This would perhaps be the case if there were only one copy of the code (as in, say a proprietary system where they locked the code down tight).
However, everyone can have copies of the code. Let's see the 'russian hacker' modify every copy of the source everywhere in the world. Neat trick if you can do it...
As for introducing duff code in the main source tree.. Well, there are thousands of other coders building the tree all the time. As soon as it's introduced, the error is notified, and the amendments rolled back to the previous working source.
Then go for it.
Many years ago, I made the decision to go solo, when I looked at all the decisions made by people I considered to be fools.
This was actually in a partnership that a group of friends of mine set up. However, certain of the members turned out to be the show only for the glamour of part ownership of a company, or to try and get contacts in the masons etc.
In other words, the power players, with no real sense of what was going on. The decisions they made were pretty ludicrous, and stopped the rest of us performing as we should.
One day, I decided I'd had enough, and simply walked away from the mess and went and formed a small company, with a ready client base of people who I'd done work for from time to time, and a ready supply of help from my previous colleagues who were also disenchanted with the way things were going.
If you're already in a consulting job, and know the market well, then it should be pretty easy for you to form your own show.
Initially, if you choose to follow this route, cash will be a little tight. Make sure you have a buffer zone that you'll need to rely on, until the invoices you make are paid.
However, if you have enough clients, things soon build, and you can then pull your present colleagues into the new venture at your leisure, if they feel it would be a better place to work.
It worked for me for quite a long time (though I eventually succumbed to temptation to work full time for a startup internet business, with a very good all round offer), and I still have my company going strong in the background.
And from time to time, I still work with the colleagues of mine that helped me start my own company, under it's banner, on some project or another that we feel we can take on at the time.
Whether this is an option for you or not is entirely up to you. But don't believe you have to be a superman to form your own company. You don't.. It's pretty easy, but just takes a lot of hard work.
From the sound of your post, you're not afraid of that, so, perhaps you should give it thought.
Anyhow, that's just an idea, amongst many here.:)
The agreement states that it's only mp3 format files they object to.
Zipping that changes the actual format of the file to a zip format file (regardless of extension).
This, then, is apparently perfectly ok to serve from the ISP.
To me, this whole exercise by the ISP is futile. Yes, they make their stand against piracy, but, it's an ultimately futile one.
Deleting people's data is a no-no. Especially on an extension of a file. Can this ISP guarantee that no other application for any operating system anywhere in world does not use.mp3 for any other type of data?
If they delete a very important file (non mp3-encoded) which just happens to have that extension, for whatever reason, then they could feasibly open themselves up for a big lawsuit.
As was mentioned in a post above, there is almost no way to guarantee whether the file is MP3 format without actually reading it, and doing a verification of format. Expensive on time.
The best way is really to auto-mail the account holder with warnings that their account may be revoked unless they either remove the files, or explain why they should be given dispensation for having the files there.
This seems fairer, and would make pirates very uncomfortable about using this as an ISP, while balancing things for legitimate use.
Well, considering that Akamai uses a little intelligence in it's cacheing algorithms, I'd assume that doing a direct link to the file can break the cache, effectively preventing it from distributing the load (as it's designed to do).
Thus, doing a direct link actually screws up the net a little for everyone, or at least prevents it working in the way it's designed.
Note, it was a REQUEST.
As far as I can see,/. received a sensible request (please, use the original link, so that the files can be cached correctly and make things better for everyone), and did the sensible thing (they modified the posted link, to exactly the same content, so that it worked, and didn't break anything, like the hard link could have).
I'm sorry, but I consider posting hard links to the akamai cache, especially after what seems a reasonable request rather than a legal vulture stomping session, is akin to 'polishing' a car with a sledgehammer with a cloth wrapped around the head, using repeated full swings, and justifying it saying 'it gives a deeper shine'...
Akamai's there for a good reason, and it works.. Please, don't go breaking it just for the sake of sheer bloody mindedness.
It's always nice to see an open letter, and even nice to see that Red Hat are actually watching the flow of conversation on Slashdot.
When something goes wrong, it's so usual for someone to sit around and say 'not my fault', that it's nice for someone to sit down and honestly say 'We may have made a mistake, perhaps.. But we made decisions we believed to be right, and you're quite at liberty to disagree..', and actually take the time to read the arguments against, and weigh them up.
I guess there's no progression without controversy and dissent over the paths to follow, and somebody has to spark controversy.
