The Chinese registrars would "simply" (ahem) have two DNS entries per IP address. The customer would choose the latin version of the domain name.
In an ideal world, dns aliasing would be de-aliased by each host, but since that hasn't happened yet the registrars would be required to maintain the database. It wouldn't be too complex, would it? (wishful thinking?)
But I have not been able to figure out any other way to prevent internationalized domain names from forming a communication barrier by means of the ability of humans to read the address.
L0stb0Y points out that they are providing pairs, so to speak, in the pattern of 名字.公司 being mapped to 名字.公司.cn .
That raises a lot more questions. If they've done it (sort of) right, what the plug-in would do is simply tag the.cn after the Han domain name (and some other essential bookkeeping and lookup). Except that in the case of.中国 , they would also be washing the.中国 pseudo-TLD.
You could do a similar thing within a large organization, such that addresses that resolve within the organization would automatically assume the TLD and 2LD, so that blackbeard.pirates.org would resolve internally by just typing "blackbeard". In fact, many internal domain name servers are set up that way by default, aren't they? And these guys are providing general names without any particular TLD.
Speaking of separate but equal, when is slashdot going to be upgraded to allowing general Unicode in the posts?
For half of the equation, let me ask a question --
How many people does it take to have a conversation?
Now, for the other half of the equation, let me propose a (set of) filter rule(s) --
Accesses to approved Chinese TLDs can go down one circuit and accesses to other TLDs can go down another.
Do I have to invoke the old equal-but-separate argument here?
Things clearing up yet?
If the Chinese government were doing this to make things more accessible for their people, they would not be stopping with defining the new rogue TLDs. They would be cooperating with ICANN to dynamically translate their Han TLDs to the ipidgin equivalents,.com and.net . Lack of mention of such dynamic translation is what would have me reach for the tinfoil.
Now, if they REALLY wanted to show that they are not just trying to wall off things at the language boundary, they would be announcing plans to make it possible to cross the boundary. That would be fairly simple. When their registrars sell a 2LD name, they could sell the name as an aliased pair, both a Han name and a Latin name for the price of one. In the general case, the user would have them both pointing to the same IP.
punycode, if they are indeed using it, will cause them a lot of grief.
However, maybe after things cool down, they'll realize that they're just trying to do the same thing Apple was originally, and they'll step back and realize they could at least yield as much as Apple did.
Let's see. The samplers for a font or a typeface can be copyrighted. Fonts themselves can be copyrighted. But typefaces are closer to algorithms and therefore should be patented, as long as we are patenting algorithms now.
A document is not a font and it is not a sampler, although it may contain all the characters in the font or the sampler. I'd suspect that if this question had come up twenty or forty or a hundred fifty years ago (It did, I think.) the judge would say that the document was derived from the font or the sampler if it was intended to display the characters from the font for artistic purposes.
Otherwise, while it would be incorporating the font, it would be incorporating motifs and elements from the copyrighted work rather than the work itself. I think the fair use clauses are where this sort of thing would have to be decided. Otherwise, Paul Simon could claim the right to prevent people from saying, "The Bible's old." or "The greatest story ever told." with a certain inflection and emphasis. (He wouldn't, of course. He's a true artist.)
I don't remember whether the court cases determined that the author of the font could license the font in such a way that the mere use of the font in a published work would require a license from the font foundry to _distribute_ (as opposed to needing the license to print) the work. I vaguely remember some foundries claiming such a thing.
But I see serious problems with the fair-use clauses if a person who owned the copyright for a font were allowed to indirectly claim copyright on documents printed in that font. These problems would exist entirely indepently of the GPL issues.
In other words, provide a way for the mail browser (MUA) to tell the server to put the "return to sender -- no such address" label on it even though the mail arrived and was read far enough to see that it was spam.
You also have to make sure the MUA knows not to retrieve images and other external references in that stupid html-mail junk. Otherwise, it's just like the confirm-on-open option.
Why is it so many so-called business software engineers think that computer systems should take control of things away from people, and don't understand that SPAM is the result?
"A situation I'm involved in at work has raised some questions regarding the GPL vs. IP agreements.
IP agreements are generally intended to scare the peons into submission. As such, even if the first court validates them, the appeals court is likely to rip them to shreds. All in all, if you get stubborn, you can get most of the contents of the IP agreement tossed. Employers with experience in this know it, so they will be obnoxious, loud, noisy, and even bullying at first, but if you stand up, they back off.
