Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Slashback

Slashback: Eldred, Cruise, SOAP 181

Slashback tonight with several updates, ranging from patent encumbrances to SOAP 1.2 to the transcript for Eldred v. Ashcroft, with more bits in the middle on the recent Geek Cruise in the Caribbean, the all-important cable TV lineups, and more. Read on below for the details!
A little light reading. hayek writes "The transcript of oral argument at the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft is now available online."

And then we saw the sharks. a9db0 writes "Part II of Doc Searl's travelogue recounting his experiences on the Geek Cruise has been posted here by the fine folks over at the Linux Journal"

In an earlier report from Geek Cruise, Linus predicted 2.6 by June 2003. If you liked the list of features being considered for 2.6, you can thank puriots0 for "the list of what's been included in time for the feature freeze for Linux 2.6", as found at kernelnewbies.org.

Peel back your eyelids and let these images flood your brain. strredwolf writes "I think we had half the story when Cartoon Network said they were going to remove Zoids and G Gundam in their Toonami block. It was more like remove Zoids, move G Gundam to Midnight Run with GI Joe, put HeMan and Transformers on full weekdays, and double up on DB and DBZ. The website and broadcast prove it now. (This report was done while watching to Toonami live.)"

And Stalke writes "Recently, rumours about Stargate SG1 7th season included it both being renewed as well as speculation that it might be cancelled. MGM and Scifi put those rumours to rest today by officially announcing a 7th season. It will begin filming next year with a full 22 episodes ordered. No word about Daniel Jackson returning though :("

Cracking down on alien fraudsters. yep writes "Administrators of the alien-hunting distributed computing experiment SETI@home have announced they will crack down on cheats who rort statistics on computing power lent to the project. The announcement follows a united protest from the chief contributors. SETI@home director David Anderson announced SETI@home would do its best to investigate users returning suspiciously high amounts of work and delete their accounts if it uncovered solid evidence of cheating."

Sure they're not. tiltowait writes "The Hartford Courant article "The FBI Has Bugged Our Public Libraries" has been retracted (this was mentioned here - but the older article has been removed). Even if the retraction can be trusted, this doesn't change the fact that the FBI can still bug libraries as freely as the CIA can assasinate with impunity, or that more McCarthyism is on the way."

This story retracts the claims of bugging made in the previous one. Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial.

Cleaning up the future for SOAP. Makarand writes "A major hurdle in finalizing the SOAP 1.2 specification has been removed. Both Epicentric, a subsidiary of Vignette, and WebMethods, which makes integration software, had said in earlier statements that they may have patents that cover the technology used in the SOAP 1.2 specification which would have made SOAP 1.2 non royalty-free hindering approval by W3C. Epicentric has now amended its earlier statement saying they no longer believe they hold any such patents, and even if they did, they are interested in making them available on a royalty-free basis. WebMethods has made no comments yet."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashback: Eldred, Cruise, SOAP

Comments Filter:
  • by Samir Gupta ( 623651 ) on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:06PM (#4621479) Homepage
    Why don't they use a standard principle of distributed systems: just send out the same work unit to multiple machines and teams, and use some cross-comparison scheme to detect anamolies? Work units that disagree with the majority are flagged as invalid.
  • A new low... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by igaborf ( 69869 ) on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:22PM (#4621586)
    ...even for /.

    Let's see... the FBI says the report wasn't true, the city librarian says the report wasn't true, the reporter says the report wasn't true, and the reporter's two anonymous sources say the story wasn't true. And the delusional /. editor's response? "Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial."

    Un-fucking-believable.

  • Live in fear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:24PM (#4621595)
    "doesn't change the fact that the FBI can still bug libraries as freely as the CIA can assassinate with impunity, or that more McCarthyism is on the way."

    You diminish the tragedy of McCarthy with your excited little exaggerations.

    As for the CIA capping terrorists:
    "..hey man, nice shot!" - Filter
  • Re:A new low... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by abe ferlman ( 205607 ) <bgtrio@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:35PM (#4621653) Homepage Journal
    ... igaborf says it's not true, everyone believes her.

