I was getting so used to licenses including the "one computer install, and allowed one backup" clause that this one took me by surprise!
Seriously, it looks pretty good to me. Of course, IANAL. But I have read my fair share of software licenses (a boring hobby, I know). Only one thing bugs me. It doesn't specify whether code re-use (borrowing code) is allowed or disallowed.
There are no reasons why a spy agency would come out in the open and say "We can't do our job", unless they really could and had an ulterior motive.
It's a game of poker, you want to make your opponents think something that isn't true. Getting funding from the government might be a very good reason, and so might making the opponents think this player is about to go bust!
Is the CC hack mentioned the same one as the famous "backdoor" introduced by Ken Thompson? I tried reading the article, but it didn't make much sense.
In the early versions of Unix, there was a hack in CC so that if someone compiled a kernel, it would insert a backdoor so Ken Thompson could log into any Unix machine! Not only that, but it could also detect if the compiler was compiling itself so it could add the backdoor-producing code into the new compiler. Whew! Now that is some pretty complicated stuff. And oh-so-cool.
Kind of leaves you thinking if there is something like that left in software today...
Quantum encryption is based on the fact that quantum states cannot be measured without altering.
I would like for someone to explain to me what is stopping a potential eavesdropper from listening in to the communication while stopping its continuation, then re-transmitting. Sure, since he measured the signal he distorted it. So what? If he "removes" the signal (think brick wall), and re-transmits the observed data, he would be 100% invisible. Wouldn't he?
However, quantum mechanical events don't just act random they ARE random. To assume otherwise is to invoke some sort of hidden veriable model (the decay of a radioactive isotope is not random but is determined by an incredibly complicated (chaotic?) process we don't understand). This theory was shown to be incompatible with the principle of casuality using the EPR paradox and bells inequaility As a mathematician, I find it disturbing that something can be random. Doesn't chaotic behaviour stem from the fact that small changes in initial conditions cause big changes later? If a particle acts random, it is probably being affected by other particles (read: ALL other particles). From gravity (if it has mass), magnetism (if it has charge), or whatever.
From what I can remember from high school physics, gravity and magnetic forces are inversely proportional to the distance between other particles. Since every particle in our universe has a location at an EXACT time, they all would be exerting forces upon each other. Albeit incredibly small forces. However, if you add them all up they would probably cause a small change in the expected behaviour any given particle.
Yes, yes. I know. I'm just waving my arms around. You may also claim that these forces would be "insignificant" or negligible. But remember, I'm a mathematician. There is no such thing as an insignificant number.;)
Every benchmark ever published will show NT better than "X". This is because of the license for NT. Microsoft can sue you if you publish not-so-flattering benchmarks for NT.
Just remember that. So *of course* every benchmark you see will show NT is superior. If you ever see anything different, make sure the MS lawyers don't.:)
Just because an OS is going to be used by a communist country doesn't mean that it is a communist OS. If we go by that rationale, then anything the USSR et al used is commie. Can you say "Hello witch-hunts"?
Just because it might have the "stamp of approval" doesn't mean squat. Look at HP sauce, RC cola and Pears shampoo. They all have the "By appointment to her majesty, the queen" stamped on them. Does that mean they are monarchist products? Of course not! It just means that the queen uses them.
Remote Solution's PJB-100 stores over 80 playback hours (1200 songs) or 100 CD's, and incorporates an IBM 4.86 GB, 2.5 inch hard drive selected for its rugged reliability. The PJB-100 offers exceptional music capacity vs cost less than $10 per playback hour vs $200 per playback hour for flash-media storage units.
Sounds like it'll come out to under $810. Probably $800.
As for shock absorption, the hard drive will probably go corrupt after a few bumps. The heads on a hard drive that small will continuously smack against the disk and cause bad sectors/physical damage.
Now it looks like we may see a resolution; my bet this means MS will have to settle.
I think the choice to settle is lame. It's basically admitting that you are guilty. It's a form of blackmail where you can say to the prosecution: "I can delay this case for years, so if you give me a break in punishment, I will end this ordeal now".
That's why there are arguments on both sides. It is for the judge to determine what is going to happen. There is no way to predict what each side is going to argue. Nor is there a way to predict what the judge is going to think.
