These guys poor a lot of money into bringing this stuff up, it would be a huge pissoff for them if someone else where to say its theirs and take it all
You don't know what the definition of salvage is. Salvage in no way gives you ownership rights, but an understanding of recompense.
This way its finders keepers, the way it should be for finding treasure.
Things most certainly aren't like that, and anyone that thinks it is is likely to be disappointed.
You are wrong. The EEZ is in no way related to salvage.
Over the last few years this has become a massive grey area. The case of Japan salvaging a ship in China's EEZ zone in 2002 was a case in point. Heck, the US even claims complete sovereignty over their EEZ zones at various times to suit them even though they haven't ratified the relevant treaty. Go figure.
Actually, the Odyssey had a permission from the Spanish government to _investigate_, but not _recover_, in waters close to Gibraltar to try and locate the HMS Sussex (sunk in 1694), and the fact that they have made this announcement without saying where the heck that stuff came from has made the Spanish government suspicious. There's a good chance they have, indeed, recovered this stuff from somewhere they weren't authorized to.
Indeed. Many salvage companies have played fast and loose with the grey areas and goodwill generally required in maritime laws, tradition and salvage over the years (which is why post 1994 there have been attempts to firm it all up), and unless the Ps and Qs and legal angles are observed, if they gain a bad reputation the chances of them working on any other shipwreck sites are greatly reduced.
One thing I should add is that even though the US has not ratified the treaty, it has still claimed jurisdiction over its EEZ zone in the past. Go figure.
Natural and Marine resources, yes, salvage? Nope. You're completely wrong about that.
Sorry, but there have been precedents and grey areas for this, especially in the last few years and since 1994 when this was thrashed out. The salvage of a ship within China's EEZ zone by Japan in 2002 has been a case in point. It's called the UN convention on the Law of the Sea, which the US has actually signed I believe but not ratified (it doesn't matter anyway - it's still not their waters). Hell, even the US has claimed jurisdiction over its EEZ, so it can't claim it doesn't recognise it.
No, asshole it looks like YOU do, they asked the federal judge to give them an order for admiralty arrest.
Sorry, but that's just not enough nowadays. You need to get permission from the countries' EEZ zones you'll be working in to clear it with them, and the shipwreck may well be a war grave or can now be considered as a cultural heritage site which would apply in this case. You can't just pull artifacts from a site, ship them out and sell them for profit. These have been prompted by the free-for-alls like the Titanic salvages. There are any number of Is to dot and Ts to cross. These days you cannot just invoke an international waters and admiralty clause and get a federal judge to sign it over to you. The US also has the Abandoned Shipwreck Act to consider in each case. If that is all they did then these people are indeed incompetent. However, this seems to be the typical US centred attitude to everything.
Oh, and if you're going to call someone a cunt, is it too much to ask for you to actually do some fucking research first and learn what the laws actually fucking well are and how they've actually been applied in real cases, OK?
STFU now or learn the fucking law douche.
I love it when people have their own idea of what the law is versus what it actually is in the real world and how it's applied, but there you go.
RTFWA. The US has not signed the Law of the Sea treaty. So the EEZ is not recognized in American law.
The US does not own the seas and oceans. The US actually has signed up to the EEZ - but it just hasn't ratified the agreement it comes under. A US judge can't just sign something away because it doesn't recognise something that another country does.
12 nautical miles of territorial waters is the immediate control any nation has over the seaways around its coastline. As for the use of natural resources, salvage and marine resources, this logically has had to extend an awful lot further. There has been a general requirement to request permission from the nation when salvaging in their economic zones as in the case of a vessel Japan have been salvaging in China's zone in 2002. This wreck site could also come under cultural heritage agreements, although this is slightly sketchy. Salvage law is not applicable to that though.
They, being a US company, asked a US judge to do this. 40 nm off the coast is not territorial water, the brits have no territorial control over it.
Yes, they do. See above. Seems like a judge needs to read something about current maritime law, but the US never ceases to surprise me.
You, sir, a typical, useless, slashtard.
Typical anonymous fuckwit who thinks he can quote RTFA. But there you are.
HDMI has an advertised maximum bandwidth of 5Gbps, last time I checked I didn't have a wireless connection at that speed
sitting around. You of course could retort with 'I said that's where they should be heading not where they are.' but
trying to push that much data at that speed through a wireless network is not trivial.
