This invention is really a small step in the direction of having computers mimic the brain's capabilities at some cognitive abilities. For example, recently IBM showed that Big Blue, a computer, could beat the world's best at chess. The brain still has many areas at which it cannot be beat. Such as
Pattern recognition with translational invariance, rotation invariance, and size invariance
Speech recognition in noise.
Having computers that could perform things like pattern recognition or speech recognition as well as humans would allow enormous advances in the roles of humans and computers in our lives. People like Sebastian Seung think inventions like this will take them down that route - and ultimately result in huge scientific advances in artificial intelligence.
Personally, I think studying how the BRAIN does pattern recognition will allow far faster advances in this area than inventing chips that have SOME of the capabilities of neurons.
1) KDE uses the artistic license instead 2) KDE adds a clause to their license that explicitly allows linking against QT as well as GPL(/LGPLd) libraries. 3) Trolltech makes their license GPL intead, which has the potential to kill their business model. 4) RMS rewrites the GPL to allow linking against QPL licensed libraries as well as GPL(LGPL) licensed libraries (which has the added effect of hell freezing over and pigs flying).
Well, woody and potato work just fine here. The basic instructions.
1) Grab the tarball, and unpack it. 2) You should see the package subdirectory from the directory in which you unpacked it. 3) su 4) rm -rf/usr/lib/mozilla 5) cp package/usr/lib/mozilla 6) cp/usr/lib/mozilla/run-moz*/usr/bin/mozilla 7) edit/usr/bin/mozilla. Change to MOZ_DIST_BIN="/usr/lib/mozilla" MOZ_APPRUNNER_NAME="/usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin " also, go to the end and comment out all the bogus environment variables (quite sloppy of them) that define SHLIB_PATH LIBPATH LIBRARY_PATH ADDON_PATH
Leave LD_LIBRARY_PATH alone. You need that one.
Then, exit to your user shell. For most things, it beats netscape. If you need java, you need netscape. If you need complicated animated gifs, use netscape. For security, use netscape. Everything else, mozilla (or w3m:) )
I downloaded the developer tree and built it a while back. The combination of antialiased fonts and alpha blending in the file manager puts all other file managers to shame in the looks department. Unfortunately, the Eazel stuff is not going to match EFM in that department.
For a large enough center you can set up a box to receive log files and only allow console logins. For example, set it up with the only inet service being qmail, and redirect all logs to mail to various inboxes. I am sure there are more elegant ways to do this. The concept is that the box saves all the log files, and you require physical access to check the box.
Dot matrix printers are not a bad idea. But a one way box doesn't run out of paper.
Chances are, though, you will know when you've been hacked (if you check logs regularly). Often someone else will tell you. Your only real recourse is reinstalling the OS - especially all the boot scripts and boot binaries. Keep backups, and don't pull your hair out when you get hacked - it happens all the time. Just be responsible, reinstall, and set up more securely the next time.
Once again, we see Free Software supporters acting like zealots, putting some ill-founded political principle in favour of the needs and desires of their users.
-hypocritical mode on-
You are quite right. Whatever you need and want should be first and foremost in the minds of Debian. After all, they are here to make a profit, and making a profit requires satisfying users without concern for whatever ethics may have brought you, as a sys admin, to make debian packages in the first place.
Believe me, I expect to find Netscape, KDE, Pine et al. as part of my linux distro. And if it's not there, then why go through the arse of downloading all this extra stuff, when Mandrake gives you everything you need?
Well, of course, right again. Why not package everything you can ? Who cares about freedom anyway ? When you find that bug in netscape that locks it up on pages with Java, and you submit it back to netscape, you can expect that bug fixed immediately. Or at least within the normal turnaround time of commercial software.
--hypocticial mode off--
Which is to say nearly never. And when you find that there is some subtle bug that you know you can fix and contribute back to the authors, please write them and ask them for their source so you can help them by helping yourself.
Come on guys, stop acting like some petty Stallmanesque psychonauts, and start thinking about what's best for your users, and hence for Debian, because without users, you are as nothing.
Debian would exist if only for the sake of its packagers. Of course it is much larger than that. Their packages take care of all the little details that sys admins would otherwise need to do. The cron jobs are nicely done. The initscripts are very clean. Security is tight. And I am comparing Debian to other non-Debian distributions. Debian exists to provide the kind of distribution that its packages want to provide. And maybe that is "free". Maybe it is "open source". But the primary goal of the distribution is not its user base.
Debian also can act as the basis for commercial distributions, such as Corel. Any non-free programs can be provided - just by someone else.
So get used to it. Some packagers of software want to produce software the way they think software should be. And they KNOW that will provide substantial benefit to the software industry. And that is good enough for them. Not everything and everybody needs to cater directly to the user base. And if that makes the Debian packagers zealots in your mind, so be it. They have good software to build. And they do a very good job at it.
Make some neat looking cartoon like porno movie clip, distributed only in Windows executable format. When it executes, it sets up a DDoS client. You could easily have enough high bandwidth machines for a massive DDoS in a short period of time. It seems many Windows users do not even think about running untrusted binaries with their security model.
We did this at Duke in the late eighties. A homework assignment would be to make modifications to some computer program (source code posted to the newsgroup), and plot graphs of results when certain modifications were made to the model parameters in the program.
As I recall, it worked pretty well. Common homework questions (confusions) were regularly posted and answered (often by the TAs after a student asked them directly). It provides on thing that would be much more difficult with web access - a place for students to provide direct unfiltered (or filtered) feedback in real time.
The web allows a one way pipeline pretty well - but I think education should be more than that.
As far as monopolistic business practices otherwise. Would you step to the front of the room please if you would have done any different (open source developers, you don't count because you're not entirely greedy:P ) The point is that M$ followed valid business practices.
That is besides the point of antitrust law.
In antitrust law, a fundamental tenet is that you cannot take actions that hurt consumers in order to hurt your competition more. M$ dumped billions on IE for no profit and no benefit for consumers - in order to hurt netscape. M$ made consumers pay more for Windows on IBM machines to hurt IBM, who at the time maintained the right to sell OS/2. M$ threatened to withdraw M$ Office for Macintosh unless Apple got on board and preloaded IE - expediting the killing of netscape. M$ strongarmed all the OEM outlets for netscape in order to cut off netscape's air supply - and remove choice from the consumer who was less likely to download and install netscape.
