She knocked something over in way that was difficult to distinguish from human action at first glance. I presume that's what the Turing test means these days, since all these "X passed the Turing test!" headlines never seem to relate to anything that approaches what Turing actually proposed.
It's an interesting argument. Exactly the same argument could be made on both sides for commercial server software that is locked to given number of users. The comparison is very similar and I'm sure there are many people who would make the same counter argument in that case.
An early poster pointed out that it's common for cpu manufactures to hard lock features out (either because of defect or purely to create bigger range of product), do you object to this as well?
You argument that every cost that goes along with locked cores is already paid however just doesn't fly for me. The R&D costs of chip development are astronomical and it's exactly this portion of it that Intel are offering a compromise over.
The physical difference between your uber cpu and a z80 is half a teaspoon of sand and some subtlety in the arrangement. You don't think you actually paying that much for the physical material in your processor are you? If a cpu manufacturer just sold their top cpu design at it's best configuration with the development costs spread evenly then they would find themselves priced out of the entry level market (sell far less chips and the top ones would end up being far more expensive). All the variations in cpu's are a way to spread those design costs around while not forcing people to pay for what they don't need. What's being proposed here is brilliant in principle, put the extra stuff on the chip (Which doesn't cost them much) and give people the upgrade opportunity, which should be far cheaper for all concerned than stamping out another piece of nearly identical silicon when the customer discovers the new generation of games aren't quite fast enough. My primary concern is that if this is a boot time driver update then Intel's "upgrade" only applies to whatever operating systems they deem fit to support.
Surely if Microsoft ruled the console market and stopped developing and investing some new console maker would rise and teach them the error of there ways.
But it's just a theory, not like there is president or anything. ( cough... Atari, Nintendo, Sega)
To understand the extent of the hole that SCO have dug for themselves, you have to look at the full extent of GPL software that is out there that they are relying on, and then read clause 5 of the GPL.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Now read it again. You are not required too accept this licence (they don't, they claim it is contrary to the us constitution, us copyright law yada yada yada). But nothing else gives you permission to modify or distribute the program. Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.
Lets go on and look at another clause.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
You may not impose any further restrictions (which is obviously exactly what they are trying to do). Incidentally the first bit states that a copy is licensed by the original licensor (not the distributor) which in the case of the contested code is IBM, this both means but SCO should be going after IBM and not end users, and in my interpretation also suggests that SCO did not release there code under the GPL by distributing Linux (if there actually is any in there) since IBM would still have been the licensor.
And now the bombshell that it's seems SCO are completely unaware of.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If you agree to SCO's new licence you are agreeing that they have a right to charge a royalty. However not only is the issuer (SCO) breaching GPL but the recipient would be if they then distributed (since they are accepting that a licence is payable to SCO) so in effect SCO are in double breach.
IANAL, But I wish I were, someone is going to make some serious money fighting this one.
This would have been a really cool article a few years ago, you know, back when to patent something you needed to actually build it and show it to the patent office.
In the current climate this article is completely redundant, if it can be conceived of it has not only been patented but there are defensive patents surrounding it's use, offensive patents surrounding it's use while painted a different colour and more than likely several publicly traded companies bidding on the future rights to sell a cut down version for kids.
The product itself will never be developed however because there are 3 studies proving it causes cancer and several court cases that are claiming that the concept artwork was inspiration for some violent outburst.
Please note, I have not even suggested the possibility that you might have to pay SCO for using it. Wait a minute. Damit!
Does this mean I'll have to pay for a full price licences for my Tivo, Router and network enabled coffee maker instead? I'm worried this is the case because I'll be unable to purchase the licences before November the first like I was going to.
If you look at what SCO has done since the start of this debacle you really have to question the method and means. They started by saying that the open source community wasn't good enough to produce Linux, they have now gone on to openly attack the GPL Itself.
We shouldn't be worrying about the gritty details of what they are doing at treat this as what it is. SCO has declared war on the foundations of the open source community and we should be responding appropriately.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
If this is the case it seems unlikely that we will see any backwards compatibility between xbox2 and the original. The original Nvidia chip was based on a DX part (and it's likely the ATI one will be as well) but the better games access a lot of the hardware directly.
Of course it's possible that MS were smart enough to have conditions in the original X-Box contract with Nvidia that would allow them to produce a more or less compatible chip.
I hope the Slashdot crowd shows a little maturity on this one. I dislike many of Microsofts tactics as much as the next man but in this case Iâ(TM)m rather pleased to see the might of their legal department behind something that could benefit us all.