When I started working for my employer several years ago I signed an IP agreement that states anything I think while working for them is theirs, as well as anything I've ever thought in the past if it enters their building;
In US courts, no matter what the agreement says, the company does not own you or your thoughts. They own your time while you are on the clock. Period.
One thing to keep in mind, do not agree to anything without a lawyer present.
But you do need to keep good records. The better your record-keeping, the stronger your position in court. A published source code archive is very useful, especially if it's mirrored somewhere. (That, in my opinion, is as valuable as any other feature at source forge and similar sites.)
dumb, but I needed a job."
Dumb? not really. Repeat after me: "The company is going to try to convince my I am dumb to keep me off balance. I must not let them do so." No way is it dumb to work.
Management is stupid to rely on this kind of bullying. It may get them short-term advantages, but it rips the company apart from the insides. Short term advantage has gotten way too much press these days, but the economy will not revive until the short-termers repent or get out of the way.
To make a long story short: Daimaou wrote some code derived from GPLed sources. Now his company wants to take control over what he's written. IP agreements aside, this sounds like a GPL violation since the company's IP can't override IP already established by the original GPLed code. Daimaou also says the company is trying to patent at least some of the code.
Bullying. Swashbuckling: "We bad!"
"See that park bench? Nobody else claims it, so we claim it!"
They claim it looks like a park bench to them, even though it's on a private lawn with a fence around it, just because the gate has a sign on it that says, "When the gate is open, anyone is allowed to spend some time here."
Blind bullying. They've never learned that the real world is not like the playground at school. Or maybe they've never learned that recess ends, and the rules they made up over recess have their limits. Time to teach them.
Is there anything Daimaou, or anyone else for that matter, can do to get the company to cut short their plans and play fair with IP that obviously doesn't belong entirely to them?
Inform the owners of the code. Concerning the code Daimaou owns, get help from the EFF or one of the other groups that are getting started and/or a lawyer relative or friend. And don't forget that the company has very little legal ground to stand on. The only thing they can claim ownership on is the lines of code in their own archives that is not in external, pre-existing archives. (And they have a record keeping duty, as well.)
"About a year and a half ago, I brought in some source code that I had worked on prior to working here; after receiving verbal OKs that the code would remain mine.
For future reference, never rely on verbal agreements in contradiction to contracts. If you can't afford it if they renig, get it in writing.
My code was derived from code I got from IBM's Developer Works website and also ActiveState's w
Look up the definition of "patent" in an English dictionary.
Then look up the processes of patenting.
The way it looks to me, if the company patents anything that it or its employees used as part of a modification to GPLed work, the contents of the patent must fall under the GPL.
(That might not be a bad idea, if they only understood it.)
The question of whether the code is a modification of the GPLed work or not could be difficult, depending on the interface techniques.
Check out housing in Japan sometime. People important Canadian lumber and build western style dry-wall-on-wooden-frame, and it comes out costing less than the prefab.
And, having lived in prefab over here for over ten years, I'm not impressed with the quality. It's like living in a giant plastic butter dish.
Some people like it that way, because when the kids fall, plastic can be somewhat softer than wood. Or something. I dunno.
That's one question. Perhaps the bank is a subsidiary and doesn't (isn't supposed to) have its own site. That would be an ideal bate for a phish. (Well, ideal for the phishers, anyway.)
(Hmm. at Google, "coamerica bank". Hmm.)
Maybe I should an e-mail to barrister-suites.com and encourage them to warn their customer that they may have suddenly and unintentionally gained a web site.
Darwin is downloadable from opendarwin.org. It's also downloadable from Apple's developer downloads. It's available as a bootable CD for $20 from Apple's developer site. X11 is available for it, from the above sites. It does take a little effort to get X11 up, perhaps, as compared to having quartz built into Mac OS X.
Darwin is a product. It is not Mac OS X. It has a separate existence, even though it also exists as a part of Mac OS X.
2 is a number. 2+3 is another number.
If you are dissatisfied with the level of service at opendarwin.org, join up, donate some of your time, get the level of service up. Or do you want Apple to overwhelm the volunteer side to Darwin with Apple employees, just so you can get a version of Darwin with X11 that can compete with Ubuntu?
