well, I have read a bunch of the comments, but it doesn't seem anyone seems to think this guy is lying. Maybe he didn't vote for himself and just wanted to make an issue out of the voting machine thing. Unless there was a camera there questions will remain. Personally, I'm more likely to believe that this guy is lying than to believe the election was rigged. Unfortunately, without measures to ensure that the vote is not rigged, we will never be able to know, and specifically in this case questions will always remain. What I want to know is how printed ballots are done. Does the computer print your selections and you drop them in the box?
from my understanding, this shouldn't violate V2 of the GPL as it does not mention patents; however, I think there is a potential problem in it for Novell in that they will via the GPL be providing people with a license to indefinitly copy and distribute a program to which they via contract with MS have limited access to distribute. The question I have is what happens to Novel in five years when they've given everyone the right to redistribute the software under GPL 2? Providing a second contract for the patents would violate GPL 2 as that inherently would violate the clause preventing additional restrictions.
As an alternative, Novel could provide compatibility plugins under a different license and do a hybrid distribution much as exists with commercial distributions on the market. In a business sense, this is very powerful as it would give novel the ability to gain traction and provide a much needed service - a linux environment with better windows compatibility. OVer the course of this five years, it could in theory strengthen the adoption of linux amongst the crowd that need windows compatibility for smooth day to day function. What happens in five years is that they will have linux systems in their environment that hopefully are deeply embedded enough that transitioning back to windows quickly would be a challenge. In such a setup, they will be more free to transition to an environment w/o windows present.
I personally think this deal is not as big an issue as it is made out to be. What it does point out is the dangers of patent pacts to small businesses and independent inventors. I think that eliminating patent pacts as being anticompetitve is necessary to force competition. Of course this will just heighten the worries and abuse of the patent system, but maybe that abuse will force the big corps into supporting patent reform instead of using patent arseonals to smother the competition.
Sadly to say IBMs response to SCO largely reflects their abuse of the patent system. SCO attacks and they respond with countersuits using their massive stockpile of patents. While in this case, sco may be deserving of annhiliation - the method used is still that of a bully.
Attacking this deal is missing the target completely. Businesses will do what they need to to compete. Rules need to be changed to adapt to a changing environment. All this attention should be more strongly focused on patent reform and a stronger lobby needs to be made to see it happen.
alright, done ranting... if you got this far, you can go about living your life as u were.
Well, couldn't they continue producing these products for Singapore - which can resell them in China if they choose - and with the expectation that the mainland will one day be free? This would allow them to use a proxy to sell within the country without getting their hands dirty. Considering the market for legal software is small and prospects for piracy control are dim, this isn't an unreasonable option. They definitly don't want the people there getting used to a different OS.
An unbelievably strong point, after all ARM is the #1 architecture for general purpose processors - not IA32. As long as your willing to consider all devices and not just desktop/laptop computers. Cell phones world wide use ARM more than any other architecture. PDAs use ARM more than any other architecture, and if your not willing to call these devices computers, then I'm sure you'll agree computers only came into existence in the latter half of the 90s.
and finally a study to prove it. Now all we need is one more and we'll have a happy three studies!!! wait, if they do another one after that it'll be seven wonderous studies!
that is my online word processor of choice. I keep all necessary apps on an SD card with a portable reader.
My documents are secured. My home server is backed up to resources under my control. plus I can use it from any one of the computers at my place. Its like a mobile desktop.
I like the, "your word file came out unreadable in openoffice.org and I've been piecing it together using a hexeditor for the last two weeks I have now narrowed down the assignment to either liquidating all assets or putting liquid into asses" excuse. Its so much more original and better than, "my computer has a worm".
I do not believe that is true. From my understanding, you pay X dollars for Y clicks which will last over Z months, so whether the links are clicked or not, your money will be gone at the end of Z months or until Y clicks are achieved. In that sense, you are not truly increasing their revenue unless the site buys more ads because they are gettting enough volume.
