I agree, 2.7.2 had so many problems, mostly when using the STL. I have some (legal) code for which even egcs 1.1.2 chokes at some places. However, I haven't been able to find a fault (so far) in 2.95.2, except that the fact the standard library isn't complete yet (like the missing stringstream class). Aside from that, I would quialify it as one of the most ANSI C++ compliant compilers around (at least, it's better than HP's ANSI C++ compiler!).
Basically, it depends which side you see. Probably good for the US, but bad for Canada and some other countries. Canada (I can't say for others) loses lots of highly skilled guys to the US. It's otfen not that much the numbers, but the fact that it's often the best ones. They get offered a better salary (usually 50% to 100% higher if you count the exchange rate), and leave. I don't think I'd be willing to move, even for twice the salary, but unfortunatly not everybody thinks the same.
I'm sorry, but mailing yourself something can be useful in case of a copyright issue, but not for patents. I someone copies word-for-word something you wrote, then showing the envelope *proves* that you were the first to write that and that the only way the other guy got that word-for-word is by copying your work.
It doesn't work the same for patents, since many people can come up with the same idea at once, without copying each other. When two companies work on the same idea at the same time, the one that gets the patent is the first one to submit, not the first one who started working on it (even if they can prove it).
Publications however, can be considered as prior art, and that's why IBM (I think) publishes a journal just for ideas they don't want to patent, so that others can't patent either. If auto-mailing worked, they wouldn't bother publishing that.
The problem is that most users only run one (active) application at a time. Because most of these applications are not threaded (ever seen an SMP version of Word?) you still end up using only one CPU. Sure, I'd know how to make full use of even a 4-CPU box, but most people wouldn't use more than one CPU....Also add to that the current price of the dual boards, which makes buying a faster CPU still cheaper that 2 slower ones.
It's not that much about an article being posted with your name... It's to see that today's "late breaking news" is something you've submitted a month ago and that was rejected... The posting of stories just looks totally incoherent sometimes.
it's been said over and over again, but if the music is able to get to the listener's ear, the user is able to copy it.
You've just found it... the next generation for secure digital music will get around this by preventing the user from hearing the music. Also, an RIAA representative has been quoted: "We are taking legal action against speaker manufacturers because there product it used for the sole purpous of allowing the consumers to hear music, which circumvents ou secure digital format, hence speakers are illegal under the DMCA."
The SB Live! card (and probably others) has a digital mixer that allows you to "peak" at the digital output before it is converted to analog. That way, you get the real digital output. At least you get a wav this way and can always convert it to MP3, for which decoders can play watermarked songs.
...and there goes the ID. The CPU ID had a chance to work, since it was unsing an actual instruction, bypassing the OS (well, I think, don't flame me). However, this hard drive ID has no chance of success. It will need to ask the OS about the ID of the drive. There's nothing that prevents the OS of always answering the same ID for everybody... and there goes the system. Under Linux, it's quite easy to bybass... you just don't implement the system. Under windows... I'm pretty sure some people will come up with modified disk drivers..
I think this move is more meant to look like they're doing something to prevent copyright violations. And if the MPAA believed there CSS was secure, they'll probably believe the hard disk ID will be too!
Well, unless I missed something, you can only use FlaskMPEG to copy non-encrypted DVD's. So if your DVD is CSS-encrypted, you need both FlaskMPEG *and* DeCSS to copy it to a CD-ROM. You cannot do that alone with FlaskMPEG (unless the DVD isn't encrypted).
I think it could become dangerous for the MPAA to oppose to FlaskMPEG for the following reason. DeCSS violates the DMCA (I don't agree with the DMCA at all, but that's another point) by circumventing a copy protection mecanism. However, FlaskMPEG doesn't violate any copy-protection mecanism. The DVD format is supposed to be free, so anyone can encode (non-encrypted) DVD's. For the MPAA to claim than (non-encrypted) DVD copying is illegal, they have to show that they're the only ones who make DVD's. If they manage to prove that, they just proved that they are a monopole... with all the implications...