If what I read was correct, the MS lawyers could still drag the case on for another 10 years even *if* this law is invoked. They could simply argue that the law is vague.
I sure would like to see this case come to an end sometime before 2002. But it seems that this is just going to be a make-work project for the law industry... "I've graduated from Law school and am unemployed. Hey, I know! I could join the Microsoft defense team. I'll have a job for at least 15 years!"
"Hello, this is Microsoft tech support, how may I help you?"
"Oh, you BSODed? Did you install Service Pack 5?"
"You did. Well, what applications were you running?"
"Just a Q3Test server? Okay, send me the core dump and I'll check it out." (yeah right!)
Few minutes go by
"Okay, we've thoroughly analysed the data. It seems that NT crashed."
"Oh, you know it crashed? Yeah, right! You told me it crashed. Forgot about that. Hmmmmm... Have you tried rebooting? That usually works."
"It works now? Great. That'll be $3500 payable to Microsoft Inc."
"You want to know why NT crashed? I'm sorry, we cannot do that. That is proprietary information. We seem to have solved your problem, however. Your computer seems to be working fine. We expect payment within two weeks. Have a nice day."
So basically, what you are saying here is that Microsoft is guilty of using its monopoly power to subverse competition. And now all we're waiting for is the penalty?
And after about 20 years of appeals, Microsoft might actually have to pay. But by then it'll hardly matter since they would have made $18+e12.
The same thing happened a long time ago with IBM and their proprietary punch cards. I'll agree the situation is a bit different, but the outcome will be the same.
It's LCD, so doesn't that mean you have to be directly in front of the screen to see anything? I can't access the site right now (slashdotted), so I'm a little unaware of the technical details.
For those of you who aren't sure what an HDL is...
HDL stands for Hardware Description Language. They are used by engineers to simulate a computer chips (and other ICs) before they are created. Used mainly for testing to see if what they designed truly does what they want it to do. Very neat. You can simulate an entirely different computer architecture using an HDL.
You seem to be forgetting the difference between Linux and Windows. Linux is open source. I don't think people would mind quite as much if Windows shipped with its source code (or at least was available).
I have no problems with bundling a CD with another product. But what I *DO* have a problem with is forcing one product to be installed before the other can run (ala IE 5 and Win98)
Yes, I know I'm a bit off-topic, but this had to be mentioned.
Am I the only who noticed that the article contained a total of 13 acronyms? WTF do all these TLAs and ETLAs mean? Is this to make the chip YABA-compliant? IANAEngineer so I have no clue why there have to be 4 "standards".
P.S. Why do you need to send email from a cell phone? Isn't it easier to actually PHONE the person?
Slashdot Mirror
Then somebody would have just come along and made a term "free source" that would have meant the same thing, but no trademarks would be broken.
Seriously, it looks pretty good to me. Of course, IANAL. But I have read my fair share of software licenses (a boring hobby, I know). Only one thing bugs me. It doesn't specify whether code re-use (borrowing code) is allowed or disallowed.
It's a game of poker, you want to make your opponents think something that isn't true. Getting funding from the government might be a very good reason, and so might making the opponents think this player is about to go bust!
You can't forget NAnet!
I think you are right. I stand corrected.
In the early versions of Unix, there was a hack in CC so that if someone compiled a kernel, it would insert a backdoor so Ken Thompson could log into any Unix machine! Not only that, but it could also detect if the compiler was compiling itself so it could add the backdoor-producing code into the new compiler. Whew! Now that is some pretty complicated stuff. And oh-so-cool.
Kind of leaves you thinking if there is something like that left in software today...
See the jargon file entry
I would like for someone to explain to me what is stopping a potential eavesdropper from listening in to the communication while stopping its continuation, then re-transmitting. Sure, since he measured the signal he distorted it. So what? If he "removes" the signal (think brick wall), and re-transmits the observed data, he would be 100% invisible. Wouldn't he?
I think that would be the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Not sure the date, but it'd be somewhere between 2000B.C. to 500B.C.