Maybe I speak just for myself, maybe for many, but thanks Bob, for paying attention to what we have to say, and for letting us know that you are, indeed listening to our many voices.
Well, I'm a Red Hat user of old, and quite comfortable with the general quality and support provided.
However, I've abstained from buying RH 7, due to the massive problems they seem to have with this release. Far more than I remember in the 5.0 release and 6.0 release.
I'm using Debian at work, and becoming more and more enamoured of it's stability and ease of upgrade.
I was under the impression that the RawHide system of pre-release was meant to cure this kind of screwup.. This also dents my faith in that preconception.
The errors in the update agent are unforgivable though. With any release that's as shaky as a x.0 release from RH, they at least need update stable.
C'mon RH. Get your act together before you really lose your credibility.
Mechanism for the self perpetuation of Biological Database nodes
Due to the fragile nature of biological informational nodes, a process is necessary to ensure that data contained within nodes is not permanently lost.
To ensure continuity of data, more nodes are required before the denaturing of the original data carriers, and the data replicated onwards to the new nodes, such that distributed data storage forms a reliable method of ensuring that stored data is not lost, and, if necessary, more new nodes may be spawned to ensure the capacity of the database may expand to support all required data
This patent covers the use of low frequency vibrational movement to induce an exothermic reaction between two biological informational nodes in such a way that information exchange occurs necessary to initiate the creation of one or more new biological nodes with basic operating systems necessary to receive further data from existing data nodes suficient to maintain integrity of the overall system.
Mechanism for the self perpetuation of Biological Database nodes
Due to the fragile nature of biological informational nodes, a process is necessary to ensure that data contained within nodes is not permanently lost.
To ensure continuity of data, more nodes are required before the denaturing of the original data carriers, and the data replicated onwards to the new nodes, such that distributed data storage forms a reliable method of ensuring that stored data is not lost, and, if necessary, more new nodes may be spawned to ensure the capacity of the database may expand to support all required data
This patent covers the use of low frequency vibrational movement to induce an exothermic reaction between two biological informational nodes in such a way that information exchange occurs necessary to initiate the creation of one or more new biological nodes with basic operating systems necessary to receive further data from existing data nodes suficient to maintain integrity of the overall system.
Ok, I just read the thread from the last person who mentioned the Data Protection Act in the UK.
They got pretty well mobbed by a load of "We're free because if everyone didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't. You just have a repressive government." voices.
Well, a little bit of info.
The Data Protection Act doesn't stop a company from keeping records on you. It doesn't restrict the freedom of a company any way at all.
I should know, as I run a small company, and the Data Protection Act applies to me quite heavily.
Data that I hold must be available for a customer's perusal, should they so wish to see what information I hold about them. They must be told what kind of information I hold about them, and what uses I intend to put it to.
If I abuse the data about them, they have every right to request that they be removed from my database, or I risk being taken to court for abusing their rights to privacy and use of their information.
This, then, is no Governmental heavy handedness. In nearly all cases, the Government can't step in and wield this law and wave it about in your face to stymie a company.
It's about protecting each individual, and maintaining the rights of each person.
The methods mentioned in other threads (move everyone to a different provider) are frought with problems.
I don't know offhand if the radios are compatible across brands.. If they aren't, then there's a significant writeoff from starting from scratch.
If they are, then what about the end users who are comfortable with a brand they know, and feel safe with?
Overcoming this requires a huge section of the population to interrupt their day to day workings, which are more than complex enough, and deal with these new issues too.
If all big providers played this game, then, there would be more decisions to be made than there was time for a small company to consider them properly, thus stymying the company effectively.
I'll happily agree that an awful lot of laws out there are just pure crap. They're there to make lawyers rich, and do stomp all over common sense.
However, please don't knock a common sense law that actually does a lot of good when it appears!
Now, back to work for me after that little rant.
My current GF loves these games as much as any guy I've met..:)
So do a lot of women...
I think, if you look at the amount of time spent behind a keyboard by gender division, you'd find the amount of games purchasers/players are consistent with the PC home users figures.
I read the blurb on Inferno with a great amount of joy.
A freely downloadable OS that seemed to be focussing on the lacks of all the OSs it ran upon. A nice little tool if ever I saw one, and one that I'd greatly love to try.