This may be bad for the DeCSS legal case, but if FlaskMPEG is modified to recieve a DeCSS plugin, it may well make the legal case irrelevent... You legally get FlaskMPEG and then simply download DeCSS from a country where it is legal and you can view your DVD's.
The authors of FlasKMPEG have come across a program called 'FlasKMPEG DeCSS'.
We want to express very clearly that such program or any other derived from the original is no way related with the official 'FlasKMPEG' project in any way. FlasKMPEG sources are available under the GPL license and it's totally out of our responsibility the legal implications caused by the modifications or variations from other developers performed over our code. The original FlasKMPEG can't and won't read files from encrypted DVDs, and even then, copyrighted material should not be processed with FlasKMPEG.
If you open up the criteria such that *everyone* exploits the criteria, then there is no discrimination. When the criteria is closed, only those who have found the exploits can get increased exposure, making it inherently unfair.
You seem to forget that the idea of search engine result scoring/ranking is not about being fair to all sites, it's about returning the best result possible.
If you open the criteria, the sites that make money from ads will all use them (the result is going to be "fair" between those sites), but the problem is that the not-for-profit websites (which are much more common) won't chenge their page just to get more hit (they don't care). The result is that, though it ends up being fair to all the commercial sites, but as a user, you're less likely to find what you're looking for... which is the point of using a search engine.
If you just want to be fair, have the search engine return a random URL. Now *that* would be fair!
I think the many-eyeball argument doesn't apply here, because the it's not about finding bugs in the rules, but preventing cheating. When a site decides to "cheat", it doesn't exploit a bug. The scoring system is not like a kernel, where you know exactly what should happen, it a (generally) complex AI system. These systems are designed so that they work well enough in 95% (or 80%, this is not the point) of the time. There're going to miss a couple percent, but what else can you do. Now if you have access to the rule, you can make sure your site uses the 5% errors to go on top of the list. Unless someone thinks he can have 100% accuracy (how do you measure accuracy anyway!), the scoring rules shouldn't be released.
There's more to this, lying under oath is illegal, so if you tell the company that you don't agree with what they want to sign and they still want you to sign it, they are pressuring you into doing something illegal. This is illegal too. Also, it is said by the law that any contract involving illegal activities (like lying under oath) is void. You could then argue that as soon as they want to "force" you to sign something you don't agree with, they are voiding the contract they have with you. Then again, IANAL!
What if I write an open-source version of CSS (not DeCSS). Now let's say we decide to adopt CSS as the official movie format for the OSS community. Nobody's (even the MPAA) can say CSS is illegal, since it doesn't circumvent anything.
Now you have two organizations using the same format (encoder). Why should only one of them be allowed to license the decoder? DeCSS would simply be a OSS-movie-format decoder (with the side effect of decoding MPAA movies).
It's like a variant of the gool ol' "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Well, how does that "someone" gets your card number in the first place? The idea of the system is that you never transmit this new card number in clear.
There's another weakness, though and here's the fix: the merchant's (public) key needs to be signed by Am Ex, so that a merchant can't send you a dummy public key for which it has the private key and decrypt your number. I can't find other weaknesses for now...
Just wanted to clarify a bit on my post. I don't agree with him on everything, like the useless GNU/Linux issue. What I want to say is "Give him a break when it comes to license stuff". I think he's one of the most qualify in the OSS community to talk about that. Of course, ESR and Bruce Perens also comes to mind... I wonder what they have to say about that. Anyway, the good thing is: I think this sage is nearing the end.
OK, some may find that RMS is a bit zealous about licenses... but how much do YOU know about all the legal stuff involved in mixing licenses? I say he's taking the right approch: to be paranoid with the GPL. How many scream when a vendor ships a (free as in beer) modified version of Linux with its hardware? If the "OSS community" (I'm assuming it's a united organization, though I know it is not) is to stand up against GPL violations, it should first make sure that it doesn't violate the GPL itself in any way. That includes the KDE/Qt stuff.