I suppose part of what I meant by control was that the government should be the one in control of the keys for the devices. Copy controls completely in the hands of corporations will ultimately lead to "rental" of all intellectual property. There is a strong shift in intellectual property rights away from the commons towards corporate control of data. I wouldn't even say that the shift is towards the creators of data because independent artists will not have equal access to DRM technology. Short of an independent body that could implement equal barriers for corporations and individuals - placement of encryption key control with the same corporations that currently distribute media only consolidates their control in the future. The greatest benefit of digital distribution should be the ability of artists to directly sell their goods with the protection of DRM, but without the requrement that they sell their soul to a record label to make decent money from this.
What I would like to see is a standard for the excryption algorithms used and a central key repository controlled by a "trusted" agency - someone held accountable by the people. This is in essence a government function imo. I know people have opposition to government intervention, but surprisingly these people also don't vote and take no action to hold THEIR representatives accountable. Anyways, I've ranted for long enough.
DRM exists as software and should thus be afforded the same rights as other software. What the French gov't could have done is something similar to what Europe did with the wireless signals. Propose a mandatory format for sellers of digital music to use. This would not limit companies or peoples ability to write and protect their own formats, but it would essentially force the hands of manufacturers to use this format in France. It would break any would be monopoly. Part of the role of government is to foster trade and communication. Allowing the formats to be dictated by corporations essentially removes this power from the government and hands it to a private entity. Its the same difference between forcing MS to make the word file format open or mandating that word processors be able to save and open in a standard format. The first infringes on the rights of MS while the other gives MS a choice to comply. Stealing the works of a monopoly whether it be Apple, MS or IBM is not the best way to do things because it does discriminate. France should have set some sort of standard for the exchange of digital music and all this fuss would have been avoided.
No,/. is a much larger and varied crowd than you seem to give it credit for. There are people here who despise all patents under any case, others who despise all software patents or patents on methods or some other subset of patets, some who despise patents that don't harm MS, people who would give there left arm to buy a patent for google, those that would give your left arm to buy a patent for apple, and those that enjoy reading about multi-million dollar lawsuits being flung around by the big boys.
I consider myself in the second (I don't like patents on methods - which includes software - and last categories. I am happy to hear this lawsuit is going on, lawyers are getting paid, the trolls are well fed, the little guy wins. This truly is justice my friend. It is a shame you have failed to see it; your upstanding principles must really interfere with your choices for entertainment.
That theory was debunked a long time ago. Brilliant experiments tried by every president since the founding has put it to the test, and the theory just doesn't hold up.
Next you'll say giraffes have long necks because each generation stretched just a little and reached a little higher.
This may sound offtopic, but seriously, isn't the topic of this discussion lame/spam submissions? This site was hardly comprehensive giving only a bried description of each type of device with no list of manufacturers or even their workings. It gave no information about the effectiveness of each device, whether the detail of a "spy cam" could be used to recognize someones face or only that someone has broken into your office? I think most people here already knew you could get this stuff and its not like this is anything new.
modding articles, now there's an idea.
Give people "article mod points" and let them review story submissions. If they get modded high enough, they get moved into the category page at which point if a decent discussion with high article mod points insues, it is moved to the front page. I mean, most people don't go to the mac section unless they are interested in macs in particular. same for linux, apache....yourrightsonlne... etc. Let the people who know/care about those subjects decide if something is front page worthy. Sure front page stories would be a bit late, but you'll prob have better discussions already started.
well... I had to rant about this article... it cost me a few neurons. I couldn't leave it alone.
The only way I can make sense of a number as high as 20% would be to think its being confused with downtime, or if she was using the "uptime" shell utility and looking at the number there. I wouldn't really be surprised if that is what is being referred to. Otherwise, I agree - anything approaching 80% uptime would not be considered a server by my book. Perhaps if you look at it as days without downtime... you know what, its not even worth considering. Whatever that number is supposed to mean, it has little baring on me or my choice for server; I run linux on the desktop, fat chance I'd put something different on a server.
something like a use-agent is useful for clustering. Programs restricted to user X on the DMZ machine can use the user-agent to launch programs on other machines in their network. Does this undermine the security of the local network? Sure. Does this mean its unnecessary? No. The question really is whether you are willing to let the other machines be compromised. If a machine on the internal network needs special protection (ie it holds customer credit card info) then it most likely doesn't need to be part of the cluster and can be set apart.