The list of violations goes on and on. M$ made consumers pay so that it could eradicate the competition in browser space. That is what antitrust is about.
Standard Oil used to put up gas stations across the street from existing gas stations and sell gas at a loss until the competition went out of business - then the maximal possible prices were extracted. That is the sort of violation antitrust law seeks to stop. M$ was horribly in violation - and separating the monopoly with leverage (Windows) from the products with competition (all apps and the internet business) is appropriate and fair.
A price for freedom of speech is having to listen to opinions we do not like.
A price for the ability to protect ourselves from an oppressive government is having to protect ourselves from each other.
A price for a person to be secure in their person and things is the loss of control of what people do with their persons and things. This applies to the current situation. With the right to be secure in my person and things, I can get away with doing almost anything. This creates a fundamental problem in a free society in which corporations want to control what happens with their product AFTER possession is taken of it. (There is another analogy in a certain war the US government has been losing for 30 years, but leave that for now). Personally, I value the right to privacy more than I value the right of the copyright owners to be secure in the "free" sharing of their copyrights. Invasion of privacy is no solution to the problem.
If you feel like it, you can port the Qt toolkit to MS-Win32 or to the Mac or to BeOS if you want; there is no license restriction that stops you.
How about this one ?? You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
So, you can port QT to win32, you simply have to do it in a way that the port is a patch that your END USERS will have to successfully apply to QT for linux and then successfully build. That requires your end user to know patch and have whatever compiler you used.
That makes the chances of any port actually happening pretty close to zero. Technically it can happen, but logistically it is impossible.
The only "rights" that are extended to Qt-applications are that the user of such an application is granted the right to the source code.
Also from the QT free license. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer if the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
This clause for applications that LINK to QT assure Trolltech that no one will ever write an in house program that requires some degree of privacy without buying QT Pro. If you want privacy in your applications that LINK to QT, you must pay the man. If you want to write programs that use QT and are not GPL, you must pay the man.
They're a CORPORATION. They survive by MAKING MONEY. Do you understand that? They are being nice by releasing their software under an OSI-approved Open Source license; nobody REQUIRES that they use such a license. Grow up.
They were ten very good programmers trying to make a buck. I don't fault them for being proprietary, or releasing their product under whatever license they choose. I fault people like you for compromising freedom in software. I fault Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens for not objecting to the license and granting it OSI certification. It fails on the basic, very basic, premise that an open source application should allow derivatives under the same license as the original. Since I could only release QT derivatives as patches on the original, I cannot effectively EVER release a derivative anyone but a hacker would use.
Now don't get me wrong Chris - I think KDE is fantastic. I simply don't like the licensing upon which it is based. And I think calling it open source is a farce. I would rather see software preserve my freedom to modify it and share my modifications with others. Right now, I lack those freedoms with QT.
The biggest issues are with the lack of a real right to distribute modifications. That blocks forking. Now, forking in itself is generally bad, but the threat of forking can inspire real competition. Usually that is plenty. It also blocks me from distributing a new patched QT library to Grandma. Since she doesn't do patch.
I mean dont get me wrong I like gnome alot but KDE has alot more going for it in terms of applications and install base so what gives? I mean I know the whole QPL shit was a problem for most of the Zealots but gnome is still really damn buggy and a fresking resource Hog, Hell compare to kde 1.9 I just dont see why slash has the bias it has.
KDE is based on a proprietary library. A library that cannot be ported or forked except by its authors. A library that reserves some rights to everything that even links to it. A library that demands a copy of everything that links to it, even if it is private. A library that reserves the right to take your patches and roll them into its proprietary product, all the while NEVER allowing you to distribute anything except its product with your patch separate. You have to distinguish your code from their by separately distributing it - they do not have to distringuish your contributions to their code at all.
The QPL is about assuring a lifetime of riches for the authors of QT at the expense of the freedoms of its users. GNOME was started specifically to provide freedom to its users.
All that aside, there are two and only two key factors in the popularity of the desktops GNOME and KDE. Factor one is the preload factor. The more computers come with a desktop loaded, the more it will be used. Helixcode is a HUGE step in getting GNOME onto people's desktops more easily. Other factors are primarily OEM loads (Compaq, Dell, VA Linux...) Most US computers will come with GNOME, most in Europe with KDE.
Factor two is how easy it is for a non-hack. A successful desktop will make Grandma happy, and Grandma is not a hacker. Grandma wants to download digital photos, print them, send email, shop online... EASILY.
All this fussing over ORBs and libraries and bloat is worthless. It just doesn't matter in the long run, except for the pride of the programmers. Make it easy, and market it well by getting it preloaded everywhere - or at least making it dern easy to upgrade (witness Helixcode).
In reading the interview, one thing became clear. O'Reilly was interested in discussing the theory of patents. While Dickinson is from the patent office, he largely deals with the technical aspects of patents.
So when O'Reilly asks if Dickinson believes a legal argument should be patentable, Dickinson gives a technical answer. When O'Reilly questions other aspects of our patent system, Dickinson informs O'Reilly that a LARGE review was held a year ago, and no one voiced the opinions that O'Reilly had.
Patents need a certain degree of secrecy in the review process. Otherwise the intellectual property could be easily stolen. That is why having a peer review patent process would not work. If O'Reilly stopped to think about this from an inventor's viewpoint, he might get this.
Prior art, as used by Dickinson, is not just an existing implementation of the invention and claims, but is also anything similar enough that the invention and claims are an obvious extension. Do not forget that. Prior art is NOT just a pre-existing invention, but is also anything from which the invention would be an obvious extension.
Thus, if you can demonstrate that 8 out of 10 software engineers could create the same invention given the same starting point and a not-so-hard amount of effort, the invention does not meet patent criteria.
Free software advocates are just not used to working the patent system. Many people get rich from their inventions. It is an idea that was framed in the constitution of the US. The problems people point out have historically been considered problems with every major technological advance - the Motion Picture (Edison vigorously defended his rights), the telephone...
