Yes! And when it's time for departure, we exit out the rear lacquered up in shock absorbing dirty white suits, dropping down into our parked cars. Didn't you mean "Liquored up"?
I hate to mention this, but isn't there a provision of the DMCA that they can claim that removal tools violates? Circumvention or some such?
I'm not even remotely suggesting that I agree with the lawsuit, and I fervently hope they get countersued out of business. But I am suggesting that it's possible they have a real claim under the screwed up IP laws in this country. I wonder if this isn't one of those lawsuits that may ultimately end up with a desperately needed revision of those laws. It's really too much to hope for, I suppose.
(Although, on a side note, a little bit of me notes that they don't make unix os type products. Thus they do, sort of left handedly, support OS's I'm fond of.)
This is just a sign that Microsoft has "jumped the shark". Pursuing this line of 'competition' just means that Microsoft is growing more and more wary of FOSS software momentum... SaaS, Web Services, Linux, etc. is slowly starting to press on Microsoft. Where are they going to innovate (or appropriate) next? Wait another six years for the next OS release? Microsoft main objective is not really to extort money from FOSS users; they're just trying to inject the typical Microsoft FUD to slow adoption of alternatives while they scramble to find a way to hijack the train.
The iceberg is starting to melt... quickly. I stand in awe that you were able to use "jump the shark" and Microsoft together and it read credibly - bravo!
It doesn't matter if they invented it, only if they patented it. Which is what's wrong with the whole system.
Not true. The U.S. patent system is based on a "first to invent" doctrine, not "first to file." Okay, really, and I'm being serious, not making a point obliquely - why is Alexander Graham Bell listed as the inventor of the telephone? I thought it was the first to file thing that was the difference.
You forgot to say "obligatory Monty Python reference"
Just for those people who've never seen Holy Grail. We don't acknowledge people who have never seen Holy Grail. We waive our private parts at them and tell them to go away before we taunt them a second time.
is there anything else to this story? If I persued the Conspiricy theorists line, yes, there is. Is this an attempt for a little guy to take on a much bigger guy?
Will it work? I think following this story may give us some interesting insight as to how this technique works "in the wild" as it were. But it won't be the first time/. was used as a weapon to take on an opponent.
Every one of them, actually. You don't have to build a new backbone to make this work. You simply have to install a small amount of hardware (which you do when you end of life existing equipment, thus minimizing costs) or update software on newer hardware at key collection points. Not that hard, nor that expensive, and the income incentive to start throttling is there already. (and in many cases the hardware and software combinations are already in place, just need to be switched "on")
Not more Net Neutrality crap. I have to love/.'s double-stance on this. First they decry ISPs for not disconnecting clients that have been botted - then they demand that laws get passed to prevent that. No, Net neutrality means equal access to all services. Shutting down BOTS means removing a service that affects equal access. the difference is Quarantining the bots, as opposed to choosing say CNN over FOXNEWS by providing more bandwidth to one over the other.
Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to implement QOS? Do I have to give up decent ping times on VOIP calls solely because the idiots next to me absolutely have to BitTorrent the latest episode of American Idol? Should someone sending spam be given equal priority to the 'net as someone trying to send emails to colleagues? Because you are misrepresenting the issue. Represent the issues AS IT IS, steering of a consumer to one or more services in favor of other services. Quality of service isn't the issue. Net neutrality is tuning down bit torrents so long as you tune down ALL bit torrents equally. It's eliminating VoIP entirely if you eliminate it at all. It's applying the ISPs rules of QoS equally for all users and for all services. It's not favoring one provider over another, and allowing the consumer to choose what provider of what service they want, rather than the ISP.
Net Neutrality means throwing up our hands in the air and allowing the Internet to become a useless mess of spam and viruses since the power to handle them would be stripped from ISPs. It means giving up on streaming video and audio. It means giving up on VOIP. Where did that load of crap come from? Where is the data to support this? Even if you were right (and you very much are not) it's not like the CONNECTION provider is doing all that much to stop either of these. the SERVICES provider is where the work is being done, at the Email server, for example.
I don't think it's worth it. Why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to pay more to get a better connection? You are misrepresenting again.... Anti-net neutrality (Your support of the Crappynet) doesn't allow you to pay more to get a better CONNECTION, it forces you to pay more to choose to use services that compete with the services that have not struck a deal with the ISP that YOU are paying.
You can choose to pay more for a faster connection right now. In our area, you can still buy dialup, multiple flavors of dsl, cable, t-1's, t-3's, fibre, WiFi.... and other choices that I have forgotten about. Each come with different prices and speeds. More remote situations are limited in connectivity choices, certainly. But in all cases, the contract between me and the provider involves connection speeds. I don't have to, and do not WANT to, have to pay more to use iTunes or BMG music, because it's not on the favored list.
The irony here is that The Sting didn't get credit for providing background vocals on Money for Nothing due to contractual issues. Ah well... thanks for this post flow; now I'm going to spend the day in the Straits. =D You sure? I remembered sting was willing to do it without credit, but his publisher insisted on credit and royalites, which is what actually happened. Sting was rather embarassed about the whole thing.