Are there alternatives to user-agent for building distributed software? Of course, but they also add a huge security hole for the same reason.
At the end of the day, you could prob just consider the cluster one machine and assume all to be compromised along w/ the DMZ... I just wanted to defend the existence of agents in ssh.
Things really do make a lot more sense. Everyone new they were going to start renting Windows, but I guess this is a much better way to do it. Throw in some crazy new hardware and start renting both in a combined package. People (yes I said people - not slashdoters) will never know what they are paying for. They can throw in hardware updaes every X years along w/ updated software - all in a trusted environment.
Sure there won't be as many third party software, but only evil hacker types delve into that world. You know, the same kind that would delve into illegal drugs. Non trusted environments will be rquivivalized w/ the wild west along with all the associated dangers.
Until other devices can provide an easy way to type a paper, type an email, view complicated websites, look at your digital pictures, edit a picture, write shell scripts or view large amounts of data conveniently on other platforms, we will not see the death of the desktop. Televisions, PDAs and cell phones lack the resolution to view many useful websites (/. looks horrible on my palm).
What will come next (imo) is the comoditization of the software and the rise of the service model. The service model will work on all your devices including the desktop. What will make money for companies is how well their service integrates with the multitude of devices out there. Apple is using the Verizon approach of controlling the device and the hardware. This means people are locked in to their service and when they decide to pull features on their new devices, there is no out. If music you purchased on the iTunes music store will only play on an iPod, you have reason to keep it. What happens when mp3 files no longer play on the next gen iPod (which u will need to play your online purchases)... many people will lose a large portion of their music library.
MS here is like the GSM companies. They will provide the service; you just need to get a compatible device which can have whatever features they put in. As w/ the ability to install MS-DOS on PC clones, this is a great business model that will benefit the consumer in the long run as it gives more options (even if the current gen of iTunes+iPod is better).
* now I only was able to read the 2nd article (about apple's business model) becau se the 1st required me to log in... I will wait until someone posts the content of the first to see how off topic I am
I think you are mistaking the function of the document format and the application. Screen reader support does not belong in ODF but in the application. The complaint the disabled have is with the applications that primarily use ODF.
By opening ODF files in Word, you will have all the functionality available.
I must say I agree with you on that, but suppose your someone who doesn't understand tech fully. Now someone says I can combine all these things into an electronic package. They would be utterly impressed by your abilities and bow down at your greatness.
I don't think we will get fair patents in software until there are people in the software industry screening for obviousness. Someone who actually understands the specific technology. Even with intelligent patent office employees, you could not possibly understand "obviousness" unless you have a certain level of expertise, but that may defeat the concept of obvious. Do you define obvious in terms of a laymen?; someone with an associates degree? bachelors? masters? PhD? In fact, if there is a lawyer out there reading this, I would love to know.
Well, ways around this would be to not patent the actual idea of direct sell, but to patent a method/device. You can patent the web interface in which this otherwise common practice would be implemented. In other words, you could have a sell price set so long as there is no web interface to actually allow it to happen. If in the ad someone says "Will sell at price X" then that would not violate this patent for creating a web interface to allow for a auction with sell price.