Well yes, I did say 'heading towards', but really, in order to achieve that they should be looking to cut down on the amount of traffic required. New video formats, better compression, stuff that will actually make things better etc. etc. Instead, they chose to focus on chucking as much stuff on a disc as they could and making DRM the primary focus.
In seeking exclusive rights to that site, an Odyssey attorney told a federal judge last fall that the company likely had found the remains of a 17th-century merchant vessel that sank with valuable cargo aboard, about 40 miles off the southwestern tip of England.
A federal judge has no right to grant rights to anything, and I don't know why they'd be telling him/her that - whether in international waters or not. It doesn't say whether it is in international waters, by I pretty much doubt it if it's near the English Channel.
HDMI is pretty much the same standard as DVI, cobbled and thrown together extremely badly - with all the same problems. They work on the same principle, the net effect being that it has a lot of problems with cables of any real length. With DVI this wasn't so much of a problem, because it was mostly just used to connect monitors and computers together. However, HDMI needed to be so much more than that - and they ballsed it up. HDMI is basically a reinvented DVI thrown together as a knee-jerk reaction to close the analogue hole and try and encrypt and obscure absolutely everything that comes out of a media player, hence the integrated video and audio. Don't think for a second that's for the consumer's benefit.
There was one sole reason why HDMI was cobbled together, and that's because all sorts of executives were jumping up and down like jibbering idiots about, as they call it, the analogue hole. Yes, we all needed more bandwidth, but that just wasn't the primary reason.
Pop that together with a cable standard that HDMI are bunging more and more stuff down without doing anything, and you've got an unreliable and worthless pile of junk. The article mentions cables of lengths 50 to 75 feet, but it's a sad day when you've got to limit yourself with a shiny new technology to a run length of a few inches. Oh, and get with the program people, wireless is the way things should be heading. Where the hell is this digital home I've been hearing so much about? It's a joke. Yes, there are new HDMI cables in the pipeline, but yet again, they're going to be ridiculously expensive. No thanks.
I don't know why people persist in coming up with this "Applications in a Browser" thing repeatedly, but they clearly have no understanding of the complexity of most software. Most GUI applications that are basically front-ends can be run in a browser, but the vast majority of rich client stuff like office suits and e-mail clients (There's only so much you can do with Ajax) is just too complex to do that. I mean, does he have any idea how bloody how slow VNC actually is? Running applications remotely is also a question of trust, availability and flexibility to do what you want.
I just wish people would stop it with these pointless "Run everything in a browser" or "WebOS" articles, and I wish sites like Slashdot would stop giving them any view time.
What a surprise when I found out it was an article on O'Reilly's site, the usual dumping ground these days for articles with pointless ideas that don't even have a final point, conclusion or punchline as to how it would all hang together.
If I had mod points I'd mod you up. That accurately sums up SUVs and all those stupid 4x4s (or what the idiots think are 4x4s) in a nutshell. They're extremely silly vehicles.
Interesting. I wonder how it is then that the BSDs are able to continue to exist, if these benefits are conferred by the GPL alone? Obviously legal compulsion to reciprocate perhaps isn't as essential as you might think.
The BSDs still exist because people still want to develop them. As it is however, the BSDs have nowhere near the number of drivers or investment in code that Linux does. If a lot of people had picked up the BSD, as they had done with Linux, before you know it they would be sticking all sorts of closed binary blobs on to it, dragging down the general quality. Yes, the BSDs exist, but they just ain't workable as Linux is.
Are you yet another victim of Stallmanite mind control, or are you just doing a really convincing job of sounding like it?
That's your imagination sweety. I'm just someone who understands how the GPL works, regardless of some of the rhetoric of the FSF.
Like it or loathe it, that's why the GPL is such a fair license. Developers, whether individuals or large corporations, are compelled to put any code contributions back into the project for the benefit of everyone else. In essence, everyone gets paid in kind by the contribution of code which dramatically increases the quality of the project over time, and the ability to use the software for free.
This means that companies who would never be able to maintain a whole OS by themselves, such as Red Hat and even companies like Novell and IBM now, can use a kernel and an operating system to do what they want on a level playing field which would have cost them billions to develop purely by themselves. Smaller contributors and those not contributing get a kernel and OS they can use for free, and do what they want with, and they make up something called the open source community.