Agreed - the cable companies have been running anti-neutrality ads trying to convince the public that the average consumer will be the one footing the bill for net neutrality. It's good to see the pro-neutrality camp finally showing up to the public discourse in the mainstream (i.e., non-geek-oriented) media. But the consumer WILL be footing the bill for net-neutrality. The mis-direction is the implication that the consumer WON'T be footing the bill without net neutrality. Without consumer dollars, the ISP's fold up and go away, as does the infrastructure.
What I don't get are the anti-neutrality personalities on/. - some are obviously plastic people for the Verizons and the Comcasts.But some are/.'rs who've been around much, much longer than that. I wonder how any IDIOT would prefer to have their ISP make choices about who or what you should be viewing at the best possible speed instead of making your own choices. I purchase connection services for a connection, I choose to have equal connectivity to whatever I do, or where ever I browse. If I choose to use the Walmart Music center over iTunes, if I decide that I want to read 4chan over CNN or MSN over Foxnews. Doesn't matter. If I reverse those preferences next week, I want my new choices to be as fast as the old. (at least from my connection to the servers I direct myself to...)
And just one more thing, isn't it Ironic that you read, via those same connections, anti-neutrality rhetoric online?
Probably gonna get modded badly for this, but....... I've yet to see a real reason to care. My level of Apathy on the Blu-ray / HD-DVD thing is so high that, um, I'm not even interested in a witty euphemism.....
It's a marketing spin, and maybe, just maybe, Sony won't repeat the betamax/minidisk/whatever format stumbles they've done in the past. But, based on the companies history alone, you'd get good odds that blu-ray ends up a niche market product.
Large conglomerate music companies may lose here, but the small independent cannot help but win. While the RIAA and it's members keep struggling to find a way back to the good old days, the independents are already thinking out of the box; creating and using new methods of marketing.
I cannot help but think this is a win win for the majority of the musicians out there, and for the consumer, while a lose, lose for the conglomerates. I suppose I'll survive the transition......
First, there is no such thing as objective reporting. Everything is biased. Period. Is that your objective opinion? I hope someone acknowledges your quip. it's the wittiest thing I've read this morning.
You, me, and any other private-sector entity do not have to explain our whims and caprices when (not) buying something (which may, actually, be unfortunate) to any one other than, perhaps, family members or stock-holders. The government, however, is legally obliged to pick the best — all of us are the stock-holders...
If, by best, you mean "lowest Bidder" you Might be correct, assuming the job isn't a "no-bid" contract. But I've yet to see a "Best" win a government bid, except maybe by accident. it's all about the lowest bid that will conform to the spec.
I bid a lot of government contracts, I get some, I lose some. The ones I've lost have occasionally been to better concepts the ones I've wons have occasionally beaten some better work... in all cases the wins were based on who came in the lowest.
I understand the basis of your remark - The process needs to be open, so we the taxpayers, know that our civil employees are doing their job correctly and spending our money they way we expect them to. Diebold should have the right to see if there was some back room hankey pankey going on, and the bidding process was fair. A lawsuit may be the only way to prove what they think they already know. Or, they could just be sore losers, trying to make the state pay for having the audacity to use a competitor. I guess we'll find out.... unfortunately, the tax payers in Mass. are the ones who will ultimately pay for this......
...it's just pining for the fjords. it's not pinin'! it's passed on! This software is no more! It has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! its metabolic processes are now history! it's off the twig! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SOFTWARE PRODUCT!!
(I love the opportunity to make a Monty Python Reference! Second only to South Park.... oh, yeah:)
If NASA can receive data from a ~10 watt transmitter at a distance of 10 billion miles, I'm sure that it's possible for someone to read the leakage from any signals inside the building from a distance of 1 block, no matter how much "shielding" is slapped onto the walls. I'm not so sure - the product is described as "Multi-layer" and a "System" So I don't actually know how they are doing it... is it really Liguid only, or is it an adhesive to roll on aluminum matting that is then grounded? The article is very light on details. However, the Company website claims TEMPEST certification for the product. If that claim is true, then NASA would not be able to read those transmission through that wall. However, if the TEMPEST claim is true, then the side speculation elsewhere is also true. When you walk into that room/building/whatever The wireless is going to be contained, and so is your cell phone, and most every other signal too.
You will have to de-fenestrate your home. I believe there is a major violation of a physical law if you accomplish this. At least it is a whole concept that requires changing some topological rules I thought were laws.
No, they're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. They take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting.
Artists: Help help, I'm being repressed.
Lawsuit victims: Ah, now you see the violence inherent in the system! RIAA: Bloody Peasent!
Yes, well, the Maya were also known for human sacrifice. You have a lot of encouragement for getting your days and nights right when the last guy who got it wrong has his chest cut open with a stone blade and his heart removed right in front of you.
You think to yourself "Hey, I *need* my heart. I should figure out when the equinoxes are so I don't end up as the next scapegoat for a bad harvest." And they say you can't force creativity........