Then I read the licence. You may not:2.6 use the "Inferno®", "Styx®", "Dis®" and "Limbo®" trade marks without the following trade mark notice - "Inferno®,Styx® , Dis® and Limbo® are the registered trade marks of Vita Nuova Holdings Limited". YOU may only use these trademark as permitted by and in strict compliance at all times with VITA NUOVA's third party trade mark usage guidelines which are posted at www.vitanuova.com/trademark.htm.
2.7 use the "Inferno®", "Styx®", "Dis®" and "Limbo®" trade marks other than in relation to the LICENSED SOFTWARE and/or ADAPTATIONS of the LICENSED SOFTWARE.
Well, for starters, the trademark.htm URL doesn't exist, so there is no guideline for use of these 'trademarks'.
What is a classicist to do then? "I'm sorry, you can't have your lecture on Greek mythology, as all the names are currently trademarked..".
Looking at some of the names that go alongside this project, I'm much more inclined to believe they've just got the company lawyers to stamp out a quick default boilerplate, but, in the current times of acquisitions of companies by larger, predatory ones, this boilerplate could be a huge pain in the butt if someone decided to try and enforce it as stands.
Hey, I'll just go out and trademark the word 'Binary'... That'll really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Well, that's about it for the rant.. Not yet checked the software, 'cos I don't agree to it's licence (I don't agree not to use all those trademarks, unless using them in context to the inferno OS)..
Wake up guys, and be sensible with your trademarking!!!
Oh my god..
I can picture it now... The roads full of geeks cars, and the building overflowing with/. readers...
Hopefully though, the building won't collapse under the load.
As far as I can make out, the difference in the patent and the RFC seems to me to be that the patent specifies that the packets are filtered by a security algorithm, where the RFC states that it has no security algorithm.
The patent then, only applies to a version of NAT that uses an adaptive security algorithm.
Anything less than this would definately hit the prior art. And it's quite likely that even this will hit the prior art bin too.
From the Patent:
Packets arriving from the Internet are screened by an adaptive security algorithm
From the RFC:
Unfortunately, NAT reduces the number of options for providing security. With NAT, nothing that carries an IP address or information derived from an IP address (such as the TCP-header checksum) can be encrypted. While most application-level encryption should be ok, this prevents encryption of the TCP header.
Seems that DC have a real issue with things. Like coherent thought.
Now, if someone were to pull apart a cat, and build one and market it to emulate the original, yes, that'd be infringement.
However, their encryption isn't of their own devising, so, no real reverse engineering there. Just application of existing algorithms.
Data generated from the cat isn't Intellectual Property at all.. Merely generated statistics.
Ok, I understand their stance that it'll affect their revenue stream by hijacking the cat, and using it for things it was never intended.
Still, what percentage of their market will persue this track? If they've done their marketing correctly, an absolutely minimal amount. And some of those may still use it for it's intended purpose.
Basically, if someone doesn't want their device pulled apart, and reverse engineered, don't throw it mainly at the tinkerers market segment.
It's like putting your hand in a tank of hungry pirhanas, and expecting them to ignore it.
In just about every venture, there's the concept of 'acceptible losses'.
As DC don't seem to be tying the whole thing down, and chasing it carefully, I think they just hit the kneejerk 'Call in the legal vultures, and the world will conform', and ignored it.
Not the kind of behaviour of a company really worried about the release of this info.
I'm wondering how long it'll take for Embedded Linux to work it's way onto the robots themselves.
Although they most likely have hand crafted embedded code for maximum responsiveness on the robot at present, there is no reason why another layer can't be added for extensibility. The whole variety or routines provided by a mature kernel would certianly be useful at least in the concept stage. Then the dedicated routines abstracted out to increase performance.
Perhaps the lawyers approved it, perhaps not.
Still, the fact remains that it was a novel idea, and was performed in such a way that it proves that you don't need some guy writing down new laws about something they don't understand in order to come to a workable situation.
I can also pretty much guarantee that this solution was a darn sight cheaper than pulling in a team of legal vultures to fire up a court case.
Ok, looking through some of the comments here, I find people gettin' a tad antsy about the fact that BNL have posted ads, or, files that don't exactly contain what they specified.
Napster isn't just about swapping MP3s for free.. It's about filesharing. Any file. I heard this mentioned quitea lot in the napster defence, and also that of GNUtella.
So, why oh why slate BNL for pointing out that they are, indeed, free to post whatever they want, even if this is just advertising for them.