I really don't see the problem with a patent of this type as current law stands... of course I am not going to bother reading the wording of this patent, but somehow I doubt it relates strictly to an auction with a sell price, but more to the method in which this would be accomplished.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a patent on patentism, so I believe you need to pay up...
well, I have read a bunch of the comments, but it doesn't seem anyone seems to think this guy is lying. Maybe he didn't vote for himself and just wanted to make an issue out of the voting machine thing. Unless there was a camera there questions will remain. Personally, I'm more likely to believe that this guy is lying than to believe the election was rigged. Unfortunately, without measures to ensure that the vote is not rigged, we will never be able to know, and specifically in this case questions will always remain. What I want to know is how printed ballots are done. Does the computer print your selections and you drop them in the box?
from my understanding, this shouldn't violate V2 of the GPL as it does not mention patents; however, I think there is a potential problem in it for Novell in that they will via the GPL be providing people with a license to indefinitly copy and distribute a program to which they via contract with MS have limited access to distribute. The question I have is what happens to Novel in five years when they've given everyone the right to redistribute the software under GPL 2? Providing a second contract for the patents would violate GPL 2 as that inherently would violate the clause preventing additional restrictions.
As an alternative, Novel could provide compatibility plugins under a different license and do a hybrid distribution much as exists with commercial distributions on the market. In a business sense, this is very powerful as it would give novel the ability to gain traction and provide a much needed service - a linux environment with better windows compatibility. OVer the course of this five years, it could in theory strengthen the adoption of linux amongst the crowd that need windows compatibility for smooth day to day function. What happens in five years is that they will have linux systems in their environment that hopefully are deeply embedded enough that transitioning back to windows quickly would be a challenge. In such a setup, they will be more free to transition to an environment w/o windows present.
I personally think this deal is not as big an issue as it is made out to be. What it does point out is the dangers of patent pacts to small businesses and independent inventors. I think that eliminating patent pacts as being anticompetitve is necessary to force competition. Of course this will just heighten the worries and abuse of the patent system, but maybe that abuse will force the big corps into supporting patent reform instead of using patent arseonals to smother the competition.
Sadly to say IBMs response to SCO largely reflects their abuse of the patent system. SCO attacks and they respond with countersuits using their massive stockpile of patents. While in this case, sco may be deserving of annhiliation - the method used is still that of a bully.
Attacking this deal is missing the target completely. Businesses will do what they need to to compete. Rules need to be changed to adapt to a changing environment. All this attention should be more strongly focused on patent reform and a stronger lobby needs to be made to see it happen.
alright, done ranting... if you got this far, you can go about living your life as u were.
Well, couldn't they continue producing these products for Singapore - which can resell them in China if they choose - and with the expectation that the mainland will one day be free? This would allow them to use a proxy to sell within the country without getting their hands dirty. Considering the market for legal software is small and prospects for piracy control are dim, this isn't an unreasonable option. They definitly don't want the people there getting used to a different OS.
An unbelievably strong point, after all ARM is the #1 architecture for general purpose processors - not IA32. As long as your willing to consider all devices and not just desktop/laptop computers. Cell phones world wide use ARM more than any other architecture. PDAs use ARM more than any other architecture, and if your not willing to call these devices computers, then I'm sure you'll agree computers only came into existence in the latter half of the 90s.
and finally a study to prove it. Now all we need is one more and we'll have a happy three studies!!! wait, if they do another one after that it'll be seven wonderous studies!
that is my online word processor of choice. I keep all necessary apps on an SD card with a portable reader. My documents are secured. My home server is backed up to resources under my control. plus I can use it from any one of the computers at my place. Its like a mobile desktop.
wait, I thought Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Walmart, Credit card companies and the devil already built this database! Plenty of prior art.
I like the, "your word file came out unreadable in openoffice.org and I've been piecing it together using a hexeditor for the last two weeks I have now narrowed down the assignment to either liquidating all assets or putting liquid into asses" excuse. Its so much more original and better than, "my computer has a worm".
I do not believe that is true. From my understanding, you pay X dollars for Y clicks which will last over Z months, so whether the links are clicked or not, your money will be gone at the end of Z months or until Y clicks are achieved. In that sense, you are not truly increasing their revenue unless the site buys more ads because they are gettting enough volume.
You make a good point.