This article should be re-titled "Sun Doesn't Understand the GPL or How Successful Open Source Projects Work". I find that a touch worrying from their perspective. It seems they've been drinking too much of the Intellectual Property anti-freeze.
Just read through the article more thoroughly, and several things worry me:
TJX declined to comment on those numbers, but says it is undertaking a "thorough, painstaking investigation of the breach," hiring a team of 50 data security experts in December and taking a charge of $5 million in its first fiscal quarter.
Well, we all know how brilliant data security experts are, and I really hope that sentence doesn't mean that they are simply throwing $5 million at them. You know what consultants are like - give them enough money and they will tell you everything you want to hear, even if the reality is a horror show.
It says it will also pay for a credit-card fraud monitoring service to help avert identity theft for customers whose Social Security numbers were stolen. "We believe customers should feel safe shopping in our stores," says a letter from Chief Executive Carol Meyrowitz posted on TJX's Web site.
The whole bloody point of this is that you don't get to that point in the first place. Stable door, horse bolted?
The TJX hackers did leave some electronic footprints that show most of their break-ins were done during peak sales periods to capture lots of data, according to investigators.
What the hell were they using this wireless network for?
The TJX hackers did leave some electronic footprints that show most of their break-ins were done during peak sales periods to capture lots of data, according to investigators. They first tapped into data transmitted by hand-held equipment that stores use to communicate price markdowns and to manage inventory.
So they were using an unsecured wireless network to enable hand-held equipment to function - and they used this to run their day-to-day business?! Christ. At first I thought this was just some wireless network someone had plugged into the network somewhere arbitrarily, not something they actually used in day-to-day operations.
The company says the hackers may even have lifted bank-card information as customers making purchases waited for their transactions to be approved. TJX transmitted that data to banks "without encryption," it acknowledged in an SEC filing.
I'm not 100% sure what system is used for credit card purchases in the US now, but this highlights why I like using cash a bit more with the advent of chip and pin. I would also never, ever use a debit card in one of these things. You transmit your card details, and the pin as well. Brilliant. Access to your bank account, and that hard earned pay that just went in today. I'm slightly confused though, because surely this communication with banks would all happen on another network?
At that point, TJX hired forensics experts from International Business Machines Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. and notified the U.S. Secret Service, which spent a month trying to catch the hackers in the act.
So you take no responsibility for your own systems, and you have no internal expertise? Wonderful.
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in March he believes Congress will move to require a company responsible for allowing a breach to bear the costs of notifying customers and reissuing cards.
That's probably the only way, because some companies simply believe they don't have to take responsibility for IT, data, security and especially wireless security. It's something that is best swept under the carpet, and setting up a wireless network is as easy as spending a bit of money on a little access point you've seen at a local store, right? Why spend money doing it properly?
It's ironic really. Many thought it might be some insider job, a complicated back door, some flaw in an internet facing system - but no. The company was daft enough to put their internal data over a network that is explicitly designed to get around physical barriers to access, and no one, and I mean no one, seems to understand this.
A friend of mine has a reasonable but small IT business in the UK, and recently he started pushing the wireless expertise side - setting up wireless networks, explaining why they are a bigger risk than a wired network, securing them (and what do do if you are really paranoid) and trying to guarantee QoS more by setting it up correctly. Positioning your access points properly, doing wireless scanning to pick out any interference spots etc.
No one is interested, and I don't just mean small businesses, but some quite large companies who should know an awful lot better. It's not a UK thing either, because most people believe setting up a wireless network is about popping down to the local store, picking up a Netgear, switching it on and letting Windows attach you to the nearest wireless network it can find. Astonishing.
The only thing that shocks me is that this doesn't happen all the time, because many networks are just an open invitation. I mean OK, it's not that easy because you have to watch the network traffic and find out where the useful juicy bits of data are. That isn't completely straightforward, but once you are inside an average company's network it's doable because everything tends to act as if it is safe and fenced off.