The problem, of course, is money. It takes a few thousand dollars for a fairly simple patent. And that alone puts it out of reach for a lot of programmers with great ideas.
the fact is that there are really all of about 6 comands needed to compile and instal the kernel. make config make dep make clean make *Image make modules make module_install
The fact is that there are several hundred options that must be addressed in make config.
Just stop for a second and think of this process on any other OS. It is virtually impossible to build a customized kernel for Windows, NT, MacOS. But on Unices it is not uncommon. It is downright difficult, and the cause of many a seasoned sys admin to pull his hair out to need to rebuild a kernel on Tru64, Solaris, or other commercial Unices. It is SOOOO much easier on linux it is not even funny. Yet still, there are many ways to screw up. You open a strange can of worms when you decide to begin to build kernels.
If you are like me, you began to build kernels because your hardware was not ordinary. I need reasonable NFS for some machines and that requires patches. I need a development kernel so my laptop Cardbus will work without locking on interrupt conflicts, and that required some fiddling.
Yet still, when I build a development kernel, it takes 3-4 tries to "get it right". If I am lucky I can build a standard kernel on the first try, but that is not the norm.
So when someone tries FOR THE FIRST TIME and doesn't quite get it right, I say "You are expecting too much."
Consider yourself blessed if you have the option to customize a kernel. Consider yourself lucky if you can build one and have it work on the first try. Consider yourself lucky if your system never gets hosed. If that is too much to accept then install the kernel from your distribution. They spend a lot of money and time and effort to ensure that your kernel will not hose your system. Building a development kernel from source is NEVER a low risk endeavor. If you do it lots you will still sometimes get burned.
There are AMPLE warning about the process in the kernel READMEs. You will ALWAYS see lots of precautions to people who ask about building development kernels. Yet still, sometimes, people ask questions about why it is so difficult to build a kernel under linux.
So you have to wonder, has this person EVER built a kernel for ANY other OS ?? Why should he think customizing a kernel with HUNDREDS of options should be something failsafe ? When he ignored the README files in his kernel source ?? The initial stance is completely tweaked, and that needs addressing.
That being said,/. is not a forum for that kind of advice anyway. Take it to comp.os.linux.setup. Read the HOWTOs. Look at every file an/boot and wonder what it is doing. Don't expect it will be easy - it won't. You will make mistakes. You can hose your system. There are ample warnings. There are reasonable alternatives, such as getting prepackaged distributions from vendors.
And if you suffer. And if you work long and hard at it, you will be able to build successful kernels, most of the time. Sometimes you will still screw up. That's life on the bleeding edge. Why do you think they call it the bleeding edge, anyway ??
If you want advice, I will tell you to keep an xterm open whil you run make config, and grep a lot in/proc/ to see what options you are currently using. Don't expect it to be easy. Expect that you will screw things up. Keep a boot disk handy, and lots of coffee. Back up your system. And enjoy. There are few things that give more of a sense of accomplishment than building a new kernel to solve some problem specific to your setup.
*If* you are as capable as you imply, why not lend this poor fellow a helping hand and teach him, and many others, something useful. Your comment merely builds the impression that our favorite OS is only for self-important jerks. If that is the case, perhaps I'll switch to something else.
Come on. Someone tries to build a kernel without even looking through HOWTOs, or reading up on how to build kernels at kernelnotes.org. He doesn't know the role of System.map (which will, BTW, not hose your system, just leave you without symbols, generally innocuous).
The HOWTO says MUCH more than I will ever place in a/. post. He should read the HOWTO, backup his system, brew a lot of coffee, and prepare for a long evening.
The other alternative is for him to use prepackaged systems that upgrade the kernel for you, such as those from all major OS vendors. Even that is a step beyond what MOST linux users do.
His, and your, expectancies are a little high. Most users NEVER build a kernel. This is a role that is moving more and more towards the distributions. That being said, building a kernel is a lot easier than other builds, like emacs, or XFree86, or GNOME, or KDE2. Downright simple in comparison.
If you want to switch to another system because you don't like the attitude of its users, you are using an OS for reasons far different than mine.
I am no advanced Linux user. I know my way around the system well enough to get by however I do run into problem on an almost regular basis.
Now that I've made some sort of introduction, I would like to ask a simple question of the Linux using community: If exchanging a kernel is such a dang-blasted important task for any Linux user to know how to do, why is it so complicated?
RTFM
less/usr/doc/HOWTO/Kernel-HOWTO
It is not that tough. It is also something that end users only very very rarely do. IF you can't read the HOWTO and figure out what to do, you are probably going to hose your system anyway.
Bob Cringely has on several occasions described the remedy that would satisfy Stallman's "#1" and perhaps be more damaging in the longer picture...to MS at least.
He believes the only group (the group most ignored by the prosecution and the judge so far) to be split off should be the languages and libraries group. Basically, if Windows (and therefore Internet Explorer) lost the "secretness" of its APIs (including file formats since they're all shared within ms applications), the market would quickly get more competitive.
Cringely actually thinks the COMPILERS should be split off.
But, as you point out, that was not covered in the trial. Thus, it will be regarded as irrelevant to all in the trial.
Besides, not having compiler control would severely limit their ability to make an operating system in the first place. Can you see it ?? The OS becomes nice and robust, and WHOOPS - the compiler company changes the compiler on them. The shakeout in bugs would be 10 times worse than it already is.
The judge needs to stick very close to things covered in the trial for this to actually happen. And he knows that.
Richard Stallman has his own views on what should happen to Microsoft
Of course he does. Of course they extend to his vision of what software should be far more than any legal court in the US could ever consider. There is no legitimate way a court could direct a company to only use its patents in defense, for example.
The issue is quite simple. What do we do to M$ to prevent them from using their monopoly in ways that hurt consumers in order to hurt their competition more (and preserve their monopoly). Well, one thing they do is leverage their operating system monopoly to allow applications to become monopolies. Witness Office and IE. So, to prevent that, break them apart, and allow all application developers equal access to Windows, in whatever form that may be. Further, the OS company would not be allowed to develop consumer applications that have their own markets, like Office Suites, Database servers, Mail Servers. And, Internet Explorer, as it is the focus of the trial, would necessarily be split from Windows and belong to the application company.
