Checked out the shopping cart feature first, since I've coded a ton of shopping carts.
TERRIBLE! I type in 9999999 (ad infinitum) in the quantity field and hit update.
My quantity is mysteriously changed to 147483647. I'm just guessing that's the limit of signed ints on that server. No error message was displayed. Since the size of the field that displays the quantity box is 3, all you see is '214'. An end user of an e-comm site doesn't care what's behind the scenes, they care that the inputs/outputs make sense. This doesn't. The reviewer talked about Design Patterns. Who cares? On the web the first rule you need to follow to have a reliable application is 'Validate user data'. Do that obsessively and you'll probably be ok even if your back end isn't too slick. Fail to do that and you are sunk, no matter how efficient your code is.
Then just to be sure I wasn't being too harsh, I ordered -3 of another movie. Works fine. So you can order three of one movie, -3 of another, and get them for free. Sorry.... a shopping cart without data validation (tedious as it is) isn't a shopping cart.
I hit continue and am told I need to have an account first. I sign up for one. First thing - I'm prompted for my login. Grrr... pet peeve - maintain this in the session please. Then I'm not redirected back to the cart. Oops... lost sale there. So I continue.... lovely, I'm informed that "Error_ Your shipping info is not valid." Man... insulting too. I hate apps that set a user up to fail.... and this does. I update my shipping address as prompted... and nothing happens, I don't go back to the flow of purchasing. Yikes, another lost sale. Even on the last step, my -19.99 order is accepted with no problems.
I know the shopping cart is being offered as an example only.... but c'mon, it should be a workable example. I am looking to learn PHP, but think I'll look elsewhere.
For years and years there have been cell phones/cd players/etc with non-inductive chargers. If it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it before? Hundreds of devices over more than a decade, none use inductive charging - kind of lends itself to saying that it's a non-obvious application in and of itself.
I was just saying it's patentable, which we both agree on. There is non-obvious innovation. The fact that some technology is the same as tech used elsewhere wasn't important.
I kind of stand by my point though. I wouldn't really call a toothbrush a mobile electronic device. Sure... you COULD carry it around like your cell phone or cd player.... but what the hell for? I don't think there is any device using induction to charge cell phones or cd players which is what I think of when I think of mobile electronics.
I'm surprised at how many people here talk about their rechargable electric toothbrushes. I guess if a geek is going to brush his teeth, he'll probably be too lazy to move his hand in small circles by himself?
It should either 'north' or 'south' - correct? So how about some shoes with powerful electromagnets with the opposite polarity? Instant roller rink. Or one of those back to the future flying skateboards?
I wouldn't pay much money to charge a phone.... but to have my own personal maglev floor?
Or do you really not understand the system at all?
A patent application for this gadget would only be invalid if someone else had already marketed a gadget that uses magnetic induction in connection with another gadget embedded in portable electronics to recharge said electronic devices. It's not like every gadget has to use some new undiscovered law of physics to be patentable.
There was no copyright infringement. But from my reading of the article, I read it as the company was claiming that Skylink was making use of copyrighted material by using the resynch code, but it's been a couple days so I could be mistaken.
One question though - they have a copyrighted list. I determine what's on the list by sending various modulated codes until I find one that works, then repeat ad infinitum until I know the sequence. At the end I have the list, but I didn't copy it, I derived it. Could copyright claims still apply? Would this be circumventing effective access controls to get copyrighted material? I would think this would fall under 'reverse engineering for interoperability' but I don't know how that concept relates to copyright.
I make a list of all possible visa numbers. Then I add a couple others i make up, take out a few valid ones. It's now a 'creative' work by some minimum standard. And I copyright it. So what? That doesn't let me complain when I see one of those nubmers elsewhere, and the original door maker says using their resynch code, or the first default code (it's kind of unclear) is making use of their copyrighted list. I think that claim is wrong.
I'm talking just a list of numbers (12, 833, 2983, 3873). The company says their algorigthm is copyrighted and I don't deny that, but I do deny that the output of the algorithm is also copyrighted. I don't think the DMCA applied in that other case anyway.
You're talking about an original work of authorship, which is encoded as a list of numbers. The fact that it's encoded in binary format doesn't change the fact that it's an original work of authorship.
1, 2, 3, 4 is not an original work of authorship. If you could use some weird encoding mechanism to turn the windows code into exactly that list '1, 2, 3, 4' that would have no effect on my ability to use the list 1, 2, 3, 4 for my own purposes.
