang, who portray astronauts, only one shot at a perfect zero-G take, leaving the actors with only a narrow 20-second window of time in which to launch themselves toward one another and complete the scene. "
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/balloon/HS.HTM
Has anyone done porn in zero-G? I'm thinking bukkake could be big in zero G or super-high speed format.
"I forgot my password" gets you 20 years in jail?
This sounds so awful and stupid I don't want to even think about it.
It's been documented that if someone knows he's got an email/voicemail, he'll go crazy if he can't at least see who sent it, or knowing that, what it is about.
This is quite terrible, given that most stuff can be ignored, yet we get emails and voice mails all the time.
I think this is one reason why people totally despise spam.
I remember in '91 there was a guy who would go on "vacation" (with the vacation program) even when in the office. You'd mail him and get a note that he was realy busy, and would respond later. If you went and interrupted him, it needed to be really, really urgent, or he'd have a fit.
I thought it was odd then, but now it makes perfect sense.
If tomorrow he takes a job in Redmond, will he suddenly become "Darth" Kay?
Is there perhaps a (B) rating for Bukkake?
How about (IB) for "inadvertent bukkake"? -- that is, stuff that looks pornographic, but is innocent?
I just wish someone big (e.g. Rockstar Games) would go unrated on their next big hit, thereby making the ESRB superfluous. They'd have to decide to either be cowed or be irrelevant.
If a kid has access to a computer, he's got access to porn. ESRB ratings don't help one bit.
Big Titty Bitches of the World, Unite!
"DO you have some reason why MS, Apple, or ANY OTHER FOR PROFIT software company wouldnt do the same? Oh yeah, you pay for theirs too."
Well, one reason to not do what they did is that when you break the law, it can cost you money. The device makers broke the license. By doing that, they are violating the Copyright of the glibc authors by not following the license.
In the US, the glibc Copyright holders can get a preliminary injuction, forbidding the sale of those devices. I'd love to see that; we'd see if the (L)GPL is for real or not.
Also, I don't pay MS or Apple for anything -- I run OpenBSD. You are quite a presumptuous ass to presume that I pay Apple or MS anything. Go fuck yourself, shithead!
From TFA:
"Aeronix Inc. originally did not post any of the GPL and LGPL source code used in the Zipit. After we confirmed that they used Linux, we politely asked that they comply with the license terms. I am one of the copyright holders in the code they use. I am pleased to see that they have at least posted pointers to the tools they used. They are still in violation of the terms of the LGPL for glibc."
Don't know how good this source is, but:
Here is something from Global Security about the origin of the tech.
Supposedly the tech is not just a copy of Russian stuff, and the Chinese are talking about what they are doing because they want to make money off of space services. You have to talk about it to sell it.
My apologies for the 600 billion. That was in yen. Right.
I'm seeing various posts saying, "boycott Amazon" -- they are evil IP mofos. That is pretty silly! Micro$oft and Apple are doing similarly (or more) reprehensible things, and boycotts of them are not popular enough to make any difference in their behavior.
Amazon is really huge these days -- $600 billion or so a year in sales. That revenue is coming from non-ideologically motivated schmucks, not geeks who think and care about IP issues. A geek boycott will be about as successful as Jesse Jackson's boycott of Nike (he couldn't get blacks to do it).
Try it again, this time with feeling.
I don't think these are at all "recent".
Haven't these ssh-based attacks been going on since sometime like July of 2004?
The deal was that there was a SSH vulnerability in non-OpenBSD implementations of sshd. The automated stuff kicked off then -- and they've gotten a bit worse in the last few months.
I had not thought about the problem of virtual servers.
E.g. suppose I have a big-ass mainframe that emulates a few PCs, just to run Excel now and then (for legacy reasons). Once a month, we reconfigure the mainframe just for a batch job, so that some of its resources are used to simulate 10 PCs.
How do you price that? A mainframe license? 10 separate PC licenses? What about the fact that I'm only doing it now and then, and not using it regularly (8-10 hours a day)?
I just wish the article had used the term "price discrimination" -- that really explains it all.
Q: How much does it cost?
A: "How much ya got?"
Did he just break the DMCA, in a very public way? Or is this not the case.
It sure looks like the did the sort of thing that folks do, that can get them in huge trouble -- he attempted to circumvent a technological device there to protect Copyright.
Is he really so dumb as to blog about it?
I'm not defending Amazon's patents on things that seem obvious (once you start running a service business over the web) --- but they offered a bounty for prior art on "One Click" (TM), in an attempt to establish if their claims had merit. This was done with O'Reilly -- the book publisher.
It seemed to me, based on the results they got, that it actually was somewhat novel. It hadn't been done before.
This one is a bit similar: it seems obvious. But really, I think the problem here is that most ordering systems totally suck, and this is a version that sucks slightly less. So it seems obvious and intuitive. But that doesn't meant that anyone ever tried to do it properly.
It is a bit like a well-designed product; it is easy to use. But a lot of effort and attempts to make it usable went into it. If you take the time to compare it to the sucky stuff that came before, then you'll probably think it is more novel.
This reminds you of the article you just read 20 minutes ago? You have a really long attention span.
That was yesterday's news. You have a bad memory.
This reminds me of that Canadian Harry Potter injuntion: until the book has been "published", you can't do stuff with it. So a Canadian court issued an injunction to those who got it early, saying they can't copy/sell or talk about the contents --- until it gets "published" --- 4-real, in a few days.
How is the unintentional "leaking" of information via a website any different? Can Netflix say they haven't "published" anything yet, and then have the DOJ beat you down for Copyright violations?
Some things never change! FTFA:
Phrack editor Knight Lightning, aka Craig Neidorf, was arrested, charged with fraud and tried before a grand jury for reprinting most of a confidential document, known as the E911 document, stolen from the Bell South telephone company. Bell South claimed that the confidential E911 document contained sensitive information and put its value at $80,000.
The case became a cause celebre for the digital underground and Mr Neidorf's defence was organised by the fledgling Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The case against Mr Neidorf collapsed when it was shown that the E911 paper could be ordered by phone from Bell South for only $13.
The only good thing I see in this is that the Chinese are moving to IPv6, so perhaps the rest of the world will upgrade too.
It will take some big reason to make the switch; CHINA is hopefully a big enough reason.
Here's an explanation. Here's a manual. Here is a writeup.
s /2004/n1736.pdf
I encourage you to look at any of those and then this C++ proposal (from the ISO people).
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/paper
Let me know what you think.
The screen problem is a killer.
E-ink is one way around the screen problem. Basically, it is electronically controlled paper.
But you can't use only some things from a namespace, and give them new names in the new namespace, can you?
Or how about making a namespace that is a union of subsets of other namespaces?
Or a namespace that takes some other namespaces (like a function takes arguments) and gives you a new namespace?
Its because of these missing features that I call C++ namespaces (as I last got to use them) "crappy" versions of the real thing. I'm guessing, based on your blithe answer, that you haven't experienced the true power of a module system.