A second tactic used by M$, demonstrated in this trial, is selective licensing to strengthen its monopoly (IBM paid more for Windows than anyone else because it didn't ship Windows on ALL its machines). In that case M$ is hurting the consumer in order to hurt IBM more. Therefore, no more selective licensing.
That ought to take care of it. It isn't rocket science. They need to stick closely to things demonstrated in the trial for this to be robust against appeal anyway.
How are you going to get the necessary 0.5 mm of amplitude from a piezo element ??
It seems you would have to leverage it up with a lever ratio of at least 5.
In any case, the piezo will draw very little current. I'll check on our power supplies in a few hours when I hit work. We use piezos for somatosensory stimulators (at about 100 microns of amplitude).
One other thing - I just downloaded the latest linux nightly build, and it really flies compared to earlier builds (I'm posting form it right now...), and renders 200+ comment slashdot in nested mode in a fraction of a second...
You are right, this thing totally rips now. It is like a turbocharged browser. I like it a LOT. They also fixed the annoying one-back URL bar problem, and the X cut-and-paste, and SFGate front page renders properly...
This seems like things are finally cooking. I really can't believe how fast/. loads.
But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities? For example, what would have happened if Andover hadn't replied to Microsoft's letter? Were they obligated to under law? And similarly, is Microsoft required to respond in kind?
Copyright violations are civil matters in which damages can be awarded. Both parties have an obligation to try to resolve the matter amongst themselves before heading for a courtroom. Failure to do so will not be taken lightly by the judge.
The issues here, though, relate to damages. If it is considered a trade secret, how does exposure of the secret damage the value of the protocol more than it would be damaged without the exposure of the secret? The answer is clearly none since the secret was posted on the Internet.
How does posting the copyrighted material devalue the copyright or the reputation of the author ? The answer, once again, is not at all. This copyright was free.
Since there are no damages, the copyright issue is substantially weakened. Basically, I don't think M$ has a prayer.
For some reason, people seem to think that you can never post copyrighted material without permission. However, you can. It is called fair use.
That being said, I don't think Microsoft has any reason to answer questions unrelated to trade secret exposure or copyright violation and damages. Those questions are sort of included to improve the public's perception of/. Such irrelevant questions would include
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
Whether or not it makes any -sense- for Microsoft to do what it is doing, does it not still have the legal -right- if not a legal obligation to protect its copyrights, or face an inability to enforce its position at a later date?
With respect to copyright, there are a few critical issues. Fair use dictates what rights the consumer, in this case anyone who downloaded the specs, has. Part of fair use dictates that due consideration be given to 1) potential impact on the market of the copyright 2) potential impact on the reputation of the author.
Now, in this case,/.'s attorney chooses to focus on the market for the protocol, not the market for the document itself. This relates to the issue of the document being a trade secret.
However, no one violated any binding trade secret agreements to reproduce the document. Let's not forget, this document was freely distributed worldwide by Microsoft.
There are no issues with respect to copyright value (it is free as in beer) or reputation of the authors.
Other aspects of fair use involve the portion of the copyright used, and the commercial or non-profit use of the copyright. All of it was used, with no money being made by anyone.
But the attorney does, in a sense, get to the point by asking about potential damages. The real threat is that Microsoft could sue over damages. But it is hard to imagine that any damages exist. So it could be a legal argument like Well, you are technically correct, but enforcement of legal copyright only allows damages, which would be rated at exactly zero dollars, so go home and think about all the publicity we will be able to pump out of this while you think about suing us for zero dollars and wasting the courts time (judges really like that, you know).
blakestah wrote: If federally funded grants had all their intellectual property public domain, then ALL of the monetary incentive for invention with federal funds would be gone.
For some reason, that doesn't parse well. What you're saying is that there is NO monetary incentive in being given large amounts of money by the government.
No, you are reading it too generally. I stated specifically that incentive for INVENTION would be gone. There is plenty of incentive for research without invention. But it has been my experience that inventions often just come about without much warning as a result of insight in an experiment. Would you rather create incentive for me to bury that insight until the granting period is over ?? Or take that insight outside the laboratory ?? To do so would likely compromise the entire purpose of the grant. There is no reason anyone would ever disclose an invention under a grant if they knew the invention would be public domain. Heck, it wouldn't even be worth the effort to write the patent - which in itself is not trivial.
Intellectual property in the form of patents is due only to the INVENTOR. You get no credit for funding an experiment, although you MAY get preferred licensing. You cannot BUY invention. In corporations the patents are ALWAYS owned by the inventors, although once again the facilities providers will take control of licensing.
That is a large part of the reason that government grants allow the patents of inventions disclosed as a result of grants. The contribution to society of the grant will be diminished if the government seeks to control the intellectual property. Universities will not allow grants with restrictions on patent licensing.
You touch on other issues as to what is and is not patentable wrt the genome, issues that I did not address. I merely addressed the issue that government funded grants should have their intellectual property be public domain. Were that the case, they would not have any intellectual property. And in that scenario everyone would lose.
First off, the incentive for professors (and Universities) to engage in basic research has not always been, and need not be, to gain patents. Successful reseach == academic prestige for both the researcher and the Unioveristy. This pays off in many ways (in the professor's case, in how much he or she can command in salery.)
My point was not that academia was uninterested in such grants, but rather that universities will not allow grants which maintain a stipulation that intellectual property belongs to the patent granting agency.
Also, from the NIH web page
2. WHAT IS THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
The Bayh-Dole Act encourages researchers to patent and market their inventions by guaranteeing patent rights. This Act automatically grants first rights to a patent for an invention fully or partially funded by a Federal agency to the awardee organization. To obtain these benefits, however, the inventor and the organization have several reporting requirements that protect the rights of the Government. ------------------ There is more at NIH, but the bottom line is that as long as you are up front with them, you retain ALL rights to your intellectual property. You can note that this holds for individuals and small businesses that are awarded grants, but not for larger corporations. And being up front with them is pretty important (you basically fill out a form that discloses the patent filing to them).
Slashdot Mirror
This invention is really a small step in the direction of having computers mimic the brain's capabilities at some cognitive abilities. For example, recently IBM showed that Big Blue, a computer, could beat the world's best at chess. The brain still has many areas at which it cannot be beat. Such as
Pattern recognition with translational invariance, rotation invariance, and size invariance
Speech recognition in noise.