They are making a legitimate use of services offered for all, in the same way that Napster uses services offered across the internet (connectivity etc).
Personally, I'd far prefer this to the kneejerk 'call in the legal vultures' to sort it out.
I think they've made their statement pretty well out there.. "We'd prefer it if you didn't rip off our music"..
I'm all for that. It's just them exercising their freedom of speech, in a fashion. I'm not about to slate them for that.
The sheer amount of effort going into this project just leaves me thinking "wow"...
After all, this goes back to the original ethic of the Internet, the ability to share things freely, post things around, and generally be pretty laid back about things.
The sad thing about it is that it's become as necessary as it has.. What with the legal vultures leaping onto everything in an attempt to make it theirs, and stopping people doing anything they either don't understand, or don't agree with.
"Sometimes it will make sense to charge for an upgrade,"
Hmm.. I wonder if it's a case of it makes sense to charge for this update, as they have the 'internet kit' that includes this update for 'free'.
This sounds like a bit of a scam that says for $20 you get an update to your OS that gives you a little extra, when, for just a few dollars more, you can have the whole 'internet kit'.
The amount of pressure on people to buy the internet kit is now very heavy if they wish to upgrade their machine at all..
I think this is a case of the beancounters getting a little greedy...
Bad form guys, bad form.
This bit may be a little offtopic, but...
This, articles is definately one to remember..
In a good way, despite the fact that it was erroneous...
Through many of the posts that are from Trolls on here, a common theme is that Slashdot, and all that compose it's bustling community are a bunch of slavering Zealots, who think only to bash anything that isn't of the 'Pro Linux, anti-microsoft, open it all up' view..
While they may get a fair bit of ammo because of the posting of the article in the first place (erroneously), the thing to note is that the most highly rated articles are the ones that actually point out the error and clarify the issue rationally.
Unlike many news agencies and distributors of FUD, the editorial staff (CdrTaco himself) concerned quickly got back, and amended the text to admit that there was a big cockup made.
No quiet removal and brush it under the carpet, and pretend it didn't happen.
Maybe it's something they should read, just so they can see that we still consider ourselves not just 'geeks', but wholly human, thus fallible, but with the guts to stand up and admit the error and face the fire.
Just a thought, thought I'd share...
When will society at large actually get a move on, and stop trying to throw technology at things that should really be dealt with in education/learning.
Really, you should know full well what is inflammatory or not from a lifetime of talking to people, and knowing how they react...
'Twould be a sad day if someday you had to carry round some electronic device to act as your conscience...
This seems like yet another little add on that I, for one will have turned off most of the time..
I don't know whether it's just me, but I find the idea of a 'flame detector' on email weird..
When I write an email, I pretty much think of what I want to write overall, then just fit the words in to say it...
It's much like having a conversation.
Those people who delight in being a little offensive wouldn't give two hoots for this either (except, maybe trying to increase their chilli rating)...
I wish they'd spent more of the time porting the client to Linux/BSD, although, to be fair, it does seem as though they're investing in ideas, no matter how strange, and allowing the user (shock of shocks in this day and age) to disable this functionality if it annoys them.
I'd be terribly saddened to see the great Universities adopting this kind of scheme.. I'd honestly expect them to come up with something better themselves.
However, I don't believe this is aimed at those places (yet). There are far more schools and small colleges with minimal budgets that can't afford a decent computer department.
for thoe places, this kind of deal is a boon all round. Students get access, and the businesses get a cut to keep them happy.
As long as the deals don't tie in 'in-perpetuity' clauses, and allow you to cease the agreement at any time, then, it's a good thing.
The worry is, if it should be a 'tie in' deal with clauses to make it almost impracticable to leave.
It's a good first step to take.
And one thing to remember about trying to hold on to customers.. They have to give what's wanted, and they have to be good...
I think it's a good thing, from what I can see, but, as with all potent tools, the scope for it's misuse is vast, and that would be a serious blow to any academic institution.
Ummm.. No...
Your analogy is somewhat flawed. Your ISP charges you to host your connection to the net, and keep a service going.
If we put it in context, it would be like your ISP saying 'Oh, you've connected up from a different number. We will now charge you another fee for dialling up from this point, as we cannot prove it is you calling.'.
I have no problems paying for what I use, but I seriously have a problem paying twice for the use of one service.
Slashdot Mirror
This would perhaps be the case if there were only one copy of the code (as in, say a proprietary system where they locked the code down tight).