I have not just been trolled, but I've stuck around to be trolled again. 'bye, now.
if i understand this correctly - they wouldn't need to - they do seem to conduct some kind of background search (although it doesn't check if the name is fake..)
The fact that true.com doesn't attempt to establish a way to check that the name is fake is kindalike the whole point of the counter.
The fact that the law assumes that the problems in public key infrastructure can all be trivially resolved by automated on-line searches and a large (not even huge!) hard drive full of the the junk such searches dredge up is what makes the law scary.
See how silly that sounds when you substitute network with graphics?
Well, does waiting 3 milliseconds at 3 GHz outrun waiting 3 milliseconds at 300 MHz?
The only advantage I can see to this is that it's often nice to have I/O handled in a separate process/thread running on a separate processor. But, as many have already noted, unless the I/O processor is tuned for this you've either got another expensive processor or you're running the I/O thread on a slower processor.
If the processor _is_ tuned for this purpose, it's already been done. Most Ethernet i/f cards have a fair amount of intelligence on them already, and complete stacks have been available on cards for about as long as I've been aware of ethernet. (twenty years?)
But I don't see his references in those articles. No links (and I know there are plenty of people who link him). Very few names.
I can sort of understand the lack of names, although it leaves me with questions. People do get scared.
But then he complains about HAVA, and he doesn't say why, except to wave his hands and say it's bad. He could at least put a link in to an article explaining the problems, even if he doesn't want to spend words in that article on the issues.
I can rant, too. But at least I can put a link or two in when it will help explain things.
The lack of explanation, even though I know HAVA was an exercise in how not to help voters, leaves me unconvinced on the other charges.
Do we really want change, or do we just want a bad guy to vent at?
If there's no explanation, charges are forgotten as soon as the TV catches the attention.
One more thing. This one hurts, but getting scared does not protect your rights. You look at the examples we have in the Ukraine and many other countries. People are putting their future on the line for freedom. But in the US, people want the freedoms without the costs.
Slashdot Mirror
The Chinese registrars would "simply" (ahem) have two DNS entries per IP address. The customer would choose the latin version of the domain name. In an ideal world, dns aliasing would be de-aliased by each host, but since that hasn't happened yet the registrars would be required to maintain the database. It wouldn't be too complex, would it? (wishful thinking?) But I have not been able to figure out any other way to prevent internationalized domain names from forming a communication barrier by means of the ability of humans to read the address.
L0stb0Y points out that they are providing pairs, so to speak, in the pattern of 名字.公司 being mapped to 名字.公司.cn .
That raises a lot more questions. If they've done it (sort of) right, what the plug-in would do is simply tag the .cn after the Han domain name (and some other essential bookkeeping and lookup). Except that in the case of .中国 , they would also be washing the .中国 pseudo-TLD.
You could do a similar thing within a large organization, such that addresses that resolve within the organization would automatically assume the TLD and 2LD, so that blackbeard.pirates.org would resolve internally by just typing "blackbeard". In fact, many internal domain name servers are set up that way by default, aren't they? And these guys are providing general names without any particular TLD.
Speaking of separate but equal, when is slashdot going to be upgraded to allowing general Unicode in the posts?For half of the equation, let me ask a question --
.com and .net . Lack of mention of such dynamic translation is what would have me reach for the tinfoil.
How many people does it take to have a conversation?
Now, for the other half of the equation, let me propose a (set of) filter rule(s) --
Accesses to approved Chinese TLDs can go down one circuit and accesses to other TLDs can go down another.
Do I have to invoke the old equal-but-separate argument here?
Things clearing up yet?
If the Chinese government were doing this to make things more accessible for their people, they would not be stopping with defining the new rogue TLDs. They would be cooperating with ICANN to dynamically translate their Han TLDs to the ipidgin equivalents,
Now, if they REALLY wanted to show that they are not just trying to wall off things at the language boundary, they would be announcing plans to make it possible to cross the boundary. That would be fairly simple. When their registrars sell a 2LD name, they could sell the name as an aliased pair, both a Han name and a Latin name for the price of one. In the general case, the user would have them both pointing to the same IP.
punycode, if they are indeed using it, will cause them a lot of grief.
Exactly.
However, maybe after things cool down, they'll realize that they're just trying to do the same thing Apple was originally, and they'll step back and realize they could at least yield as much as Apple did.
There are many licenses that are compatible with the GPL, and the GPL makes it clear that the author does not give up his or her copyright.