The door opener company was claiming that their software code was copyright which i don't deny, but seemed to be confusing that with a list of numbers contained within or produced by that software - and that piece I don't think can be copyrighted. If I use a luhn checking script to generate all possible Visa card numbers, can I copyright that list and sue Visa for issuing cards with numbers that appear on that list? That seems to be what this company is doing.
That prime is 'illegal' because it is just another way to express a program that has been deemed 'illegal'. But that doesn't address the issue of copyright at all. If you had a legal program and you encoded it as a long prime, you would be able to defend a copyright on your program, but I doubt you'd be able to claim copyright protections on that prime to force mathematicians to stop using it. Using the prime by itself is not using your original work of authorship.
This is absolutely hilarious. They say they spent tons of money building this Rolling Code system, and that homeowners absolutely depend on its security. Yet they conveniently included a backdoor so that the same code will work over and over. But it's a 'synchronization code' so it's not a security hole in their system.
Their implementation is horrendous and practically invites this. If they wanted a secure sytem, the remote could query the opener for a current timestamp, and then it could use that timestamp to generate an appropriate code and send it. To make the code specific to one door, you could enter the serial number of the opener into the remote as a seed for whatever code generating algorithm it uses, just program it once when you first buy it. You can obviously only see the serial number if you're inside the house so that should be pretty secure. It sound like they just have a list of 1000 codes and they go through it in order, which is why they need the synchronization code, in case you hit the button when you're out of range of the door and your remote is on 48 while the opener is on 46.
I especially liked the verbal chicanery, where they use circumvent to mean 'got the door to open' rather than to mean 'break into the list of codes'. If the competing universal remote actually broke into the list of codes (which was encoded or protected somehow) then they may have broken the DMCA, but it seems like they just experimented with sending signals and found one that always opened the doors, it's not even reverse engineering, just discovering an undocumented API. Is a list of numbers even copyrightable? I wouldn't think so.....
I can't think of how I'd react to seeing graffiti like that. How nihilistic/apathetic is it that a graffiti-er wouldn't even have a statement to make? Or maybe it's surrealist art? I mean, commit to "fuck all" if that's your statement, don't waffle on about safaris and whatnot.....
The GPL only applies if the work is a derivative work. And this is NOT decided by what the GPL defines, but by what caselaw aimed at books will eventually decide. Copyright law is the only thing that restricts your ability to use the code however you want. If copyright law applies, then you must abide by the terms of the license and agree to its definitions. But if copyright law does not apply, then you don't have to care about the license at all.
The GPL only applies at all if the work is a derivative work, as it gets all of its legal authority from copyright law. If a program that uses a GPL'd library is not a derivative work then it doesn't matter what the GPL says about use or redistribution because you are not bound by its terms. Since this is a legal issue and will be resolved only by sufficient case history, it will ultimately be exposed to the test of what a 'reasonable person' would think several times before there is sufficient precedent to make a strong argument for either position, making it a matter of public opinion whether your proprietary program is a derivative work or not. When that happens, the decision can go either way because even programmers are often uncertain of whether something is a 'derivative work' or not. Only copyright law restricts your ability to use the code however you want, and it only applies if certain legal conditions are met.
In DC that many unrelated women living together is automatically considered a brothel. For this reason, there are no sororities in the nation's capital. Weird, eh?
But what if you're running your dvd player out to your Dolby Digital receiver like I do? The audio stream can't distinguish between playing out to a receiver versus playing out a sound card. I need my dvd player to run out to my receiver - the reason I bought both was the ability to hear the 5.1 channels. My audio receiver was pretty expensive to buy and I have no intention of replacing it if movie studios decide they wanted to encrypt their audio streams. The situation there is pretty analagous to the broadcast copy flag in HDTV that content producers are panting to get - yeah they really want it, but the people that they are pissing off are the ones who spent 5 to 10 thousand dollars on the hardware when it was brand new. The companies really don't seem to give a shit about pissing off their customers, but this group of people have significant lobbying power with the people that actually decide laws if they choose to exercise it. Macrovision prevented copying movies but allowed playback of movies, the implementation of the broadcast flag and any sort of Macrosound would break even the playback function of current hardware, so people will be much more upset about it.
Slashdot Mirror
"I've working in MIS for 25 years. I have a high school education and a brain."
Well, I don't doubt the high school education part....
Checked out the shopping cart feature first, since I've coded a ton of shopping carts.
TERRIBLE!
I type in 9999999 (ad infinitum) in the quantity field and hit update.