However, everyone can have copies of the code. Let's see the 'russian hacker' modify every copy of the source everywhere in the world. Neat trick if you can do it...
As for introducing duff code in the main source tree.. Well, there are thousands of other coders building the tree all the time. As soon as it's introduced, the error is notified, and the amendments rolled back to the previous working source.
Malk
Then go for it. :)
Many years ago, I made the decision to go solo, when I looked at all the decisions made by people I considered to be fools.
This was actually in a partnership that a group of friends of mine set up. However, certain of the members turned out to be the show only for the glamour of part ownership of a company, or to try and get contacts in the masons etc.
In other words, the power players, with no real sense of what was going on. The decisions they made were pretty ludicrous, and stopped the rest of us performing as we should.
One day, I decided I'd had enough, and simply walked away from the mess and went and formed a small company, with a ready client base of people who I'd done work for from time to time, and a ready supply of help from my previous colleagues who were also disenchanted with the way things were going.
If you're already in a consulting job, and know the market well, then it should be pretty easy for you to form your own show.
Initially, if you choose to follow this route, cash will be a little tight. Make sure you have a buffer zone that you'll need to rely on, until the invoices you make are paid.
However, if you have enough clients, things soon build, and you can then pull your present colleagues into the new venture at your leisure, if they feel it would be a better place to work.
It worked for me for quite a long time (though I eventually succumbed to temptation to work full time for a startup internet business, with a very good all round offer), and I still have my company going strong in the background.
And from time to time, I still work with the colleagues of mine that helped me start my own company, under it's banner, on some project or another that we feel we can take on at the time.
Whether this is an option for you or not is entirely up to you. But don't believe you have to be a superman to form your own company. You don't.. It's pretty easy, but just takes a lot of hard work.
From the sound of your post, you're not afraid of that, so, perhaps you should give it thought.
Anyhow, that's just an idea, amongst many here.
Cheers,
Malk
The agreement states that it's only mp3 format files they object to. .mp3 for any other type of data?
Zipping that changes the actual format of the file to a zip format file (regardless of extension).
This, then, is apparently perfectly ok to serve from the ISP.
To me, this whole exercise by the ISP is futile. Yes, they make their stand against piracy, but, it's an ultimately futile one.
Deleting people's data is a no-no. Especially on an extension of a file. Can this ISP guarantee that no other application for any operating system anywhere in world does not use
If they delete a very important file (non mp3-encoded) which just happens to have that extension, for whatever reason, then they could feasibly open themselves up for a big lawsuit.
As was mentioned in a post above, there is almost no way to guarantee whether the file is MP3 format without actually reading it, and doing a verification of format. Expensive on time.
The best way is really to auto-mail the account holder with warnings that their account may be revoked unless they either remove the files, or explain why they should be given dispensation for having the files there.
This seems fairer, and would make pirates very uncomfortable about using this as an ISP, while balancing things for legitimate use.
Cheers,
Malk
Well, considering that Akamai uses a little intelligence in it's cacheing algorithms, I'd assume that doing a direct link to the file can break the cache, effectively preventing it from distributing the load (as it's designed to do). /. received a sensible request (please, use the original link, so that the files can be cached correctly and make things better for everyone), and did the sensible thing (they modified the posted link, to exactly the same content, so that it worked, and didn't break anything, like the hard link could have).
Thus, doing a direct link actually screws up the net a little for everyone, or at least prevents it working in the way it's designed.
Note, it was a REQUEST.
As far as I can see,
I'm sorry, but I consider posting hard links to the akamai cache, especially after what seems a reasonable request rather than a legal vulture stomping session, is akin to 'polishing' a car with a sledgehammer with a cloth wrapped around the head, using repeated full swings, and justifying it saying 'it gives a deeper shine'...
Akamai's there for a good reason, and it works.. Please, don't go breaking it just for the sake of sheer bloody mindedness.
Malk
It's always nice to see an open letter, and even nice to see that Red Hat are actually watching the flow of conversation on Slashdot.
When something goes wrong, it's so usual for someone to sit around and say 'not my fault', that it's nice for someone to sit down and honestly say 'We may have made a mistake, perhaps.. But we made decisions we believed to be right, and you're quite at liberty to disagree..', and actually take the time to read the arguments against, and weigh them up.
I guess there's no progression without controversy and dissent over the paths to follow, and somebody has to spark controversy.