You say quality is not critical. I would recommend using an mpeg4 codec (proberbly divx or xvid), if you capture at full vhs resolution (352x240) then you can store image quality that far surprises vcd (and your slightly degraded vhs) quality at about 300meg per hour. 650 hours of tape will bring you upto 195gig. How you store your data is really up to you, but I would recommend getting a couple of 200gig hard drives and keeping two copies for safety reasons.
You might want to read this article on capturing from vhs.
Red Dwarf covered this issue. After the proliferation of
genetic enhancements the world sporting bodies stepped in banning genetic
enhancement. The response was the creation of Genetic
Alternative sports, the Genetic Alternative sports killed normal
sports inside a couple of years, of course even that required a few rules:
After the World Cup new rules had to be created
for GAS (Genetic Alternative Sports). Scotland fielded a genetically
engineered goal keeper that was 8 foot high and 16 feet across, thereby
filling the entire goal. Somehow they still failed to qualify for the second
round.
Joking aside, I'm unsure what would happen in the
real word. Sports. We haven't seen a "Narcotics alternative sports" emerge
after drug taking was banned, however the critical difference may be in how
socially acceptable genetic enhancement is. Whoever makes the decisions is going
to have trouble either way though, I can see the headlines now Little Johnny
kept out of school sports record books because of asthma treatment..
After all: A drugs Czar is charged with reducing drugs, A terrorism Czar is charged with reducing terror, So a privacy Czar is presumably charged with reducing privacy.
I'm guessing the DoubleClick director was an obvious choice.
Anyone who can call themselves a hacker (in the old sense of the world) will have lost sleep to a problem, that one that you absolutely must solve. In your formative years I expect phreaking or hacking problems grabbed you in this way, for each of us it's something different but it's the drive and focus we have in common. My question is, what grabs you like this now? Do you still get those moments when you just can't leave a problem alone?
Microsoft says windows will destroy linux,
Oracle says linux will destroy windows
Baath party says republican-guard will crush allies
Washington says guard will be crushed
What's going on? It's almost as if there is some kind of weighting to what people are saying based on the outcome they favour. I just don't understand it.
Re:Move the onus from the recipient to the sender.
on
IETF to Look at Spam
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This sounds perfect, And here is how it can be implement with backwards compatibility
It's implementation could also be made rather interesting. Rather than a completely new protocol that is totally impractical (since it would require everyone upgrading simultaneously) this kind of scheme could be implemented in a completely backwardly compatible manner. Allow me to describe what I mean.
Your email server has been upgraded to the new system and you send an email. Your outgoing server store the email and forwards a very simple email message onto the recipients email server, this small email contains the appropriate subject line and an extra chunk (with appropriate mime type) containing the information necessary to retrieve the full email message (ie: Server details, email id and probably an authentication token of some sort). Your client software supports the new standard it receives the stub email and retrieves the full message appropriately. This stub email is not an extra compatibility thing; we are simply using the existing smtp infrastructure to tell the recipient that they have a piece of email.
But what if the recipient has not yet upgraded, here comes the clever bit. Html email works as an extra mime chunk that enabled clients automatically decode and show the reader, non enabled clients see the standard plain text version of the message that is also present in the message, this mechanic can be used to our advantage here, the normal text or html portion of the stub email contains a hyper link back to the sending server which a url designed to bring up a basic web mail page with the recipients message.
Using this implementation scheme it would be possible for the sender who upgraded from day one to send an email to anyone with the complete confidence that they would be able to read the full text of the message. The only proviso here is that the recipient had access to a web browser.
In addition I can see one other advantage to your proposed scheme that has not been mentioned, the email system becomes inherently more secure. Since the sending server must actively hand over the email it can record that this has been done and tell the recipient if the message had been read before. Although as with anything else strong cryptography would be required to ensure to ensure that nobody could get hold the authentication token (and thereby read the email) it would be possible for the sending server (providing you trust it) to tell you authoritatively that nobody else had retrieved the message contents.
I put of fileing until about 48 hours before the deadline. Sat down at my pc with the appropriate paperwork (p60 from my employer etc..)cursing my lack of forsight, less than an hour later I was watching tv and ordering take out (and most of that time was hunting through my badly organsied paperwork).I've dealt with filling in most of the Inland Revenue's forms (vat returns, corporation tax returns etc..) and this was properbly my most painless experience to date (apart from the ones where I was paying an accountant to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I can filter photons based on time of emission, it's a process I like to call "Blinking". Can I have Nobel Prize now plx?
She knocked something over in way that was difficult to distinguish from human action at first glance. I presume that's what the Turing test means these days, since all these "X passed the Turing test!" headlines never seem to relate to anything that approaches what Turing actually proposed.