From what I can remember from high school physics, gravity and magnetic forces are inversely proportional to the distance between other particles. Since every particle in our universe has a location at an EXACT time, they all would be exerting forces upon each other. Albeit incredibly small forces. However, if you add them all up they would probably cause a small change in the expected behaviour any given particle.
Yes, yes. I know. I'm just waving my arms around. You may also claim that these forces would be "insignificant" or negligible. But remember, I'm a mathematician. There is no such thing as an insignificant number. ;)
I don't think Brave New World had any computer networks in it...
Just remember that. So *of course* every benchmark you see will show NT is superior. If you ever see anything different, make sure the MS lawyers don't. :)
Just because it might have the "stamp of approval" doesn't mean squat. Look at HP sauce, RC cola and Pears shampoo. They all have the "By appointment to her majesty, the queen" stamped on them. Does that mean they are monarchist products? Of course not! It just means that the queen uses them.
How about Saddam Hussein? (guess who supplied his weapons 10 years before the Gulf War)
Let's not forget Manuel Noriega.
Or Grenada. Or Panama. Or Somalia. And what about that Iran contra business?
The US government is up to their necks in the same stuff that the Chinese government is. The only difference is the US gov does it to other countries.
Is there a link to the patent database? I only trust spoon-fed info so far...
Remote Solution's PJB-100 stores over 80 playback hours (1200 songs) or 100 CD's, and incorporates an IBM 4.86 GB, 2.5 inch hard drive selected for its rugged reliability. The PJB-100 offers exceptional music capacity vs cost less than $10 per playback hour vs $200 per playback hour for flash-media storage units.
Sounds like it'll come out to under $810. Probably $800.
As for shock absorption, the hard drive will probably go corrupt after a few bumps. The heads on a hard drive that small will continuously smack against the disk and cause bad sectors/physical damage.
I think the choice to settle is lame. It's basically admitting that you are guilty. It's a form of blackmail where you can say to the prosecution: "I can delay this case for years, so if you give me a break in punishment, I will end this ordeal now".
That's why there are arguments on both sides. It is for the judge to determine what is going to happen. There is no way to predict what each side is going to argue. Nor is there a way to predict what the judge is going to think.
I sure would like to see this case come to an end sometime before 2002. But it seems that this is just going to be a make-work project for the law industry... "I've graduated from Law school and am unemployed. Hey, I know! I could join the Microsoft defense team. I'll have a job for at least 15 years!"
"Oh, you BSODed? Did you install Service Pack 5?"
"You did. Well, what applications were you running?"
"Just a Q3Test server? Okay, send me the core dump and I'll check it out." (yeah right!)
Few minutes go by
"Okay, we've thoroughly analysed the data. It seems that NT crashed."
"Oh, you know it crashed? Yeah, right! You told me it crashed. Forgot about that. Hmmmmm... Have you tried rebooting? That usually works."
"It works now? Great. That'll be $3500 payable to Microsoft Inc."
"You want to know why NT crashed? I'm sorry, we cannot do that. That is proprietary information. We seem to have solved your problem, however. Your computer seems to be working fine. We expect payment within two weeks. Have a nice day."
And after about 20 years of appeals, Microsoft might actually have to pay. But by then it'll hardly matter since they would have made $18+e12.
The same thing happened a long time ago with IBM and their proprietary punch cards. I'll agree the situation is a bit different, but the outcome will be the same.
It's LCD, so doesn't that mean you have to be directly in front of the screen to see anything? I can't access the site right now (slashdotted), so I'm a little unaware of the technical details.
HDL stands for Hardware Description Language. They are used by engineers to simulate a computer chips (and other ICs) before they are created. Used mainly for testing to see if what they designed truly does what they want it to do. Very neat. You can simulate an entirely different computer architecture using an HDL.
I have no problems with bundling a CD with another product. But what I *DO* have a problem with is forcing one product to be installed before the other can run (ala IE 5 and Win98)
Am I the only who noticed that the article contained a total of 13 acronyms? WTF do all these TLAs and ETLAs mean? Is this to make the chip YABA-compliant? IANAEngineer so I have no clue why there have to be 4 "standards".
P.S. Why do you need to send email from a cell phone? Isn't it easier to actually PHONE the person?