Having computers that could perform things like pattern recognition or speech recognition as well as humans would allow enormous advances in the roles of humans and computers in our lives. People like Sebastian Seung think inventions like this will take them down that route - and ultimately result in huge scientific advances in artificial intelligence.
Personally, I think studying how the BRAIN does pattern recognition will allow far faster advances in this area than inventing chips that have SOME of the capabilities of neurons.
Anyone else notice how OLD all of this news is ??
We read these papers in journal club last FALL !!
Yet Hemos is posting it now. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
1) KDE uses the artistic license instead
2) KDE adds a clause to their license that explicitly allows linking against QT as well as GPL(/LGPLd) libraries.
3) Trolltech makes their license GPL intead, which has the potential to kill their business model.
4) RMS rewrites the GPL to allow linking against QPL licensed libraries as well as GPL(LGPL) licensed libraries (which has the added effect of hell freezing over and pigs flying).
Well, woody and potato work just fine here. The basic instructions.
/usr/lib/mozilla /usr/lib/mozilla /usr/lib/mozilla/run-moz* /usr/bin/mozilla /usr/bin/mozilla. Change to n "
:) )
1) Grab the tarball, and unpack it.
2) You should see the package subdirectory from the directory in which you unpacked it.
3) su
4) rm -rf
5) cp package
6) cp
7) edit
MOZ_DIST_BIN="/usr/lib/mozilla"
MOZ_APPRUNNER_NAME="/usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bi
also, go to the end and comment out all the bogus
environment variables (quite sloppy of them) that define
SHLIB_PATH
LIBPATH
LIBRARY_PATH
ADDON_PATH
Leave LD_LIBRARY_PATH alone. You need that one.
Then, exit to your user shell. For most things, it beats netscape. If you need java, you need netscape. If you need complicated animated gifs, use netscape. For security, use netscape. Everything else, mozilla (or w3m
Anyone else seen screenshots of EFM ?
I downloaded the developer tree and built it a while back. The combination of antialiased fonts and alpha blending in the file manager puts all other file managers to shame in the looks department. Unfortunately, the Eazel stuff is not going to match EFM in that department.
http://www.enlightenment.org
There are a variety of ways to do this.
For a large enough center you can set up a box to receive log files and only allow console logins. For example, set it up with the only inet service being qmail, and redirect all logs to mail to various inboxes. I am sure there are more elegant ways to do this. The concept is that the box saves all the log files, and you require physical access to check the box.
Dot matrix printers are not a bad idea. But a one way box doesn't run out of paper.
Chances are, though, you will know when you've been hacked (if you check logs regularly). Often someone else will tell you. Your only real recourse is reinstalling the OS - especially all the boot scripts and boot binaries. Keep backups, and don't pull your hair out when you get hacked - it happens all the time. Just be responsible, reinstall, and set up more securely the next time.
Once again, we see Free Software supporters acting like zealots, putting some ill-founded political principle in favour of the needs and desires of their users.
-hypocritical mode on-
You are quite right. Whatever you need and want should be first and foremost in the minds of Debian. After all, they are here to make a profit, and making a profit requires satisfying users without concern for whatever ethics may have brought you, as a sys admin, to make debian packages in the first place.
Believe me, I expect to find Netscape, KDE, Pine et al. as part of my linux distro. And if it's not there, then why go through the arse of downloading all this extra stuff, when Mandrake gives you everything you need?
Well, of course, right again. Why not package everything you can ? Who cares about freedom anyway ? When you find that bug in netscape that locks it up on pages with Java, and you submit it back to netscape, you can expect that bug fixed immediately. Or at least within the normal turnaround time of commercial software.
--hypocticial mode off--
Which is to say nearly never. And when you find that there is some subtle bug that you know you can fix and contribute back to the authors, please write them and ask them for their source so you can help them by helping yourself.
Come on guys, stop acting like some petty Stallmanesque psychonauts, and start thinking about what's best for your users, and hence for Debian, because without users, you are as nothing.
Debian would exist if only for the sake of its packagers. Of course it is much larger than that. Their packages take care of all the little details that sys admins would otherwise need to do. The cron jobs are nicely done. The initscripts are very clean. Security is tight. And I am comparing Debian to other non-Debian distributions. Debian exists to provide the kind of distribution that its packages want to provide. And maybe that is "free". Maybe it is "open source". But the primary goal of the distribution is not its user base.
Debian also can act as the basis for commercial distributions, such as Corel. Any non-free programs can be provided - just by someone else.
So get used to it. Some packagers of software want to produce software the way they think software should be. And they KNOW that will provide substantial benefit to the software industry. And that is good enough for them. Not everything and everybody needs to cater directly to the user base. And if that makes the Debian packagers zealots in your mind, so be it. They have good software to build. And they do a very good job at it.
This is a trivial maneuver.
Make some neat looking cartoon like porno movie clip, distributed only in Windows executable format. When it executes, it sets up a DDoS client. You could easily have enough high bandwidth machines for a massive DDoS in a short period of time. It seems many Windows users do not even think about running untrusted binaries with their security model.
We did this at Duke in the late eighties. A homework assignment would be to make modifications to some computer program (source code posted to the newsgroup), and plot graphs of results when certain modifications were made to the model parameters in the program.
As I recall, it worked pretty well. Common homework questions (confusions) were regularly posted and answered (often by the TAs after a student asked them directly). It provides on thing that would be much more difficult with web access - a place for students to provide direct unfiltered (or filtered) feedback in real time.
The web allows a one way pipeline pretty well - but I think education should be more than that.
As far as monopolistic business practices otherwise. Would you step to the front of the room please if you would have done any different (open source developers, you don't count because you're not entirely greedy :P ) The point is that M$ followed valid business practices.
That is besides the point of antitrust law.
In antitrust law, a fundamental tenet is that you cannot take actions that hurt consumers in order to hurt your competition more. M$ dumped billions on IE for no profit and no benefit for consumers - in order to hurt netscape. M$ made consumers pay more for Windows on IBM machines to hurt IBM, who at the time maintained the right to sell OS/2. M$ threatened to withdraw M$ Office for Macintosh unless Apple got on board and preloaded IE - expediting the killing of netscape. M$ strongarmed all the OEM outlets for netscape in order to cut off netscape's air supply - and remove choice from the consumer who was less likely to download and install netscape.