    The dear editor's point was that a retraction of a story about espionage is at least as likely to be caused by pressure as by error, and probably more so since there could be serious consequences to making up such a story, so it's not something one enters into lightly.

    It's called plausible deniability.

  • Until It's You (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Myriad ( 89793 ) <myriad@the[ ]d.com ['bso' in gap]> on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:39PM (#4621686) Homepage
    As for the CIA capping terrorists:
    "..hey man, nice shot!" - Filter

    Read this [csmonitor.com], particularly the part about the three peasants.

    What if someone were to turn around and declare you a terrorist?

    Still finding it such a good idea?

  • by sweatyboatman ( 457800 ) <sweatyboatman@ h o t m a i l .com> on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:45PM (#4621719) Homepage Journal
    this is like the best slashback ever. so much interesting stuff. wow. I feel so in the know.

    no, I'm not kidding.

    in all seriousness. good job /. people
  • Re:A new low... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:46PM (#4621725) Homepage
    Well, there is the little point that any source that did confirm the story would get hit with some serious federal prison time. In case you don't want to bother looking at the original slashdot story, [slashdot.org] it said:

    "There's a gag order. When the FBI uses a court order or a subpoena to gain access to library computers or a list of the names of people who have borrowed certain books, librarians can't tell anyone - not even other librarians or you. They face a stiff federal penalty if they do."

    It's one of the lovely provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act. If patriotism means locking up librarians then I'm no patriot. Blowing up a handfull of buildings isn't going to destroy America, but gutting the constitution can.

    -
  • by UnknownQ ( 84898 ) <samcole.qheadquarters@com> on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:58PM (#4621790) Homepage
    Remember, boarding a ship without permission from the ship owner makes you a PIRATE.

    and it makes you a STOWAWAY, which is WORSE.
  • by ajakk ( 29927 ) on Thursday November 07, 2002 @08:59PM (#4621798) Homepage
    Of course you know that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Microsoft case except to deny the appeal by Microsoft from the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and to deny the fasttrack from Judge Jackson. The Supreme Court is not flooded with corporate cash at all. The justices are very open about all of their money, and it is stupid to claim that they are corrupt puppets.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2002 @09:08PM (#4621840)
    I don't find these sorts of comments funny or insightful in any way. And they always show up on Slashdot.

    Didn't you get bullied when you were in school? Didn't you have enough of that?

    To better understand your comment, I'll rephrase it thusly:

    "RMS is funny, and I don't understand him. He says things that cause me to think. He says things that threaten my livelihood. He speaks out where I am afraid to. He is confident in his ideas.

    Kick kick kick. I cannot deal with him. Kick Kick Kick.

    I am small and by kicking RMS I can be big."

    Myself, I wish I could understand and phrase an argument as clearly and succinctly as RMS. I wish I could code as well as RMS. I wish I had made a contribution to my profession 1/1000th as important as either emacs, gcc, or GNU. I wish I had the balls to speak as freely as RMS. I wish I wasn't as enamored of money as I am, maybe then I could follow my dreams of activism, and I thank RMS for following his. I thank RMS for his contributions to our profession and to society, and for making arguments that cause me much grief when I think about them.
  • Re:A new low... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Thursday November 07, 2002 @09:12PM (#4621867) Homepage Journal
    Considering the FBI's history, I don't blame /. .
    The FBI is not above threatening to put people in jail over these issues.

    For me, the FBI needs to go beyond just saying it wasn't true.
    No I don't think this is a huge conspiecy, or that the FBI is out to get me, but they have a pretty abusive history, so I take everything they say with a lump of salt.

  • by Anomalous Canard ( 137695 ) on Thursday November 07, 2002 @09:38PM (#4622045)
    Not at all.

    First of all, it's difficult to tell which way the Justices are leaning from the questions. They've done their homework and read all thr briefs. They know Lessig's argument. What they are doing in the questioning is testing the argument to find its weaknesses. The stronger the argument, the harder the questions.