Maybe I speak just for myself, maybe for many, but thanks Bob, for paying attention to what we have to say, and for letting us know that you are, indeed listening to our many voices.
Cheers,
Malk
Well, I'm a Red Hat user of old, and quite comfortable with the general quality and support provided.
However, I've abstained from buying RH 7, due to the massive problems they seem to have with this release. Far more than I remember in the 5.0 release and 6.0 release.
I'm using Debian at work, and becoming more and more enamoured of it's stability and ease of upgrade.
I was under the impression that the RawHide system of pre-release was meant to cure this kind of screwup.. This also dents my faith in that preconception.
The errors in the update agent are unforgivable though. With any release that's as shaky as a x.0 release from RH, they at least need update stable.
C'mon RH. Get your act together before you really lose your credibility.
Malk.
Due to the fragile nature of biological informational nodes, a process is necessary to ensure that data contained within nodes is not permanently lost.
To ensure continuity of data, more nodes are required before the denaturing of the original data carriers, and the data replicated onwards to the new nodes, such that distributed data storage forms a reliable method of ensuring that stored data is not lost, and, if necessary, more new nodes may be spawned to ensure the capacity of the database may expand to support all required data
This patent covers the use of low frequency vibrational movement to induce an exothermic reaction between two biological informational nodes in such a way that information exchange occurs necessary to initiate the creation of one or more new biological nodes with basic operating systems necessary to receive further data from existing data nodes suficient to maintain integrity of the overall system.
Due to the fragile nature of biological informational nodes, a process is necessary to ensure that data contained within nodes is not permanently lost.
To ensure continuity of data, more nodes are required before the denaturing of the original data carriers, and the data replicated onwards to the new nodes, such that distributed data storage forms a reliable method of ensuring that stored data is not lost, and, if necessary, more new nodes may be spawned to ensure the capacity of the database may expand to support all required data
This patent covers the use of low frequency vibrational movement to induce an exothermic reaction between two biological informational nodes in such a way that information exchange occurs necessary to initiate the creation of one or more new biological nodes with basic operating systems necessary to receive further data from existing data nodes suficient to maintain integrity of the overall system.
Ok, I just read the thread from the last person who mentioned the Data Protection Act in the UK.
They got pretty well mobbed by a load of "We're free because if everyone didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't. You just have a repressive government." voices.
Well, a little bit of info.
The Data Protection Act doesn't stop a company from keeping records on you. It doesn't restrict the freedom of a company any way at all.
I should know, as I run a small company, and the Data Protection Act applies to me quite heavily.
Data that I hold must be available for a customer's perusal, should they so wish to see what information I hold about them. They must be told what kind of information I hold about them, and what uses I intend to put it to.
If I abuse the data about them, they have every right to request that they be removed from my database, or I risk being taken to court for abusing their rights to privacy and use of their information.
This, then, is no Governmental heavy handedness. In nearly all cases, the Government can't step in and wield this law and wave it about in your face to stymie a company.
It's about protecting each individual, and maintaining the rights of each person.
The methods mentioned in other threads (move everyone to a different provider) are frought with problems.
I don't know offhand if the radios are compatible across brands.. If they aren't, then there's a significant writeoff from starting from scratch.
If they are, then what about the end users who are comfortable with a brand they know, and feel safe with?
Overcoming this requires a huge section of the population to interrupt their day to day workings, which are more than complex enough, and deal with these new issues too.
If all big providers played this game, then, there would be more decisions to be made than there was time for a small company to consider them properly, thus stymying the company effectively.
I'll happily agree that an awful lot of laws out there are just pure crap. They're there to make lawyers rich, and do stomp all over common sense.
However, please don't knock a common sense law that actually does a lot of good when it appears!
Now, back to work for me after that little rant.
Malk
My current GF loves these games as much as any guy I've met.. :)
So do a lot of women...
I think, if you look at the amount of time spent behind a keyboard by gender division, you'd find the amount of games purchasers/players are consistent with the PC home users figures.
I read the blurb on Inferno with a great amount of joy. ,Styx® , Dis® and Limbo® are the registered trade marks of Vita Nuova Holdings Limited". YOU may only use these trademark as permitted by and in strict compliance at all times with VITA NUOVA's third party trade mark usage guidelines which are posted at www.vitanuova.com/trademark.htm.