The list of violations goes on and on. M$ made consumers pay so that it could eradicate the competition in browser space. That is what antitrust is about.
Standard Oil used to put up gas stations across the street from existing gas stations and sell gas at a loss until the competition went out of business - then the maximal possible prices were extracted. That is the sort of violation antitrust law seeks to stop. M$ was horribly in violation - and separating the monopoly with leverage (Windows) from the products with competition (all apps and the internet business) is appropriate and fair.
There are prices we pay for freedom.
A price for freedom of speech is having to listen to opinions we do not like.
A price for the ability to protect ourselves from an oppressive government is having to protect ourselves from each other.
A price for a person to be secure in their person and things is the loss of control of what people do with their persons and things. This applies to the current situation. With the right to be secure in my person and things, I can get away with doing almost anything. This creates a fundamental problem in a free society in which corporations want to control what happens with their product AFTER possession is taken of it. (There is another analogy in a certain war the US government has been losing for 30 years, but leave that for now).
Personally, I value the right to privacy more than I value the right of the copyright owners to be secure in the "free" sharing of their copyrights. Invasion of privacy is no solution to the problem.
If you feel like it, you can port the Qt toolkit to MS-Win32 or to the Mac or to BeOS if you want; there is no license restriction that stops you.
How about this one ??
You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
So, you can port QT to win32, you simply have to do it in a way that the port is a patch that your END USERS will have to successfully apply to QT for linux and then successfully build. That requires your end user to know patch and have whatever compiler you used.
That makes the chances of any port actually happening pretty close to zero. Technically it can happen, but logistically it is impossible.
The only "rights" that are extended to Qt-applications are that the user of such an application is granted the right to the source code.
Also from the QT free license.
If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer if the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
This clause for applications that LINK to QT assure Trolltech that no one will ever write an in house program that requires some degree of privacy without buying QT Pro. If you want privacy in your applications that LINK to QT, you must pay the man. If you want to write programs that use QT and are not GPL, you must pay the man.
They're a CORPORATION. They survive by MAKING MONEY. Do you understand that? They are being nice by releasing their software under an OSI-approved Open Source license; nobody REQUIRES that they use such a license. Grow up.
They were ten very good programmers trying to make a buck. I don't fault them for being proprietary, or releasing their product under whatever license they choose. I fault people like you for compromising freedom in software. I fault Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens for not objecting to the license and granting it OSI certification. It fails on the basic, very basic, premise that an open source application should allow derivatives under the same license as the original. Since I could only release QT derivatives as patches on the original, I cannot effectively EVER release a derivative anyone but a hacker would use.
Now don't get me wrong Chris - I think KDE is fantastic. I simply don't like the licensing upon which it is based. And I think calling it open source is a farce. I would rather see software preserve my freedom to modify it and share my modifications with others. Right now, I lack those freedoms with QT.
The biggest issues are with the lack of a real right to distribute modifications. That blocks forking. Now, forking in itself is generally bad, but the threat of forking can inspire real competition. Usually that is plenty. It also blocks me from distributing a new patched QT library to Grandma. Since she doesn't do patch.
I mean dont get me wrong I like gnome alot but KDE has alot more going for it in terms of applications and install base so what gives? I mean I know the whole QPL shit was a problem for most of the Zealots but gnome is still really damn buggy and a fresking resource Hog, Hell compare to kde 1.9 I just dont see why slash has the bias it has.
KDE is based on a proprietary library. A library that cannot be ported or forked except by its authors. A library that reserves some rights to everything that even links to it. A library that demands a copy of everything that links to it, even if it is private. A library that reserves the right to take your patches and roll them into its proprietary product, all the while NEVER allowing you to distribute anything except its product with your patch separate. You have to distinguish your code from their by separately distributing it - they do not have to distringuish your contributions to their code at all.
The QPL is about assuring a lifetime of riches for the authors of QT at the expense of the freedoms of its users. GNOME was started specifically to provide freedom to its users.
All that aside, there are two and only two key factors in the popularity of the desktops GNOME and KDE. Factor one is the preload factor. The more computers come with a desktop loaded, the more it will be used. Helixcode is a HUGE step in getting GNOME onto people's desktops more easily. Other factors are primarily OEM loads (Compaq, Dell, VA Linux...) Most US computers will come with GNOME, most in Europe with KDE.
Factor two is how easy it is for a non-hack. A successful desktop will make Grandma happy, and Grandma is not a hacker. Grandma wants to download digital photos, print them, send email, shop online... EASILY.
All this fussing over ORBs and libraries and bloat is worthless. It just doesn't matter in the long run, except for the pride of the programmers. Make it easy, and market it well by getting it preloaded everywhere - or at least making it dern easy to upgrade (witness Helixcode).
In reading the interview, one thing became clear. O'Reilly was interested in discussing the theory of patents. While Dickinson is from the patent office, he largely deals with the technical aspects of patents.
So when O'Reilly asks if Dickinson believes a legal argument should be patentable, Dickinson gives a technical answer. When O'Reilly questions other aspects of our patent system, Dickinson informs O'Reilly that a LARGE review was held a year ago, and no one voiced the opinions that O'Reilly had.
Patents need a certain degree of secrecy in the review process. Otherwise the intellectual property could be easily stolen. That is why having a peer review patent process would not work. If O'Reilly stopped to think about this from an inventor's viewpoint, he might get this.
Prior art, as used by Dickinson, is not just an existing implementation of the invention and claims, but is also anything similar enough that the invention and claims are an obvious extension. Do not forget that. Prior art is NOT just a pre-existing invention, but is also anything from which the invention would be an obvious extension.
Thus, if you can demonstrate that 8 out of 10 software engineers could create the same invention given the same starting point and a not-so-hard amount of effort, the invention does not meet patent criteria.
Free software advocates are just not used to working the patent system. Many people get rich from their inventions. It is an idea that was framed in the constitution of the US. The problems people point out have historically been considered problems with every major technological advance - the Motion Picture (Edison vigorously defended his rights), the telephone...