Now it's been argued that his last editorial is absurd. Here's what I have to say: RMS has probably a lot more legal background than most people at KDE and on Slashdot (including me). Unless you are a lawyer specialized in Copyrights, just shut up and give him a break!
He's been trying to defend Free Software (for better or worse) for much longer that anyone else and he's trying to prevent bad things from happenning not in the short (1-2 years) term, but the long (10-15 years) term.
At last, remember (and this is not RMS-specific) that if it was only about KDE developpers (ie no one else complaining), Qt probably wouldn't even have been released with the QPL (much less the GPL) and that would have been real bad. I know that the KDE developpers just want to code and don't want to bother with licensing issues, but some things have to be done. Since the KDE people didn't bother clearing up the Qt licensing issue, people from the outside took care of that, with the results (wars) we know.
He addeed: "Furthermore, our internal studies have clearly shown that people remembering they have seen a show are much less likely to watch it again then those who haven't seen it. The result is a big loss of revenue for the MPAA members. This new habit of remembering shows to stop watching it again must not be tolerated."
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, 2.7.2 had so many problems, mostly when using the STL. I have some (legal) code for which even egcs 1.1.2 chokes at some places. However, I haven't been able to find a fault (so far) in 2.95.2, except that the fact the standard library isn't complete yet (like the missing stringstream class). Aside from that, I would quialify it as one of the most ANSI C++ compliant compilers around (at least, it's better than HP's ANSI C++ compiler!).
Basically, it depends which side you see. Probably good for the US, but bad for Canada and some other countries. Canada (I can't say for others) loses lots of highly skilled guys to the US. It's otfen not that much the numbers, but the fact that it's often the best ones. They get offered a better salary (usually 50% to 100% higher if you count the exchange rate), and leave. I don't think I'd be willing to move, even for twice the salary, but unfortunatly not everybody thinks the same.
I'm sorry, but mailing yourself something can be useful in case of a copyright issue, but not for patents. I someone copies word-for-word something you wrote, then showing the envelope *proves* that you were the first to write that and that the only way the other guy got that word-for-word is by copying your work.
It doesn't work the same for patents, since many people can come up with the same idea at once, without copying each other. When two companies work on the same idea at the same time, the one that gets the patent is the first one to submit, not the first one who started working on it (even if they can prove it).
Publications however, can be considered as prior art, and that's why IBM (I think) publishes a journal just for ideas they don't want to patent, so that others can't patent either. If auto-mailing worked, they wouldn't bother publishing that.
The problem is that most users only run one (active) application at a time. Because most of these applications are not threaded (ever seen an SMP version of Word?) you still end up using only one CPU. Sure, I'd know how to make full use of even a 4-CPU box, but most people wouldn't use more than one CPU. ...Also add to that the current price of the dual boards, which makes buying a faster CPU still cheaper that 2 slower ones.
I'm sorry, it's a queue, not a stack, but thanks for playing.
I really doubt the articles are processed in the order they arrived. It looks more like a FIMO (First In Maybe Out) to me.
It's not that much about an article being posted with your name... It's to see that today's "late breaking news" is something you've submitted a month ago and that was rejected... The posting of stories just looks totally incoherent sometimes.
Slashdot article selection:
while (articles_left())
{
article art = get_article_somewhere_in_the_stack();
if (about(art, "microsoft"))
accept(article);
else if (about(art, "big corporation") && (rand()%2 == 0))
accept(art);
else if (rand % 10 == 0)
accept(art);
else
reject(art);
}
it's been said over and over again, but if the music is able to get to the listener's ear, the user is able to copy it.