I dare not ask how you would fit Lizard and Spock into this scheme.
It's an interesting argument. Exactly the same argument could be made on both sides for commercial server software that is locked to given number of users. The comparison is very similar and I'm sure there are many people who would make the same counter argument in that case.
An early poster pointed out that it's common for cpu manufactures to hard lock features out (either because of defect or purely to create bigger range of product), do you object to this as well?
You argument that every cost that goes along with locked cores is already paid however just doesn't fly for me. The R&D costs of chip development are astronomical and it's exactly this portion of it that Intel are offering a compromise over.
The physical difference between your uber cpu and a z80 is half a teaspoon of sand and some subtlety in the arrangement. You don't think you actually paying that much for the physical material in your processor are you? If a cpu manufacturer just sold their top cpu design at it's best configuration with the development costs spread evenly then they would find themselves priced out of the entry level market (sell far less chips and the top ones would end up being far more expensive). All the variations in cpu's are a way to spread those design costs around while not forcing people to pay for what they don't need. What's being proposed here is brilliant in principle, put the extra stuff on the chip (Which doesn't cost them much) and give people the upgrade opportunity, which should be far cheaper for all concerned than stamping out another piece of nearly identical silicon when the customer discovers the new generation of games aren't quite fast enough. My primary concern is that if this is a boot time driver update then Intel's "upgrade" only applies to whatever operating systems they deem fit to support.
We lost the right to remain silent some time ago.
Surely if Microsoft ruled the console market and stopped developing and investing some new console maker would rise and teach them the error of there ways.
But it's just a theory, not like there is president or anything. ( cough... Atari, Nintendo, Sega)
Surely if Microsoft ruled the console market and stopped developing investing some new console maker would rise and team them the error of there ways.
But it's just a theory, not like there is president or anything. ( cough... Atari, Nintendo, Sega)
But there is a little truth in the old saying. "He who lives by the sword, Dies by the sword."
This man talks about exercise in terms of clutch usage.
Teach me your ways O' master.
To understand the extent of the hole that SCO have dug for themselves, you have to look at the full extent of GPL software that is out there that they are relying on, and then read clause 5 of the GPL.
Now read it again. You are not required too accept this licence (they don't, they claim it is contrary to the us constitution, us copyright law yada yada yada). But nothing else gives you permission to modify or distribute the program. Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.
Lets go on and look at another clause.
You may not impose any further restrictions (which is obviously exactly what they are trying to do). Incidentally the first bit states that a copy is licensed by the original licensor (not the distributor) which in the case of the contested code is IBM, this both means but SCO should be going after IBM and not end users, and in my interpretation also suggests that SCO did not release there code under the GPL by distributing Linux (if there actually is any in there) since IBM would still have been the licensor.
And now the bombshell that it's seems SCO are completely unaware of.
If you agree to SCO's new licence you are agreeing that they have a right to charge a royalty. However not only is the issuer (SCO) breaching GPL but the recipient would be if they then distributed (since they are accepting that a licence is payable to SCO) so in effect SCO are in double breach.
IANAL, But I wish I were, someone is going to make some serious money fighting this one.
This would have been a really cool article a few years ago, you know, back when to patent something you needed to actually build it and show it to the patent office.
In the current climate this article is completely redundant, if it can be conceived of it has not only been patented but there are defensive patents surrounding it's use, offensive patents surrounding it's use while painted a different colour and more than likely several publicly traded companies bidding on the future rights to sell a cut down version for kids.
The product itself will never be developed however because there are 3 studies proving it causes cancer and several court cases that are claiming that the concept artwork was inspiration for some violent outburst.
Please note, I have not even suggested the possibility that you might have to pay SCO for using it. Wait a minute. Damit!
Does this mean I'll have to pay for a full price licences for my Tivo, Router and network enabled coffee maker instead? I'm worried this is the case because I'll be unable to purchase the licences before November the first like I was going to.
Whatever will I do?
The good news is this will give far more mobility to the elderly.
The bad news is that the computer runs Linux** and as such the elderly will need to pay SCO $699* every time they go for a walk
*Introductory price only, increases after October 15th, 2003
**This is a joke, it probably doesn't
If you look at what SCO has done since the start of this debacle you really have to question the method and means. They started by saying that the open source community wasn't good enough to produce Linux, they have now gone on to openly attack the GPL Itself.
We shouldn't be worrying about the gritty details of what they are doing at treat this as what it is. SCO has declared war on the foundations of the open source community and we should be responding appropriately.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
If this is the case it seems unlikely that we will see any backwards compatibility between xbox2 and the original. The original Nvidia chip was based on a DX part (and it's likely the ATI one will be as well) but the better games access a lot of the hardware directly.