The problem, of course, is money. It takes a few thousand dollars for a fairly simple patent. And that alone puts it out of reach for a lot of programmers with great ideas.
the fact is that there are really all of about 6 comands needed to compile and instal the kernel.
/. is not a forum for that kind of advice anyway. Take it to comp.os.linux.setup. Read the HOWTOs. Look at every file an /boot and wonder what it is doing. Don't expect it will be easy - it won't. You will make mistakes. You can hose your system. There are ample warnings. There are reasonable alternatives, such as getting prepackaged distributions from vendors.
/proc/ to see what options you are currently using. Don't expect it to be easy. Expect that you will screw things up. Keep a boot disk handy, and lots of coffee. Back up your system. And enjoy. There are few things that give more of a sense of accomplishment than building a new kernel to solve some problem specific to your setup.
make config
make dep
make clean
make *Image
make modules
make module_install
The fact is that there are several hundred options that must be addressed in make config.
Just stop for a second and think of this process on any other OS. It is virtually impossible to build a customized kernel for Windows, NT, MacOS. But on Unices it is not uncommon. It is downright difficult, and the cause of many a seasoned sys admin to pull his hair out to need to rebuild a kernel on Tru64, Solaris, or other commercial Unices. It is SOOOO much easier on linux it is not even funny. Yet still, there are many ways to screw up. You open a strange can of worms when you decide to begin to build kernels.
If you are like me, you began to build kernels because your hardware was not ordinary. I need reasonable NFS for some machines and that requires patches. I need a development kernel so my laptop Cardbus will work without locking on interrupt conflicts, and that required some fiddling.
Yet still, when I build a development kernel, it takes 3-4 tries to "get it right". If I am lucky I can build a standard kernel on the first try, but that is not the norm.
So when someone tries FOR THE FIRST TIME and doesn't quite get it right, I say "You are expecting too much."
Consider yourself blessed if you have the option to customize a kernel. Consider yourself lucky if you can build one and have it work on the first try. Consider yourself lucky if your system never gets hosed. If that is too much to accept then install the kernel from your distribution. They spend a lot of money and time and effort to ensure that your kernel will not hose your system. Building a development kernel from source is NEVER a low risk endeavor. If you do it lots you will still sometimes get burned.
There are AMPLE warning about the process in the kernel READMEs. You will ALWAYS see lots of precautions to people who ask about building development kernels. Yet still, sometimes, people ask questions about why it is so difficult to build a kernel under linux.
So you have to wonder, has this person EVER built a kernel for ANY other OS ?? Why should he think customizing a kernel with HUNDREDS of options should be something failsafe ? When he ignored the README files in his kernel source ?? The initial stance is completely tweaked, and that needs addressing.
That being said,
And if you suffer. And if you work long and hard at it, you will be able to build successful kernels, most of the time. Sometimes you will still screw up. That's life on the bleeding edge. Why do you think they call it the bleeding edge, anyway ??
If you want advice, I will tell you to keep an xterm open whil you run make config, and grep a lot in
*If* you are as capable as you imply, why not lend this poor fellow a helping hand and teach him, and many others, something useful. Your comment merely builds the impression that our favorite OS is only for self-important jerks. If that is the case, perhaps I'll switch to something else.
/. post. He should read the HOWTO, backup his system, brew a lot of coffee, and prepare for a long evening.
Come on. Someone tries to build a kernel without even looking through HOWTOs, or reading up on how to build kernels at kernelnotes.org. He doesn't know the role of System.map (which will, BTW, not hose your system, just leave you without symbols, generally innocuous).
The HOWTO says MUCH more than I will ever place in a
The other alternative is for him to use prepackaged systems that upgrade the kernel for you, such as those from all major OS vendors. Even that is a step beyond what MOST linux users do.
His, and your, expectancies are a little high. Most users NEVER build a kernel. This is a role that is moving more and more towards the distributions. That being said, building a kernel is a lot easier than other builds, like emacs, or XFree86, or GNOME, or KDE2. Downright simple in comparison.
If you want to switch to another system because you don't like the attitude of its users, you are using an OS for reasons far different than mine.
I am no advanced Linux user. I know my way around the system well enough to get by however I do run into problem on an almost regular basis.
/usr/doc/HOWTO/Kernel-HOWTO
:)
Now that I've made some sort of introduction, I would like to ask a simple question of the Linux using community: If exchanging a kernel is such a
dang-blasted important task for any Linux user to know how to do, why is it so complicated?
RTFM
less
It is not that tough. It is also something that end users only very very rarely do. IF you can't read the HOWTO and figure out what to do, you are probably going to hose your system anyway.
Oh wait - you did
Bob Cringely has on several occasions described the remedy that would satisfy Stallman's "#1" and perhaps be more damaging in the longer picture...to MS at least.
He believes the only group (the group most ignored by the prosecution and the judge so far) to be split off should be the languages and libraries group. Basically, if Windows (and therefore Internet Explorer) lost the "secretness" of its APIs (including file formats since they're all shared within ms applications), the market would quickly get more competitive.
Cringely actually thinks the COMPILERS should be split off.
But, as you point out, that was not covered in the trial. Thus, it will be regarded as irrelevant to all in the trial.
Besides, not having compiler control would severely limit their ability to make an operating system in the first place. Can you see it ?? The OS becomes nice and robust, and WHOOPS - the compiler company changes the compiler on them. The shakeout in bugs would be 10 times worse than it already is.
The judge needs to stick very close to things covered in the trial for this to actually happen. And he knows that.
Richard Stallman has his own views on what should happen to Microsoft
Of course he does. Of course they extend to his vision of what software should be far more than any legal court in the US could ever consider. There is no legitimate way a court could direct a company to only use its patents in defense, for example.
The issue is quite simple. What do we do to M$ to prevent them from using their monopoly in ways that hurt consumers in order to hurt their competition more (and preserve their monopoly). Well, one thing they do is leverage their operating system monopoly to allow applications to become monopolies. Witness Office and IE. So, to prevent that, break them apart, and allow all application developers equal access to Windows, in whatever form that may be. Further, the OS company would not be allowed to develop consumer applications that have their own markets, like Office Suites, Database servers, Mail Servers. And, Internet Explorer, as it is the focus of the trial, would necessarily be split from Windows and belong to the application company.