I suppose part of what I meant by control was that the government should be the one in control of the keys for the devices. Copy controls completely in the hands of corporations will ultimately lead to "rental" of all intellectual property. There is a strong shift in intellectual property rights away from the commons towards corporate control of data. I wouldn't even say that the shift is towards the creators of data because independent artists will not have equal access to DRM technology. Short of an independent body that could implement equal barriers for corporations and individuals - placement of encryption key control with the same corporations that currently distribute media only consolidates their control in the future. The greatest benefit of digital distribution should be the ability of artists to directly sell their goods with the protection of DRM, but without the requrement that they sell their soul to a record label to make decent money from this.
What I would like to see is a standard for the excryption algorithms used and a central key repository controlled by a "trusted" agency - someone held accountable by the people. This is in essence a government function imo. I know people have opposition to government intervention, but surprisingly these people also don't vote and take no action to hold THEIR representatives accountable. Anyways, I've ranted for long enough.
DRM exists as software and should thus be afforded the same rights as other software. What the French gov't could have done is something similar to what Europe did with the wireless signals. Propose a mandatory format for sellers of digital music to use. This would not limit companies or peoples ability to write and protect their own formats, but it would essentially force the hands of manufacturers to use this format in France. It would break any would be monopoly. Part of the role of government is to foster trade and communication. Allowing the formats to be dictated by corporations essentially removes this power from the government and hands it to a private entity. Its the same difference between forcing MS to make the word file format open or mandating that word processors be able to save and open in a standard format. The first infringes on the rights of MS while the other gives MS a choice to comply. Stealing the works of a monopoly whether it be Apple, MS or IBM is not the best way to do things because it does discriminate. France should have set some sort of standard for the exchange of digital music and all this fuss would have been avoided.
I prefer watching almonds. You never know what they'll do next!! silly almonds.
No, /. is a much larger and varied crowd than you seem to give it credit for. There are people here who despise all patents under any case, others who despise all software patents or patents on methods or some other subset of patets, some who despise patents that don't harm MS, people who would give there left arm to buy a patent for google, those that would give your left arm to buy a patent for apple, and those that enjoy reading about multi-million dollar lawsuits being flung around by the big boys.
I consider myself in the second (I don't like patents on methods - which includes software - and last categories. I am happy to hear this lawsuit is going on, lawyers are getting paid, the trolls are well fed, the little guy wins. This truly is justice my friend. It is a shame you have failed to see it; your upstanding principles must really interfere with your choices for entertainment.
That theory was debunked a long time ago. Brilliant experiments tried by every president since the founding has put it to the test, and the theory just doesn't hold up.
Next you'll say giraffes have long necks because each generation stretched just a little and reached a little higher.
This may sound offtopic, but seriously, isn't the topic of this discussion lame/spam submissions? This site was hardly comprehensive giving only a bried description of each type of device with no list of manufacturers or even their workings. It gave no information about the effectiveness of each device, whether the detail of a "spy cam" could be used to recognize someones face or only that someone has broken into your office? I think most people here already knew you could get this stuff and its not like this is anything new.
modding articles, now there's an idea.
Give people "article mod points" and let them review story submissions. If they get modded high enough, they get moved into the category page at which point if a decent discussion with high article mod points insues, it is moved to the front page. I mean, most people don't go to the mac section unless they are interested in macs in particular. same for linux, apache....yourrightsonlne... etc. Let the people who know/care about those subjects decide if something is front page worthy. Sure front page stories would be a bit late, but you'll prob have better discussions already started.
well... I had to rant about this article... it cost me a few neurons. I couldn't leave it alone.
is anyone else reminded of the floating food from Harry Potter?