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to mention this, but isn't there a provision of the DMCA that they can claim that removal tools violates? Circumvention or some such?
I'm not even remotely suggesting that I agree with the lawsuit, and I fervently hope they get countersued out of business. But I am suggesting that it's possible they have a real claim under the screwed up IP laws in this country. I wonder if this isn't one of those lawsuits that may ultimately end up with a desperately needed revision of those laws. It's really too much to hope for, I suppose.
(Although, on a side note, a little bit of me notes that they don't make unix os type products. Thus they do, sort of left handedly, support OS's I'm fond of.)
The iceberg is starting to melt... quickly. I stand in awe that you were able to use "jump the shark" and Microsoft together and it read credibly - bravo!
Not true. The U.S. patent system is based on a "first to invent" doctrine, not "first to file." Okay, really, and I'm being serious, not making a point obliquely - why is Alexander Graham Bell listed as the inventor of the telephone? I thought it was the first to file thing that was the difference.
Just for those people who've never seen Holy Grail. We don't acknowledge people who have never seen Holy Grail. We waive our private parts at them and tell them to go away before we taunt them a second time.
Will it work? I think following this story may give us some interesting insight as to how this technique works "in the wild" as it were. But it won't be the first time
Of course, I can read any book or website...... so long as there are pictures
Every one of them, actually. You don't have to build a new backbone to make this work. You simply have to install a small amount of hardware (which you do when you end of life existing equipment, thus minimizing costs) or update software on newer hardware at key collection points. Not that hard, nor that expensive, and the income incentive to start throttling is there already. (and in many cases the hardware and software combinations are already in place, just need to be switched "on")
You can choose to pay more for a faster connection right now. In our area, you can still buy dialup, multiple flavors of dsl, cable, t-1's, t-3's, fibre, WiFi.... and other choices that I have forgotten about. Each come with different prices and speeds. More remote situations are limited in connectivity choices, certainly. But in all cases, the contract between me and the provider involves connection speeds. I don't have to, and do not WANT to, have to pay more to use iTunes or BMG music, because it's not on the favored list.
Ah well... thanks for this post flow; now I'm going to spend the day in the Straits. =D You sure? I remembered sting was willing to do it without credit, but his publisher insisted on credit and royalites, which is what actually happened. Sting was rather embarassed about the whole thing.
What I don't get are the anti-neutrality personalities on
And just one more thing, isn't it Ironic that you read, via those same connections, anti-neutrality rhetoric online?
Probably gonna get modded badly for this, but....... I've yet to see a real reason to care. My level of Apathy on the Blu-ray / HD-DVD thing is so high that, um, I'm not even interested in a witty euphemism.....
It's a marketing spin, and maybe, just maybe, Sony won't repeat the betamax/minidisk/whatever format stumbles they've done in the past. But, based on the companies history alone, you'd get good odds that blu-ray ends up a niche market product.
Large conglomerate music companies may lose here, but the small independent cannot help but win. While the RIAA and it's members keep struggling to find a way back to the good old days, the independents are already thinking out of the box; creating and using new methods of marketing.
I cannot help but think this is a win win for the majority of the musicians out there, and for the consumer, while a lose, lose for the conglomerates. I suppose I'll survive the transition......
You, me, and any other private-sector entity do not have to explain our whims and caprices when (not) buying something (which may, actually, be unfortunate) to any one other than, perhaps, family members or stock-holders. The government, however, is legally obliged to pick the best — all of us are the stock-holders...
If, by best, you mean "lowest Bidder" you Might be correct, assuming the job isn't a "no-bid" contract. But I've yet to see a "Best" win a government bid, except maybe by accident. it's all about the lowest bid that will conform to the spec.I bid a lot of government contracts, I get some, I lose some. The ones I've lost have occasionally been to better concepts the ones I've wons have occasionally beaten some better work... in all cases the wins were based on who came in the lowest.
I understand the basis of your remark - The process needs to be open, so we the taxpayers, know that our civil employees are doing their job correctly and spending our money they way we expect them to. Diebold should have the right to see if there was some back room hankey pankey going on, and the bidding process was fair. A lawsuit may be the only way to prove what they think they already know. Or, they could just be sore losers, trying to make the state pay for having the audacity to use a competitor. I guess we'll find out.... unfortunately, the tax payers in Mass. are the ones who will ultimately pay for this......
...it's just pining for the fjords. it's not pinin'! it's passed on! This software is no more! It has ceased to be! it's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! its metabolic processes are now history! it's off the twig! it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SOFTWARE PRODUCT!!(I love the opportunity to make a Monty Python Reference! Second only to South Park.... oh, yeah:)
They killed AV Software...... You Bastards!
Artists: Help help, I'm being repressed.
Lawsuit victims: Ah, now you see the violence inherent in the system! RIAA: Bloody Peasent!
too bad, Miss K'ank'in was a babe!
You think to yourself "Hey, I *need* my heart. I should figure out when the equinoxes are so I don't end up as the next scapegoat for a bad harvest." And they say you can't force creativity........
Ow crap! I misspelled coffee. Understandable, since you obviously hadn't had any yet.