You've just found it... the next generation for secure digital music will get around this by preventing the user from hearing the music. Also, an RIAA representative has been quoted: "We are taking legal action against speaker manufacturers because there product it used for the sole purpous of allowing the consumers to hear music, which circumvents ou secure digital format, hence speakers are illegal under the DMCA."
The SB Live! card (and probably others) has a digital mixer that allows you to "peak" at the digital output before it is converted to analog. That way, you get the real digital output. At least you get a wav this way and can always convert it to MP3, for which decoders can play watermarked songs.
...and there goes the ID. The CPU ID had a chance to work, since it was unsing an actual instruction, bypassing the OS (well, I think, don't flame me). However, this hard drive ID has no chance of success. It will need to ask the OS about the ID of the drive. There's nothing that prevents the OS of always answering the same ID for everybody... and there goes the system. Under Linux, it's quite easy to bybass... you just don't implement the system. Under windows... I'm pretty sure some people will come up with modified disk drivers..
I think this move is more meant to look like they're doing something to prevent copyright violations. And if the MPAA believed there CSS was secure, they'll probably believe the hard disk ID will be too!
Well, unless I missed something, you can only use FlaskMPEG to copy non-encrypted DVD's. So if your DVD is CSS-encrypted, you need both FlaskMPEG *and* DeCSS to copy it to a CD-ROM. You cannot do that alone with FlaskMPEG (unless the DVD isn't encrypted).
I think it could become dangerous for the MPAA to oppose to FlaskMPEG for the following reason. DeCSS violates the DMCA (I don't agree with the DMCA at all, but that's another point) by circumventing a copy protection mecanism. However, FlaskMPEG doesn't violate any copy-protection mecanism. The DVD format is supposed to be free, so anyone can encode (non-encrypted) DVD's. For the MPAA to claim than (non-encrypted) DVD copying is illegal, they have to show that they're the only ones who make DVD's. If they manage to prove that, they just proved that they are a monopole... with all the implications...
This may be bad for the DeCSS legal case, but if FlaskMPEG is modified to recieve a DeCSS plugin, it may well make the legal case irrelevent... You legally get FlaskMPEG and then simply download DeCSS from a country where it is legal and you can view your DVD's.
from the FlaskMPEG home page:
The authors of FlasKMPEG have come across a program called 'FlasKMPEG DeCSS'.
We want to express very clearly that such program or any other derived from the original is no way related with the official 'FlasKMPEG' project in any way. FlasKMPEG sources are available under the GPL license and it's totally out of our responsibility the legal implications caused by the modifications or variations from other developers performed over our code. The original FlasKMPEG can't and won't read files from encrypted DVDs, and even then, copyrighted material should not be processed with FlasKMPEG.
This was *not* meant to be funny. It it really is, then I guess I deserve a "-1 Funny". Or maybe it's just another case of a moderator on crack...
If you open up the criteria such that *everyone* exploits the criteria, then there is no discrimination. When the criteria is closed, only those who have found the exploits can get increased exposure, making it inherently unfair.
You seem to forget that the idea of search engine result scoring/ranking is not about being fair to all sites, it's about returning the best result possible.
If you open the criteria, the sites that make money from ads will all use them (the result is going to be "fair" between those sites), but the problem is that the not-for-profit websites (which are much more common) won't chenge their page just to get more hit (they don't care). The result is that, though it ends up being fair to all the commercial sites, but as a user, you're less likely to find what you're looking for... which is the point of using a search engine.
If you just want to be fair, have the search engine return a random URL. Now *that* would be fair!
I think the many-eyeball argument doesn't apply here, because the it's not about finding bugs in the rules, but preventing cheating. When a site decides to "cheat", it doesn't exploit a bug. The scoring system is not like a kernel, where you know exactly what should happen, it a (generally) complex AI system. These systems are designed so that they work well enough in 95% (or 80%, this is not the point) of the time. There're going to miss a couple percent, but what else can you do. Now if you have access to the rule, you can make sure your site uses the 5% errors to go on top of the list. Unless someone thinks he can have 100% accuracy (how do you measure accuracy anyway!), the scoring rules shouldn't be released.