The CDDL leaves me wondering if I would be able to write some small patch for Solaris and then use it in something for openBSD.
"... contributions must be licensed under this license ..." and I'm not quoting the GPL.
The GPL at least says any GPL compatible license will do.
This attitude is pervasive in the CDDL. It's like Sun deliberately distilled out the worst of the MPL and put it in the CDDL.
Let's see. The samplers for a font or a typeface can be copyrighted. Fonts themselves can be copyrighted. But typefaces are closer to algorithms and therefore should be patented, as long as we are patenting algorithms now.
A document is not a font and it is not a sampler, although it may contain all the characters in the font or the sampler. I'd suspect that if this question had come up twenty or forty or a hundred fifty years ago (It did, I think.) the judge would say that the document was derived from the font or the sampler if it was intended to display the characters from the font for artistic purposes.
Otherwise, while it would be incorporating the font, it would be incorporating motifs and elements from the copyrighted work rather than the work itself. I think the fair use clauses are where this sort of thing would have to be decided. Otherwise, Paul Simon could claim the right to prevent people from saying, "The Bible's old." or "The greatest story ever told." with a certain inflection and emphasis. (He wouldn't, of course. He's a true artist.)
I don't remember whether the court cases determined that the author of the font could license the font in such a way that the mere use of the font in a published work would require a license from the font foundry to _distribute_ (as opposed to needing the license to print) the work. I vaguely remember some foundries claiming such a thing.
But I see serious problems with the fair-use clauses if a person who owned the copyright for a font were allowed to indirectly claim copyright on documents printed in that font. These problems would exist entirely indepently of the GPL issues.
In other words, provide a way for the mail browser (MUA) to tell the server to put the "return to sender -- no such address" label on it even though the mail arrived and was read far enough to see that it was spam.
You also have to make sure the MUA knows not to retrieve images and other external references in that stupid html-mail junk. Otherwise, it's just like the confirm-on-open option.
Why is it so many so-called business software engineers think that computer systems should take control of things away from people, and don't understand that SPAM is the result?
Someone in Congress has too much time on his hands.
And I don't blame Apple for giving this one the cold shoulder.
Caveat: US-centric opinions follow.
IP agreements are generally intended to scare the peons into submission. As such, even if the first court validates them, the appeals court is likely to rip them to shreds. All in all, if you get stubborn, you can get most of the contents of the IP agreement tossed. Employers with experience in this know it, so they will be obnoxious, loud, noisy, and even bullying at first, but if you stand up, they back off.
In US courts, no matter what the agreement says, the company does not own you or your thoughts. They own your time while you are on the clock. Period.
One thing to keep in mind, do not agree to anything without a lawyer present.
But you do need to keep good records. The better your record-keeping, the stronger your position in court. A published source code archive is very useful, especially if it's mirrored somewhere. (That, in my opinion, is as valuable as any other feature at source forge and similar sites.)
Dumb? not really. Repeat after me: "The company is going to try to convince my I am dumb to keep me off balance. I must not let them do so." No way is it dumb to work.
Management is stupid to rely on this kind of bullying. It may get them short-term advantages, but it rips the company apart from the insides. Short term advantage has gotten way too much press these days, but the economy will not revive until the short-termers repent or get out of the way.
Bullying. Swashbuckling: "We bad!"
"See that park bench? Nobody else claims it, so we claim it!"
They claim it looks like a park bench to them, even though it's on a private lawn with a fence around it, just because the gate has a sign on it that says, "When the gate is open, anyone is allowed to spend some time here."
Blind bullying. They've never learned that the real world is not like the playground at school. Or maybe they've never learned that recess ends, and the rules they made up over recess have their limits. Time to teach them.
Inform the owners of the code. Concerning the code Daimaou owns, get help from the EFF or one of the other groups that are getting started and/or a lawyer relative or friend. And don't forget that the company has very little legal ground to stand on. The only thing they can claim ownership on is the lines of code in their own archives that is not in external, pre-existing archives. (And they have a record keeping duty, as well.)
For future reference, never rely on verbal agreements in contradiction to contracts. If you can't afford it if they renig, get it in writing.
Look up the definition of "patent" in an English dictionary.
Then look up the processes of patenting.
The way it looks to me, if the company patents anything that it or its employees used as part of a modification to GPLed work, the contents of the patent must fall under the GPL.
(That might not be a bad idea, if they only understood it.)