Perhaps I did guess wrong about what you know about.Net, but I think it's pretty obvious that.Net is not dead/dying
On Windows, perhaps not, because guess what? Microsoft controls the development direction of Windows! However, in the context of the original comment and the article, coming up with a.Net clone so you can try and make.Net cross platform and because you might get two or three theoretical improvements (which have turned out to be false) is probably not such a good idea.
Patent grants on what? If there are no Microsoft patents that Mono violates, there is nothing to be granted.
That's just straw grasping. I not your use of the word 'if'. Have a look around for various CLR and.Net concepts Microsoft has patented - and they apply specifically to stuff running in a CLR. They are not general patents.
Every open source project is at risk at being sued over patent infringement. For Mono, people have been unusually diligent to examine any potential threat from Microsoft and avoid it.
That's the same old, tired cop-out statement. The fact is that Microsoft's patents on.Net and the CLR apply specifically to anything that implements the ECMA specs. If you were to apply much of this stuff to Java, not a problem, but cloning.Net is.
So, unless you can point out a specific patent problem with Mono, you're just spreading FUD.
Since you're so knowledgeable on this topic, go an find some patents that Microsoft does have for the CLR and various.Net components on top. They exist. Microsoft has even admitted and warned of this about five years ago.
And why does your criticism not apply to Linux?
Confirmation you have no clue. Linux is not a technology invented by Microsoft whereby Microsoft has applied and received patents for concepts that apply absolutely specifically to anyone implementing their own CLR. They're not general patents that apply to Java or Linux or anything else. They apply specifically to anyone implementing a CLR as per the ECMA specifications.
If you expect managed code to work in Mono on Linux... read better.
This is why Mono's claimed cross platform capabilities by many clueless people are a bit of a joke..Net is simply a gigantic wrapper around existing Win32 and COM based code implementations. Creating your own compatible,.Net clone implies reimplementing that in a compatible manner.
To add insult to injury, I know from experience that even regular 2005.NET still calls Win32 stuff under the hood.
Dude. That's because the.Net framework is a half-baked object-oriented wrapper around the Win32 API and all the same COM components you've been using all these years..Net does absolutely nothing. I'm shocked that you seem to be a tad shocked about this.
The Microsoft Permissive License looks like a perfectly good open source license to me; it's basically like Apache. In particular, it includes patent grants. The FSF probably doesn't like the Ms-PL because it's BSD/Apache-like.
So use a BSD or an Apache license then. There's no reason to create another license just so they can call it the Microsoft Public License. I'm not sure, but I'm rather sceptical about how compatible this license will be.
The legal situation surrounding Mono has been more carefully analyzed than any other open source project I can think of. Unless you can point to a specific legal problem with Mono, you're just spreading FUD.
No it hasn't, because the questions that need answered are conveniently side-stepped in the Mono FAQ. As an exercise, find yourself the extremely flimsy and amateurish patent grant on the ECMA's web site and ask yourself whether it really does give anyone implementing a CLR a full and transparent patent grant - specifically regarding the CLR and.Net concepts specified within the ECMA. It doesn't, which is why there was an awful lot of confusion about a supposed letter from Microsoft, HP and others that supposedly gave Mono a permanent RAND patent grant for now and forever - which the ECMA agreement as it is now does not give.
Needless to say, no such letter exists or has ever existed, and many think that it has all now been swept under the carpet and the current FAQ covers everything. It doesn't.
So does anyone have any idea exactly what this intellectual property is that Samsung are paying for, and what Linux based systems actually infringe on? If Samsung haven't asked for specifics then they're yet another weak minded company who's been badgered by Microsoft into doing something stupid.
Don't Know What They're Spending it On
on
IT's Big Spenders
·
· Score: 1
Well, I can't fathom what Microsoft are spending $6.58 billion dollars on, especially with regard to Vista(!?). They're getting ripped off. That's the problem when a company gets that large. It starts to act rather like an organisation in the public sector, with countless departments being needlessly created, consuming inordinate amounts of money for no apparent reason with no clear goals. Microsoft may think R & D spending is the way to get ahead, but I think they've totally ignored the organisational issues involved (or worse, aren't even aware of them).
With regards to Google, I would imagine most of it is related to building tonnes of infrastructure - for reasons which aren't clear to me yet. At least they can legitimately afford it though, and it's not even a huge part of their revenue. That's what really seems to irk Microsoft about Google. They have a reliable revenue stream that isn't even related to directly to software, and isn't something Microsoft can attack like they've done with so many other companies in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Things most certainly aren't like that, and anyone that thinks it is is likely to be disappointed.