A second tactic used by M$, demonstrated in this trial, is selective licensing to strengthen its monopoly (IBM paid more for Windows than anyone else because it didn't ship Windows on ALL its machines). In that case M$ is hurting the consumer in order to hurt IBM more. Therefore, no more selective licensing.
That ought to take care of it. It isn't rocket science. They need to stick closely to things demonstrated in the trial for this to be robust against appeal anyway.
How are you going to get the necessary 0.5 mm of amplitude from a piezo element ??
It seems you would have to leverage it up with a lever ratio of at least 5.
In any case, the piezo will draw very little current. I'll check on our power supplies in a few hours when I hit work. We use piezos for somatosensory stimulators (at about 100 microns of amplitude).
One other thing - I just downloaded the latest linux nightly build, and it really flies compared to earlier builds (I'm posting form it right now...), and renders 200+ comment slashdot in nested mode in a fraction of a second...
/. loads.
You are right, this thing totally rips now. It is like a turbocharged browser. I like it a LOT. They also fixed the annoying one-back URL bar problem, and the X cut-and-paste, and SFGate front page renders properly...
This seems like things are finally cooking. I really can't believe how fast
But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities? For example, what would have happened if Andover hadn't replied to Microsoft's letter? Were they obligated to under law? And similarly, is Microsoft required to respond in kind?
/. Such irrelevant questions would include
Copyright violations are civil matters in which damages can be awarded. Both parties have an obligation to try to resolve the matter amongst themselves before heading for a courtroom. Failure to do so will not be taken lightly by the judge.
The issues here, though, relate to damages. If it is considered a trade secret, how does exposure of the secret damage the value of the protocol more than it would be damaged without the exposure of the secret? The answer is clearly none since the secret was posted on the Internet.
How does posting the copyrighted material devalue the copyright or the reputation of the author ? The answer, once again, is not at all. This copyright was free.
Since there are no damages, the copyright issue is substantially weakened. Basically, I don't think M$ has a prayer.
For some reason, people seem to think that you can never post copyrighted material without permission. However, you can. It is called fair use .
That being said, I don't think Microsoft has any reason to answer questions unrelated to trade secret exposure or copyright violation and damages. Those questions are sort of included to improve the public's perception of
1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?
2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?
7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?
8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?
Whether or not it makes any -sense- for Microsoft to do what it is doing, does it not still have the legal -right- if not a legal obligation to protect its copyrights, or face an inability to enforce its position at a later date?
/.'s attorney chooses to focus on the market for the protocol, not the market for the document itself. This relates to the issue of the document being a trade secret.
With respect to copyright, there are a few critical issues. Fair use dictates what rights the consumer, in this case anyone who downloaded the specs, has. Part of fair use dictates that due consideration be given to
1) potential impact on the market of the copyright
2) potential impact on the reputation of the author.
Now, in this case,
However, no one violated any binding trade secret agreements to reproduce the document. Let's not forget, this document was freely distributed worldwide by Microsoft.
There are no issues with respect to copyright value (it is free as in beer) or reputation of the authors.
Other aspects of fair use involve the portion of the copyright used, and the commercial or non-profit use of the copyright. All of it was used, with no money being made by anyone.
But the attorney does, in a sense, get to the point by asking about potential damages. The real threat is that Microsoft could sue over damages. But it is hard to imagine that any damages exist. So it could be a legal argument like
Well, you are technically correct, but enforcement of legal copyright only allows damages, which would be rated at exactly zero dollars, so go home and think about all the publicity we will be able to pump out of this while you think about suing us for zero dollars and wasting the courts time (judges really like that, you know).
blakestah wrote:
If federally funded grants had all their intellectual property public domain, then ALL of the monetary incentive for invention with federal funds would be gone.
For some reason, that doesn't parse well. What you're saying is that there is NO monetary incentive in being given large amounts of money by the government.
No, you are reading it too generally. I stated specifically that incentive for INVENTION would be gone. There is plenty of incentive for research without invention. But it has been my experience that inventions often just come about without much warning as a result of insight in an experiment. Would you rather create incentive for me to bury that insight until the granting period is over ?? Or take that insight outside the laboratory ?? To do so would likely compromise the entire purpose of the grant. There is no reason anyone would ever disclose an invention under a grant if they knew the invention would be public domain. Heck, it wouldn't even be worth the effort to write the patent - which in itself is not trivial.
Intellectual property in the form of patents is due only to the INVENTOR. You get no credit for funding an experiment, although you MAY get preferred licensing. You cannot BUY invention. In corporations the patents are ALWAYS owned by the inventors, although once again the facilities providers will take control of licensing.
That is a large part of the reason that government grants allow the patents of inventions disclosed as a result of grants. The contribution to society of the grant will be diminished if the government seeks to control the intellectual property. Universities will not allow grants with restrictions on patent licensing.
You touch on other issues as to what is and is not patentable wrt the genome, issues that I did not address. I merely addressed the issue that government funded grants should have their intellectual property be public domain. Were that the case, they would not have any intellectual property. And in that scenario everyone would lose.
First off, the incentive for professors (and Universities) to engage in basic research has not always been, and need not be, to gain patents. Successful reseach == academic prestige for both the researcher and the Unioveristy. This pays off in many ways (in the professor's case, in how much he or she can command in salery.)
My point was not that academia was uninterested in such grants, but rather that universities will not allow grants which maintain a stipulation that intellectual property belongs to the patent granting agency.
Also, from the NIH web page
2. WHAT IS THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
The Bayh-Dole Act encourages researchers to patent and market their inventions by guaranteeing patent rights. This Act automatically grants first rights to a patent for an invention fully or partially funded by a Federal agency to the awardee organization. To obtain these benefits, however, the inventor and the organization have several reporting requirements that protect the rights of the Government.
------------------
There is more at NIH, but the bottom line is that as long as you are up front with them, you retain ALL rights to your intellectual property. You can note that this holds for individuals and small businesses that are awarded grants, but not for larger corporations. And being up front with them is pretty important (you basically fill out a form that discloses the patent filing to them).