    When you get down to SG Olsen's questioning, you'll see how thoroughly they demolish his position. "Whatever limit Congress sets as long as its finite" is a non-starter. Later on the Justices joked about theatre boxes in England being leased for 900 years. It's finite in mathematical terms, but unlimited in practical terms.

    The real question for the court is how too define appropriate limits to Congressional powers that give meaning to the phrase "limited times" without usurping the Congressional function of setting the limit. They don't want to be in a position of having to say x years is OK, but y years is too long. Lessig has offered them a meaningful place to put that limit. SG Olsem has not.

    They are also concerned that the argument which defeats the CTEA defeats the 1976 act as well. Lessig's own brief distinguishes the two and the clerks know this if the Justices don't.

    Reading the transcript gave me hope. Several of the Justices got the point that Lessig was making. There is a real liklihood of a positive outcome. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Breyer are likely yesses. There's only one more needed.

    It's a little more informative to read the transcript which was posted to the web a few weeks ago. Someone put in the names of the Justices which this official transcript lacks. Also read Lessig's blog. I think he has real reasons to feel confident.
  • by Ian Bicking ( 980 ) <(moc.ydutsroloc) (ta) (bnai)> on Thursday November 07, 2002 @10:55PM (#4622500) Homepage
    Since this stupid joke got to 5, and the retort is still at zero, I'm copying it so its more visible:
    I don't find these sorts of comments funny or insightful in any way. And they always show up on Slashdot.

    Didn't you get bullied when you were in school? Didn't you have enough of that?

    To better understand your comment, I'll rephrase it thusly:

    "RMS is funny, and I don't understand him. He says things that cause me to think. He says things that threaten my livelihood. He speaks out where I am afraid to. He is confident in his ideas.

    Kick kick kick. I cannot deal with him. Kick Kick Kick.

    I am small and by kicking RMS I can be big."

    Myself, I wish I could understand and phrase an argument as clearly and succinctly as RMS. I wish I could code as well as RMS. I wish I had made a contribution to my profession 1/1000th as important as either emacs, gcc, or GNU. I wish I had the balls to speak as freely as RMS. I wish I wasn't as enamored of money as I am, maybe then I could follow my dreams of activism, and I thank RMS for following his. I thank RMS for his contributions to our profession and to society, and for making arguments that cause me much grief when I think about them.

  • Re:Library (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Grail ( 18233 ) on Thursday November 07, 2002 @10:57PM (#4622514) Journal
    Then, assuming they know which computer the suspect was at, match the IP's with the queries.

    You've got it backwards.

    The FBI isn't interested in finding out what queries have been made by dangerous suspects. What the FBI will be doing is looking for dangerous queries (people pulling out copies of "Catcher in the Rye" for example), and thus locating their next suspect.

    So be careful about your book borrowing habits. Rather than borrowing books, buy them. Buy books from stores using only cash. Only buy one book per transaction. Buy your books from different stores. Never visit the same store twice in a row.

    And remember - trust no-one.

  • by truth_revealed ( 593493 ) on Friday November 08, 2002 @01:40AM (#4623321)
    Have you read the SOAP 1.2 [w3.org] specification [w3.org] lately? Nevermind the XML Schema and HTTP 1.1 specifications which SOAP also uses. These specs are far from "simple". SOAP seems to be slowly turning into an XML version of CORBA. XMLRPC [xmlrpc.com], on the other hand, is simple. The Jabber [jabber.org] protocol is even simpler yet - no HTTP transport. Something that starts off simple is usually transformed into something quite different after committees of software development firms get a hold of it. It's in their interest to keep the barrier to entry high.
  • CIA assassination? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Friday November 08, 2002 @09:16AM (#4624435)
    "the CIA can assasinate with impunity"

    And not only that...it can assassinate US citizens [washingtonpost.com]. "Administration officials, intelligence operatives and military analysts...praised the CIA strikes as an innovative way to get the job done." You know that whole "pre-emptive strike" debate? Well it's over now. Everybody grab their sled because we're in for a nice ride down this slippery slope from moral highground! Weeeee!

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...