Of course it's possible that MS were smart enough to have conditions in the original X-Box contract with Nvidia that would allow them to produce a more or less compatible chip.
I hope the Slashdot crowd shows a little maturity on this one. I dislike many of Microsofts tactics as much as the next man but in this case Iâ(TM)m rather pleased to see the might of their legal department behind something that could benefit us all.
You say quality is not critical. I would recommend using an mpeg4 codec (proberbly divx or xvid), if you capture at full vhs resolution (352x240) then you can store image quality that far surprises vcd (and your slightly degraded vhs) quality at about 300meg per hour. 650 hours of tape will bring you upto 195gig. How you store your data is really up to you, but I would recommend getting a couple of 200gig hard drives and keeping two copies for safety reasons.
You might want to read this article on capturing from vhs.
Red Dwarf covered this issue. After the proliferation of genetic enhancements the world sporting bodies stepped in banning genetic enhancement. The response was the creation of Genetic Alternative sports, the Genetic Alternative sports killed normal sports inside a couple of years, of course even that required a few rules:
Joking aside, I'm unsure what would happen in the real word. Sports. We haven't seen a "Narcotics alternative sports" emerge after drug taking was banned, however the critical difference may be in how socially acceptable genetic enhancement is. Whoever makes the decisions is going to have trouble either way though, I can see the headlines now Little Johnny kept out of school sports record books because of asthma treatment..
After all:
A drugs Czar is charged with reducing drugs,
A terrorism Czar is charged with reducing terror,
So a privacy Czar is presumably charged with reducing privacy.
I'm guessing the DoubleClick director was an obvious choice.
Anyone who can call themselves a hacker (in the old sense of the world) will have lost sleep to a problem, that one that you absolutely must solve. In your formative years I expect phreaking or hacking problems grabbed you in this way, for each of us it's something different but it's the drive and focus we have in common. My question is, what grabs you like this now? Do you still get those moments when you just can't leave a problem alone?
Microsoft says windows will destroy linux,
Oracle says linux will destroy windows
Baath party says republican-guard will crush allies
Washington says guard will be crushed
What's going on? It's almost as if there is some kind of weighting to what people are saying based on the outcome they favour. I just don't understand it.
This sounds perfect, And here is how it can be implement with backwards compatibility
It's implementation could also be made rather interesting. Rather than a completely new protocol that is totally impractical (since it would require everyone upgrading simultaneously) this kind of scheme could be implemented in a completely backwardly compatible manner. Allow me to describe what I mean.
Your email server has been upgraded to the new system and you send an email. Your outgoing server store the email and forwards a very simple email message onto the recipients email server, this small email contains the appropriate subject line and an extra chunk (with appropriate mime type) containing the information necessary to retrieve the full email message (ie: Server details, email id and probably an authentication token of some sort). Your client software supports the new standard it receives the stub email and retrieves the full message appropriately. This stub email is not an extra compatibility thing; we are simply using the existing smtp infrastructure to tell the recipient that they have a piece of email.
But what if the recipient has not yet upgraded, here comes the clever bit. Html email works as an extra mime chunk that enabled clients automatically decode and show the reader, non enabled clients see the standard plain text version of the message that is also present in the message, this mechanic can be used to our advantage here, the normal text or html portion of the stub email contains a hyper link back to the sending server which a url designed to bring up a basic web mail page with the recipients message.
Using this implementation scheme it would be possible for the sender who upgraded from day one to send an email to anyone with the complete confidence that they would be able to read the full text of the message. The only proviso here is that the recipient had access to a web browser.
In addition I can see one other advantage to your proposed scheme that has not been mentioned, the email system becomes inherently more secure. Since the sending server must actively hand over the email it can record that this has been done and tell the recipient if the message had been read before. Although as with anything else strong cryptography would be required to ensure to ensure that nobody could get hold the authentication token (and thereby read the email) it would be possible for the sending server (providing you trust it) to tell you authoritatively that nobody else had retrieved the message contents.
53 6F 20 64 6F 20 49 21
I put of fileing until about 48 hours before the deadline. Sat down at my pc with the appropriate paperwork (p60 from my employer etc..)cursing my lack of forsight, less than an hour later I was watching tv and ordering take out (and most of that time was hunting through my badly organsied paperwork).I've dealt with filling in most of the Inland Revenue's forms (vat returns, corporation tax returns etc..) and this was properbly my most painless experience to date (apart from the ones where I was paying an accountant to do it.