One thing I should add is that even though the US has not ratified the treaty, it has still claimed jurisdiction over its EEZ zone in the past. Go figure.
Sorry, but that's just not enough nowadays. You need to get permission from the countries' EEZ zones you'll be working in to clear it with them, and the shipwreck may well be a war grave or can now be considered as a cultural heritage site which would apply in this case. You can't just pull artifacts from a site, ship them out and sell them for profit. These have been prompted by the free-for-alls like the Titanic salvages. There are any number of Is to dot and Ts to cross. These days you cannot just invoke an international waters and admiralty clause and get a federal judge to sign it over to you. The US also has the Abandoned Shipwreck Act to consider in each case. If that is all they did then these people are indeed incompetent. However, this seems to be the typical US centred attitude to everything.
Oh, and if you're going to call someone a cunt, is it too much to ask for you to actually do some fucking research first and learn what the laws actually fucking well are and how they've actually been applied in real cases, OK?
I love it when people have their own idea of what the law is versus what it actually is in the real world and how it's applied, but there you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Z
12 nautical miles of territorial waters is the immediate control any nation has over the seaways around its coastline. As for the use of natural resources, salvage and marine resources, this logically has had to extend an awful lot further. There has been a general requirement to request permission from the nation when salvaging in their economic zones as in the case of a vessel Japan have been salvaging in China's zone in 2002. This wreck site could also come under cultural heritage agreements, although this is slightly sketchy. Salvage law is not applicable to that though.
Yes, they do. See above. Seems like a judge needs to read something about current maritime law, but the US never ceases to surprise me.
Typical anonymous fuckwit who thinks he can quote RTFA. But there you are.
HDMI is pretty much the same standard as DVI, cobbled and thrown together extremely badly - with all the same problems. They work on the same principle, the net effect being that it has a lot of problems with cables of any real length. With DVI this wasn't so much of a problem, because it was mostly just used to connect monitors and computers together. However, HDMI needed to be so much more than that - and they ballsed it up. HDMI is basically a reinvented DVI thrown together as a knee-jerk reaction to close the analogue hole and try and encrypt and obscure absolutely everything that comes out of a media player, hence the integrated video and audio. Don't think for a second that's for the consumer's benefit.
There was one sole reason why HDMI was cobbled together, and that's because all sorts of executives were jumping up and down like jibbering idiots about, as they call it, the analogue hole. Yes, we all needed more bandwidth, but that just wasn't the primary reason.
Pop that together with a cable standard that HDMI are bunging more and more stuff down without doing anything, and you've got an unreliable and worthless pile of junk. The article mentions cables of lengths 50 to 75 feet, but it's a sad day when you've got to limit yourself with a shiny new technology to a run length of a few inches. Oh, and get with the program people, wireless is the way things should be heading. Where the hell is this digital home I've been hearing so much about? It's a joke. Yes, there are new HDMI cables in the pipeline, but yet again, they're going to be ridiculously expensive. No thanks.
I don't know why people persist in coming up with this "Applications in a Browser" thing repeatedly, but they clearly have no understanding of the complexity of most software. Most GUI applications that are basically front-ends can be run in a browser, but the vast majority of rich client stuff like office suits and e-mail clients (There's only so much you can do with Ajax) is just too complex to do that. I mean, does he have any idea how bloody how slow VNC actually is? Running applications remotely is also a question of trust, availability and flexibility to do what you want.
I just wish people would stop it with these pointless "Run everything in a browser" or "WebOS" articles, and I wish sites like Slashdot would stop giving them any view time.
What a surprise when I found out it was an article on O'Reilly's site, the usual dumping ground these days for articles with pointless ideas that don't even have a final point, conclusion or punchline as to how it would all hang together.
If I had mod points I'd mod you up. That accurately sums up SUVs and all those stupid 4x4s (or what the idiots think are 4x4s) in a nutshell. They're extremely silly vehicles.
Like it or loathe it, that's why the GPL is such a fair license. Developers, whether individuals or large corporations, are compelled to put any code contributions back into the project for the benefit of everyone else. In essence, everyone gets paid in kind by the contribution of code which dramatically increases the quality of the project over time, and the ability to use the software for free.