A freely downloadable OS that seemed to be focussing on the lacks of all the OSs it ran upon. A nice little tool if ever I saw one, and one that I'd greatly love to try.
Then I read the licence.
You may not: 2.6 use the "Inferno®", "Styx®", "Dis®" and "Limbo®" trade marks without the following trade mark notice - "Inferno®
2.7 use the "Inferno®", "Styx®", "Dis®" and "Limbo®" trade marks other than in relation to the LICENSED SOFTWARE and/or ADAPTATIONS of the LICENSED SOFTWARE.
Well, for starters, the trademark.htm URL doesn't exist, so there is no guideline for use of these 'trademarks'.
What is a classicist to do then? "I'm sorry, you can't have your lecture on Greek mythology, as all the names are currently trademarked..".
Looking at some of the names that go alongside this project, I'm much more inclined to believe they've just got the company lawyers to stamp out a quick default boilerplate, but, in the current times of acquisitions of companies by larger, predatory ones, this boilerplate could be a huge pain in the butt if someone decided to try and enforce it as stands.
Hey, I'll just go out and trademark the word 'Binary'... That'll really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Well, that's about it for the rant.. Not yet checked the software, 'cos I don't agree to it's licence (I don't agree not to use all those trademarks, unless using them in context to the inferno OS)..
Wake up guys, and be sensible with your trademarking!!!
Malk
I'm assuming MIT has roads round it.. Never been there tho...
Oh my god.. /. readers...
I can picture it now... The roads full of geeks cars, and the building overflowing with
Hopefully though, the building won't collapse under the load.
Malk
As far as I can make out, the difference in the patent and the RFC seems to me to be that the patent specifies that the packets are filtered by a security algorithm, where the RFC states that it has no security algorithm.
The patent then, only applies to a version of NAT that uses an adaptive security algorithm.
Anything less than this would definately hit the prior art. And it's quite likely that even this will hit the prior art bin too.
From the Patent:
Packets arriving from the Internet are screened by an adaptive security algorithm
From the RFC:
Unfortunately, NAT reduces the number of options for providing security. With NAT, nothing that carries an IP address or information derived from an IP address (such as the TCP-header checksum) can be encrypted. While most application-level encryption should be ok, this prevents encryption of the TCP header.
Seems that DC have a real issue with things. Like coherent thought.
Now, if someone were to pull apart a cat, and build one and market it to emulate the original, yes, that'd be infringement.
However, their encryption isn't of their own devising, so, no real reverse engineering there. Just application of existing algorithms.
Data generated from the cat isn't Intellectual Property at all.. Merely generated statistics.
Ok, I understand their stance that it'll affect their revenue stream by hijacking the cat, and using it for things it was never intended.
Still, what percentage of their market will persue this track? If they've done their marketing correctly, an absolutely minimal amount. And some of those may still use it for it's intended purpose.
Basically, if someone doesn't want their device pulled apart, and reverse engineered, don't throw it mainly at the tinkerers market segment.
It's like putting your hand in a tank of hungry pirhanas, and expecting them to ignore it.
In just about every venture, there's the concept of 'acceptible losses'.
As DC don't seem to be tying the whole thing down, and chasing it carefully, I think they just hit the kneejerk 'Call in the legal vultures, and the world will conform', and ignored it.
Not the kind of behaviour of a company really worried about the release of this info.
Malk.
I'm wondering how long it'll take for Embedded Linux to work it's way onto the robots themselves.
Although they most likely have hand crafted embedded code for maximum responsiveness on the robot at present, there is no reason why another layer can't be added for extensibility. The whole variety or routines provided by a mature kernel would certianly be useful at least in the concept stage. Then the dedicated routines abstracted out to increase performance.
Perhaps the lawyers approved it, perhaps not. Still, the fact remains that it was a novel idea, and was performed in such a way that it proves that you don't need some guy writing down new laws about something they don't understand in order to come to a workable situation.
I can also pretty much guarantee that this solution was a darn sight cheaper than pulling in a team of legal vultures to fire up a court case.
Malk.
Ok, looking through some of the comments here, I find people gettin' a tad antsy about the fact that BNL have posted ads, or, files that don't exactly contain what they specified.
Napster isn't just about swapping MP3s for free.. It's about filesharing. Any file. I heard this mentioned quitea lot in the napster defence, and also that of GNUtella.
So, why oh why slate BNL for pointing out that they are, indeed, free to post whatever they want, even if this is just advertising for them.