The only way I can make sense of a number as high as 20% would be to think its being confused with downtime, or if she was using the "uptime" shell utility and looking at the number there. I wouldn't really be surprised if that is what is being referred to. Otherwise, I agree - anything approaching 80% uptime would not be considered a server by my book. Perhaps if you look at it as days without downtime... you know what, its not even worth considering. Whatever that number is supposed to mean, it has little baring on me or my choice for server; I run linux on the desktop, fat chance I'd put something different on a server.
something like a use-agent is useful for clustering. Programs restricted to user X on the DMZ machine can use the user-agent to launch programs on other machines in their network. Does this undermine the security of the local network? Sure. Does this mean its unnecessary? No. The question really is whether you are willing to let the other machines be compromised. If a machine on the internal network needs special protection (ie it holds customer credit card info) then it most likely doesn't need to be part of the cluster and can be set apart.
Are there alternatives to user-agent for building distributed software? Of course, but they also add a huge security hole for the same reason.
At the end of the day, you could prob just consider the cluster one machine and assume all to be compromised along w/ the DMZ... I just wanted to defend the existence of agents in ssh.
Things really do make a lot more sense. Everyone new they were going to start renting Windows, but I guess this is a much better way to do it. Throw in some crazy new hardware and start renting both in a combined package. People (yes I said people - not slashdoters) will never know what they are paying for. They can throw in hardware updaes every X years along w/ updated software - all in a trusted environment.
Sure there won't be as many third party software, but only evil hacker types delve into that world. You know, the same kind that would delve into illegal drugs. Non trusted environments will be rquivivalized w/ the wild west along with all the associated dangers.
Until other devices can provide an easy way to type a paper, type an email, view complicated websites, look at your digital pictures, edit a picture, write shell scripts or view large amounts of data conveniently on other platforms, we will not see the death of the desktop. Televisions, PDAs and cell phones lack the resolution to view many useful websites ( /. looks horrible on my palm).
What will come next (imo) is the comoditization of the software and the rise of the service model. The service model will work on all your devices including the desktop. What will make money for companies is how well their service integrates with the multitude of devices out there. Apple is using the Verizon approach of controlling the device and the hardware. This means people are locked in to their service and when they decide to pull features on their new devices, there is no out. If music you purchased on the iTunes music store will only play on an iPod, you have reason to keep it. What happens when mp3 files no longer play on the next gen iPod (which u will need to play your online purchases)... many people will lose a large portion of their music library.
MS here is like the GSM companies. They will provide the service; you just need to get a compatible device which can have whatever features they put in. As w/ the ability to install MS-DOS on PC clones, this is a great business model that will benefit the consumer in the long run as it gives more options (even if the current gen of iTunes+iPod is better).
* now I only was able to read the 2nd article (about apple's business model) becau se the 1st required me to log in... I will wait until someone posts the content of the first to see how off topic I am
I think you are mistaking the function of the document format and the application. Screen reader support does not belong in ODF but in the application. The complaint the disabled have is with the applications that primarily use ODF.
By opening ODF files in Word, you will have all the functionality available.
I must say I agree with you on that, but suppose your someone who doesn't understand tech fully. Now someone says I can combine all these things into an electronic package. They would be utterly impressed by your abilities and bow down at your greatness.
I don't think we will get fair patents in software until there are people in the software industry screening for obviousness. Someone who actually understands the specific technology. Even with intelligent patent office employees, you could not possibly understand "obviousness" unless you have a certain level of expertise, but that may defeat the concept of obvious. Do you define obvious in terms of a laymen?; someone with an associates degree? bachelors? masters? PhD? In fact, if there is a lawyer out there reading this, I would love to know.
Well, ways around this would be to not patent the actual idea of direct sell, but to patent a method/device. You can patent the web interface in which this otherwise common practice would be implemented. In other words, you could have a sell price set so long as there is no web interface to actually allow it to happen. If in the ad someone says "Will sell at price X" then that would not violate this patent for creating a web interface to allow for a auction with sell price.
I really don't see the problem with a patent of this type as current law stands... of course I am not going to bother reading the wording of this patent, but somehow I doubt it relates strictly to an auction with a sell price, but more to the method in which this would be accomplished.
Don't be so quick to discount terrorism. Linking this to it might actually get something done.