This means that companies who would never be able to maintain a whole OS by themselves, such as Red Hat and even companies like Novell and IBM now, can use a kernel and an operating system to do what they want on a level playing field which would have cost them billions to develop purely by themselves. Smaller contributors and those not contributing get a kernel and OS they can use for free, and do what they want with, and they make up something called the open source community.
This article should be re-titled "Sun Doesn't Understand the GPL or How Successful Open Source Projects Work". I find that a touch worrying from their perspective. It seems they've been drinking too much of the Intellectual Property anti-freeze.
Well, we all know how brilliant data security experts are, and I really hope that sentence doesn't mean that they are simply throwing $5 million at them. You know what consultants are like - give them enough money and they will tell you everything you want to hear, even if the reality is a horror show.
The whole bloody point of this is that you don't get to that point in the first place. Stable door, horse bolted?
What the hell were they using this wireless network for?
So they were using an unsecured wireless network to enable hand-held equipment to function - and they used this to run their day-to-day business?! Christ. At first I thought this was just some wireless network someone had plugged into the network somewhere arbitrarily, not something they actually used in day-to-day operations.
I'm not 100% sure what system is used for credit card purchases in the US now, but this highlights why I like using cash a bit more with the advent of chip and pin. I would also never, ever use a debit card in one of these things. You transmit your card details, and the pin as well. Brilliant. Access to your bank account, and that hard earned pay that just went in today. I'm slightly confused though, because surely this communication with banks would all happen on another network?
So you take no responsibility for your own systems, and you have no internal expertise? Wonderful.
That's probably the only way, because some companies simply believe they don't have to take responsibility for IT, data, security and especially wireless security. It's something that is best swept under the carpet, and setting up a wireless network is as easy as spending a bit of money on a little access point you've seen at a local store, right? Why spend money doing it properly?
It's ironic really. Many thought it might be some insider job, a complicated back door, some flaw in an internet facing system - but no. The company was daft enough to put their internal data over a network that is explicitly designed to get around physical barriers to access, and no one, and I mean no one, seems to understand this.
A friend of mine has a reasonable but small IT business in the UK, and recently he started pushing the wireless expertise side - setting up wireless networks, explaining why they are a bigger risk than a wired network, securing them (and what do do if you are really paranoid) and trying to guarantee QoS more by setting it up correctly. Positioning your access points properly, doing wireless scanning to pick out any interference spots etc.
No one is interested, and I don't just mean small businesses, but some quite large companies who should know an awful lot better. It's not a UK thing either, because most people believe setting up a wireless network is about popping down to the local store, picking up a Netgear, switching it on and letting Windows attach you to the nearest wireless network it can find. Astonishing.
The only thing that shocks me is that this doesn't happen all the time, because many networks are just an open invitation. I mean OK, it's not that easy because you have to watch the network traffic and find out where the useful juicy bits of data are. That isn't completely straightforward, but once you are inside an average company's network it's doable because everything tends to act as if it is safe and fenced off.
Needless to say, no such letter exists or has ever existed, and many think that it has all now been swept under the carpet and the current FAQ covers everything. It doesn't.
So does anyone have any idea exactly what this intellectual property is that Samsung are paying for, and what Linux based systems actually infringe on? If Samsung haven't asked for specifics then they're yet another weak minded company who's been badgered by Microsoft into doing something stupid.
Well, I can't fathom what Microsoft are spending $6.58 billion dollars on, especially with regard to Vista(!?). They're getting ripped off. That's the problem when a company gets that large. It starts to act rather like an organisation in the public sector, with countless departments being needlessly created, consuming inordinate amounts of money for no apparent reason with no clear goals. Microsoft may think R & D spending is the way to get ahead, but I think they've totally ignored the organisational issues involved (or worse, aren't even aware of them).
With regards to Google, I would imagine most of it is related to building tonnes of infrastructure - for reasons which aren't clear to me yet. At least they can legitimately afford it though, and it's not even a huge part of their revenue. That's what really seems to irk Microsoft about Google. They have a reliable revenue stream that isn't even related to directly to software, and isn't something Microsoft can attack like they've done with so many other companies in the past.