There's more to this, lying under oath is illegal, so if you tell the company that you don't agree with what they want to sign and they still want you to sign it, they are pressuring you into doing something illegal. This is illegal too. Also, it is said by the law that any contract involving illegal activities (like lying under oath) is void. You could then argue that as soon as they want to "force" you to sign something you don't agree with, they are voiding the contract they have with you. Then again, IANAL!
What if I write an open-source version of CSS (not DeCSS). Now let's say we decide to adopt CSS as the official movie format for the OSS community. Nobody's (even the MPAA) can say CSS is illegal, since it doesn't circumvent anything.
Now you have two organizations using the same format (encoder). Why should only one of them be allowed to license the decoder? DeCSS would simply be a OSS-movie-format decoder (with the side effect of decoding MPAA movies).
It's like a variant of the gool ol' "embrace, extend, extinguish".
...and I'm talking about cryptological permanant credit card numbers that cannot get compromised
Someone else encrypts your card number...
Well, how does that "someone" gets your card number in the first place? The idea of the system is that you never transmit this new card number in clear.
There's another weakness, though and here's the fix: the merchant's (public) key needs to be signed by Am Ex, so that a merchant can't send you a dummy public key for which it has the private key and decrypt your number. I can't find other weaknesses for now...
cryptological credit card number!
Here's the process...
1) Am Ex holds special private keys for all merchants (the merchant only has the public key).
2) I encrypt my card number, as well as the amount of money using the merchant's public key and send that to the merchant.
3) The merchant sends the message (he cannot decrypt it) to Am Ex.
4) Am Ex, decrypts is with the merchant's public key (if somebody else had intercepted, it wouldn't be encrypted with the right key).
5) Am Ex pays the merchant the right amount from the right credit card.
Looks safe (to me), though IANACS (I am not a cryptography specialist)
Just wanted to clarify a bit on my post. I don't agree with him on everything, like the useless GNU/Linux issue. What I want to say is "Give him a break when it comes to license stuff". I think he's one of the most qualify in the OSS community to talk about that. Of course, ESR and Bruce Perens also comes to mind... I wonder what they have to say about that. Anyway, the good thing is: I think this sage is nearing the end.
OK, some may find that RMS is a bit zealous about licenses... but how much do YOU know about all the legal stuff involved in mixing licenses? I say he's taking the right approch: to be paranoid with the GPL. How many scream when a vendor ships a (free as in beer) modified version of Linux with its hardware? If the "OSS community" (I'm assuming it's a united organization, though I know it is not) is to stand up against GPL violations, it should first make sure that it doesn't violate the GPL itself in any way. That includes the KDE/Qt stuff.
Now it's been argued that his last editorial is absurd. Here's what I have to say: RMS has probably a lot more legal background than most people at KDE and on Slashdot (including me). Unless you are a lawyer specialized in Copyrights, just shut up and give him a break!
He's been trying to defend Free Software (for better or worse) for much longer that anyone else and he's trying to prevent bad things from happenning not in the short (1-2 years) term, but the long (10-15 years) term.
At last, remember (and this is not RMS-specific) that if it was only about KDE developpers (ie no one else complaining), Qt probably wouldn't even have been released with the QPL (much less the GPL) and that would have been real bad. I know that the KDE developpers just want to code and don't want to bother with licensing issues, but some things have to be done. Since the KDE people didn't bother clearing up the Qt licensing issue, people from the outside took care of that, with the results (wars) we know.
He addeed: "Furthermore, our internal studies have clearly shown that people remembering they have seen a show are much less likely to watch it again then those who haven't seen it. The result is a big loss of revenue for the MPAA members. This new habit of remembering shows to stop watching it again must not be tolerated."