The question of whether the code is a modification of the GPLed work or not could be difficult, depending on the interface techniques.
I don't think so.
Check out housing in Japan sometime. People important Canadian lumber and build western style dry-wall-on-wooden-frame, and it comes out costing less than the prefab.
And, having lived in prefab over here for over ten years, I'm not impressed with the quality. It's like living in a giant plastic butter dish.
Some people like it that way, because when the kids fall, plastic can be somewhat softer than wood. Or something. I dunno.
??? Let's DOS the bank, while it's down, we'll do them a little favor and back their site up. If you need to go to the bank, get on your bike and go.
That's one question. Perhaps the bank is a subsidiary and doesn't (isn't supposed to) have its own site. That would be an ideal bate for a phish. (Well, ideal for the phishers, anyway.)
(Hmm. at Google, "coamerica bank". Hmm.)
Maybe I should an e-mail to barrister-suites.com and encourage them to warn their customer that they may have suddenly and unintentionally gained a web site.
Except, burn that hydrogen.
Is a society without laws worse than a society with laws made by Bill Gates and his friends?
that slashdotters could maybe get off their backsides, quit sniping at things for a while, and do a little code review for firefox?
naaaaaahh
Darwin is downloadable from opendarwin.org. It's also downloadable from Apple's developer downloads. It's available as a bootable CD for $20 from Apple's developer site. X11 is available for it, from the above sites. It does take a little effort to get X11 up, perhaps, as compared to having quartz built into Mac OS X.
Darwin is a product. It is not Mac OS X. It has a separate existence, even though it also exists as a part of Mac OS X.
2 is a number. 2+3 is another number.
If you are dissatisfied with the level of service at opendarwin.org, join up, donate some of your time, get the level of service up. Or do you want Apple to overwhelm the volunteer side to Darwin with Apple employees, just so you can get a version of Darwin with X11 that can compete with Ubuntu?
I have not just been trolled, but I've stuck around to be trolled again. 'bye, now.
Perhaps you think that all Apple has done is repackage X11?
you can find your way to the news.com article?
yes?
you can find the links to the proposed laws in that article, state-by-state?
no?
State-By-Friendly-State.
Yes, the state's names showing up in colors means something. You can click on them. Even in lynx, you can click on them.
The fact that true.com doesn't attempt to establish a way to check that the name is fake is kindalike the whole point of the counter.
The fact that the law assumes that the problems in public key infrastructure can all be trivially resolved by automated on-line searches and a large (not even huge!) hard drive full of the the junk such searches dredge up is what makes the law scary.
fix it by making the UN bigger.
Sure. Right. More of the hair o' the dog that bit ya.
Can't we go back to decentralization? We have the technology now.
Well, does waiting 3 milliseconds at 3 GHz outrun waiting 3 milliseconds at 300 MHz?
The only advantage I can see to this is that it's often nice to have I/O handled in a separate process/thread running on a separate processor. But, as many have already noted, unless the I/O processor is tuned for this you've either got another expensive processor or you're running the I/O thread on a slower processor.
If the processor _is_ tuned for this purpose, it's already been done. Most Ethernet i/f cards have a fair amount of intelligence on them already, and complete stacks have been available on cards for about as long as I've been aware of ethernet. (twenty years?)
Think 80186, ergo, "io co processing instructions". ;-)
seems awfully sure of his facts.
But I don't see his references in those articles. No links (and I know there are plenty of people who link him). Very few names.
I can sort of understand the lack of names, although it leaves me with questions. People do get scared.
But then he complains about HAVA, and he doesn't say why, except to wave his hands and say it's bad. He could at least put a link in to an article explaining the problems, even if he doesn't want to spend words in that article on the issues.
I can rant, too. But at least I can put a link or two in when it will help explain things.
The lack of explanation, even though I know HAVA was an exercise in how not to help voters, leaves me unconvinced on the other charges.
Do we really want change, or do we just want a bad guy to vent at?
If there's no explanation, charges are forgotten as soon as the TV catches the attention.
One more thing. This one hurts, but getting scared does not protect your rights. You look at the examples we have in the Ukraine and many other countries. People are putting their future on the line for freedom. But in the US, people want the freedoms without the costs.
Real freedom is not free as in beer.
And let's not forget that Microsoft wanted a piece of this action. (Passedport, anyone?)
No mod points for the parent.