They are making a legitimate use of services offered for all, in the same way that Napster uses services offered across the internet (connectivity etc).
Personally, I'd far prefer this to the kneejerk 'call in the legal vultures' to sort it out.
I think they've made their statement pretty well out there.. "We'd prefer it if you didn't rip off our music"..
I'm all for that. It's just them exercising their freedom of speech, in a fashion. I'm not about to slate them for that.
Malk
The sheer amount of effort going into this project just leaves me thinking "wow"...
After all, this goes back to the original ethic of the Internet, the ability to share things freely, post things around, and generally be pretty laid back about things.
The sad thing about it is that it's become as necessary as it has.. What with the legal vultures leaping onto everything in an attempt to make it theirs, and stopping people doing anything they either don't understand, or don't agree with.
Malk.
"Sometimes it will make sense to charge for an upgrade,"
Hmm.. I wonder if it's a case of it makes sense to charge for this update, as they have the 'internet kit' that includes this update for 'free'.
This sounds like a bit of a scam that says for $20 you get an update to your OS that gives you a little extra, when, for just a few dollars more, you can have the whole 'internet kit'. The amount of pressure on people to buy the internet kit is now very heavy if they wish to upgrade their machine at all..
I think this is a case of the beancounters getting a little greedy...
Bad form guys, bad form.
Malk.
This bit may be a little offtopic, but... This, articles is definately one to remember.. In a good way, despite the fact that it was erroneous... Through many of the posts that are from Trolls on here, a common theme is that Slashdot, and all that compose it's bustling community are a bunch of slavering Zealots, who think only to bash anything that isn't of the 'Pro Linux, anti-microsoft, open it all up' view.. .
While they may get a fair bit of ammo because of the posting of the article in the first place (erroneously), the thing to note is that the most highly rated articles are the ones that actually point out the error and clarify the issue rationally
Unlike many news agencies and distributors of FUD, the editorial staff (CdrTaco himself) concerned quickly got back, and amended the text to admit that there was a big cockup made.
No quiet removal and brush it under the carpet, and pretend it didn't happen.
Maybe it's something they should read, just so they can see that we still consider ourselves not just 'geeks', but wholly human, thus fallible, but with the guts to stand up and admit the error and face the fire.
Just a thought, thought I'd share...
Malk
When will society at large actually get a move on, and stop trying to throw technology at things that should really be dealt with in education/learning.
Really, you should know full well what is inflammatory or not from a lifetime of talking to people, and knowing how they react...
'Twould be a sad day if someday you had to carry round some electronic device to act as your conscience...
Malk
This seems like yet another little add on that I, for one will have turned off most of the time..
I don't know whether it's just me, but I find the idea of a 'flame detector' on email weird..
When I write an email, I pretty much think of what I want to write overall, then just fit the words in to say it...
It's much like having a conversation.
Those people who delight in being a little offensive wouldn't give two hoots for this either (except, maybe trying to increase their chilli rating)...
I wish they'd spent more of the time porting the client to Linux/BSD, although, to be fair, it does seem as though they're investing in ideas, no matter how strange, and allowing the user (shock of shocks in this day and age) to disable this functionality if it annoys them.
Malk
I'd be terribly saddened to see the great Universities adopting this kind of scheme.. I'd honestly expect them to come up with something better themselves.
However, I don't believe this is aimed at those places (yet). There are far more schools and small colleges with minimal budgets that can't afford a decent computer department.
for thoe places, this kind of deal is a boon all round. Students get access, and the businesses get a cut to keep them happy.
As long as the deals don't tie in 'in-perpetuity' clauses, and allow you to cease the agreement at any time, then, it's a good thing.
The worry is, if it should be a 'tie in' deal with clauses to make it almost impracticable to leave.
It's a good first step to take.
And one thing to remember about trying to hold on to customers.. They have to give what's wanted, and they have to be good...
I think it's a good thing, from what I can see, but, as with all potent tools, the scope for it's misuse is vast, and that would be a serious blow to any academic institution.
Malk
Ummm.. No...
Your analogy is somewhat flawed. Your ISP charges you to host your connection to the net, and keep a service going.
If we put it in context, it would be like your ISP saying 'Oh, you've connected up from a different number. We will now charge you another fee for dialling up from this point, as we cannot prove it is you calling.'.
I have no problems paying for what I use, but I seriously have a problem paying twice for the use of one service.