My quantity is mysteriously changed to 147483647. I'm just guessing that's the limit of signed ints on that server. No error message was displayed. Since the size of the field that displays the quantity box is 3, all you see is '214'. An end user of an e-comm site doesn't care what's behind the scenes, they care that the inputs/outputs make sense. This doesn't. The reviewer talked about Design Patterns. Who cares? On the web the first rule you need to follow to have a reliable application is 'Validate user data'. Do that obsessively and you'll probably be ok even if your back end isn't too slick. Fail to do that and you are sunk, no matter how efficient your code is.
Then just to be sure I wasn't being too harsh, I ordered -3 of another movie. Works fine. So you can order three of one movie, -3 of another, and get them for free. Sorry.... a shopping cart without data validation (tedious as it is) isn't a shopping cart.
I hit continue and am told I need to have an account first. I sign up for one. First thing - I'm prompted for my login. Grrr... pet peeve - maintain this in the session please. Then I'm not redirected back to the cart. Oops... lost sale there. So I continue.... lovely, I'm informed that "Error_ Your shipping info is not valid." Man... insulting too. I hate apps that set a user up to fail.... and this does. I update my shipping address as prompted... and nothing happens, I don't go back to the flow of purchasing. Yikes, another lost sale. Even on the last step, my -19.99 order is accepted with no problems.
I know the shopping cart is being offered as an example only.... but c'mon, it should be a workable example. I am looking to learn PHP, but think I'll look elsewhere.
For years and years there have been cell phones/cd players/etc with non-inductive chargers. If it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it before? Hundreds of devices over more than a decade, none use inductive charging - kind of lends itself to saying that it's a non-obvious application in and of itself.
I was just saying it's patentable, which we both agree on. There is non-obvious innovation. The fact that some technology is the same as tech used elsewhere wasn't important.
I kind of stand by my point though. I wouldn't really call a toothbrush a mobile electronic device. Sure... you COULD carry it around like your cell phone or cd player.... but what the hell for? I don't think there is any device using induction to charge cell phones or cd players which is what I think of when I think of mobile electronics.
I'm surprised at how many people here talk about their rechargable electric toothbrushes. I guess if a geek is going to brush his teeth, he'll probably be too lazy to move his hand in small circles by himself?
The third being that the EM field caused everyone in range to lose continence.....
It should either 'north' or 'south' - correct? So how about some shoes with powerful electromagnets with the opposite polarity? Instant roller rink. Or one of those back to the future flying skateboards?
I wouldn't pay much money to charge a phone.... but to have my own personal maglev floor?
Or do you really not understand the system at all?
A patent application for this gadget would only be invalid if someone else had already marketed a gadget that uses magnetic induction in connection with another gadget embedded in portable electronics to recharge said electronic devices. It's not like every gadget has to use some new undiscovered law of physics to be patentable.
Did anybody else notice the site had an article on the Matrix phone? Apparently it will be a Sprint PCS phone, and match one used in the new movie.
Photos here
There was no copyright infringement. But from my reading of the article, I read it as the company was claiming that Skylink was making use of copyrighted material by using the resynch code, but it's been a couple days so I could be mistaken.
One question though - they have a copyrighted list. I determine what's on the list by sending various modulated codes until I find one that works, then repeat ad infinitum until I know the sequence. At the end I have the list, but I didn't copy it, I derived it. Could copyright claims still apply? Would this be circumventing effective access controls to get copyrighted material? I would think this would fall under 'reverse engineering for interoperability' but I don't know how that concept relates to copyright.
I make a list of all possible visa numbers. Then I add a couple others i make up, take out a few valid ones. It's now a 'creative' work by some minimum standard. And I copyright it. So what? That doesn't let me complain when I see one of those nubmers elsewhere, and the original door maker says using their resynch code, or the first default code (it's kind of unclear) is making use of their copyrighted list. I think that claim is wrong.
I'm talking just a list of numbers (12, 833, 2983, 3873). The company says their algorigthm is copyrighted and I don't deny that, but I do deny that the output of the algorithm is also copyrighted. I don't think the DMCA applied in that other case anyway.
But the number of valid codes just went up from 1 to 100. I'd rather stick with one unique code this second that will open the door.
You're talking about an original work of authorship, which is encoded as a list of numbers. The fact that it's encoded in binary format doesn't change the fact that it's an original work of authorship.
1, 2, 3, 4 is not an original work of authorship. If you could use some weird encoding mechanism to turn the windows code into exactly that list '1, 2, 3, 4' that would have no effect on my ability to use the list 1, 2, 3, 4 for my own purposes.
The door opener company was claiming that their software code was copyright which i don't deny, but seemed to be confusing that with a list of numbers contained within or produced by that software - and that piece I don't think can be copyrighted. If I use a luhn checking script to generate all possible Visa card numbers, can I copyright that list and sue Visa for issuing cards with numbers that appear on that list? That seems to be what this company is doing.
That prime is 'illegal' because it is just another way to express a program that has been deemed 'illegal'. But that doesn't address the issue of copyright at all. If you had a legal program and you encoded it as a long prime, you would be able to defend a copyright on your program, but I doubt you'd be able to claim copyright protections on that prime to force mathematicians to stop using it. Using the prime by itself is not using your original work of authorship.
This is absolutely hilarious. They say they spent tons of money building this Rolling Code system, and that homeowners absolutely depend on its security. Yet they conveniently included a backdoor so that the same code will work over and over. But it's a 'synchronization code' so it's not a security hole in their system.
Their implementation is horrendous and practically invites this. If they wanted a secure sytem, the remote could query the opener for a current timestamp, and then it could use that timestamp to generate an appropriate code and send it. To make the code specific to one door, you could enter the serial number of the opener into the remote as a seed for whatever code generating algorithm it uses, just program it once when you first buy it. You can obviously only see the serial number if you're inside the house so that should be pretty secure. It sound like they just have a list of 1000 codes and they go through it in order, which is why they need the synchronization code, in case you hit the button when you're out of range of the door and your remote is on 48 while the opener is on 46.
I especially liked the verbal chicanery, where they use circumvent to mean 'got the door to open' rather than to mean 'break into the list of codes'. If the competing universal remote actually broke into the list of codes (which was encoded or protected somehow) then they may have broken the DMCA, but it seems like they just experimented with sending signals and found one that always opened the doors, it's not even reverse engineering, just discovering an undocumented API. Is a list of numbers even copyrightable? I wouldn't think so.....
"fuck all or a safari or something"
I can't think of how I'd react to seeing graffiti like that. How nihilistic/apathetic is it that a graffiti-er wouldn't even have a statement to make? Or maybe it's surrealist art? I mean, commit to "fuck all" if that's your statement, don't waffle on about safaris and whatnot.....
Is why your network techs at work would have nothing better to do than hook up your work PC which is full of illegal MP3's to your audio device.
Or maybe the real question is why you have a stereo system at work?
Too weird.
The law only applies to houses. Apartments are fine. Dorms are fine.
But nobody wants to have a 'sorority house' in a dorm do they?
The GPL only applies if the work is a derivative work. And this is NOT decided by what the GPL defines, but by what caselaw aimed at books will eventually decide. Copyright law is the only thing that restricts your ability to use the code however you want. If copyright law applies, then you must abide by the terms of the license and agree to its definitions. But if copyright law does not apply, then you don't have to care about the license at all.
The GPL only applies at all if the work is a derivative work, as it gets all of its legal authority from copyright law. If a program that uses a GPL'd library is not a derivative work then it doesn't matter what the GPL says about use or redistribution because you are not bound by its terms. Since this is a legal issue and will be resolved only by sufficient case history, it will ultimately be exposed to the test of what a 'reasonable person' would think several times before there is sufficient precedent to make a strong argument for either position, making it a matter of public opinion whether your proprietary program is a derivative work or not. When that happens, the decision can go either way because even programmers are often uncertain of whether something is a 'derivative work' or not. Only copyright law restricts your ability to use the code however you want, and it only applies if certain legal conditions are met.
In DC that many unrelated women living together is automatically considered a brothel. For this reason, there are no sororities in the nation's capital. Weird, eh?
zombie nation my friend ;)
But what if you're running your dvd player out to your Dolby Digital receiver like I do? The audio stream can't distinguish between playing out to a receiver versus playing out a sound card. I need my dvd player to run out to my receiver - the reason I bought both was the ability to hear the 5.1 channels. My audio receiver was pretty expensive to buy and I have no intention of replacing it if movie studios decide they wanted to encrypt their audio streams. The situation there is pretty analagous to the broadcast copy flag in HDTV that content producers are panting to get - yeah they really want it, but the people that they are pissing off are the ones who spent 5 to 10 thousand dollars on the hardware when it was brand new. The companies really don't seem to give a shit about pissing off their customers, but this group of people have significant lobbying power with the people that actually decide laws if they choose to exercise it. Macrovision prevented copying movies but allowed playback of movies, the implementation of the broadcast flag and any sort of Macrosound would break even the playback function of current hardware, so people will be much more upset about it.
Your idea WAS the stupidest thing ever and you're now unemployed and posting from a fast food joint.....
you're making me hungry man :)