Your memory of IBM differs from my own.

I can't say I've had that much to do with them. HP, on the other hand, I could rant about for a while...

If they own the copyright, they are free to relicense a piece of data

Sorry to be pedantic, but replace "a piece of data" with "a work of authorship". If there isn't the creative work of a human being involved, it's not copyrightable. And then we get to this:

17 CFR 102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

And that means that even when the hand of man is involved, a lot of things are still not copyrightable.

How is that a failure?

Under that legal regime, if you don't lose a dollar, you can't charge your customers $1.06 to cover it with a little profit.

If Bell Labs spends (for example) a hundred million and makes nothing, AT&T would have charged the ratepayers a hundred six million and made six million dollars. But when Bell Labs spent (again for example) a hundred million and made a hundred and one million licensing their inventions, AT&T doesn't get to charge its customers an extra hundred six million and only makes one million dollars, not six million.

And they get to cry all the way to the bank.

Of course it soon made enough that they were farther ahead of the amount Bell would have made by soaking the customers. But the original plan was a "failure".

I wish I could "fail" that way, even on a somewhat smaller scale. B-)

Let's look at what Oracle is doing. I'll start the list of moves that appear to be intended to alienate the community around the very software they're promoting and cause the Open Source community to create viable forks that end up absconding with the product and its market. You guys contribute additional examples...

• Oracle v. Google regarding Java and the premise that APIs are copyrightable.
• Apache OpenOffice v. LibreOffice (which has a full-time negative publicity generator in Rob Weir).
• MySQL v. MariaDB.

IBM isn't known for dumb moves, but partnering with Oracle on this sure is one.

Bruce

However, many aircraft are still "then". Switching them to unleaded will destroy their engines after a while - requiring, at least, head and valve replacement. And if you can't get a replacement head with hardened valve seats and slides for the vintage engine, you're S.O.L.

Japan would like to have a word with you.

We could probably survive without #3 though.

#3 was not just about letting the cops use your house for staking out your neighbors or the army using your home for a free bed-and-breakfast.

It was to keep them from planting a spy in your house, to report on all your activities.

IMHO it is even more apropos now than back when the "quartered troops" were redcoats. Now they're spyware or hardware keyloggers planted in your computer, or racks of tapping equipment in server rooms, as with "Study Group 3" or "Prisim".

We just need a supreme court decision that these automated agents, located on people's or companies' premises, consuming their space and resources, and spying on their activities, are "quartered troops" within the meaning of the Third Amendment for it to become as important in the electronic legal landscape as the First, Fourth, and Fifth are in meatspace.

According to Lapsley's account Draper just tagged along with the real hackers.

I knew him in those days. He really was quite innovative.

But also quite talkative. I have amazed others who knew him when I describe the time he was staying at my place I actually got him to shut up for over a minute in the middle of a technical discussion.

Of course I did it by showing him something with a phone that he didn't think was possible. (He then shut up while he worked out some of the ramifications.)

Were hackers really racking up millions of dollars of fraudulent calls, or was AT&T using the same inflated math that the BSA use to calculate loss of revenue from piracy -- by using full retail prices, even though there may have been no loss of revenue or cost to the carrier.

To some extent it was the inflated math case. The retail rates on long distance service were set very high, to generate money that subsidized rural phone service (which ran at a loss, due to line length, but had to be provided as part of the deal that gave Bell their monopoly charter). The Phreaks mostly used the lines at off-peak hours, when the trunks they used would otherwise be idle.

if the last slot was used by a hacker, there was one less slot for a paying customer. ... unless AT&T was building more capacity to support the hacked phone calls, then there was really no real cost to them (except maybe termination charges for international calls)

But the network traffic, like power consumption, varied a lot with time-of-day, and the network had to be sized to handle the peaks. The phone phreaks usually did their deeds at off-peak hours.

Even if they DID have to install extra equipment, that just meant they made MORE money. The arrangement that granted their monopoly, in return for providing universal service, let them (in cooperation with the regulatory bodies) set prices so they received a guaranteed rate of return. The more they spent, the more profit they made. So as long as the phreaks weren't disrupting things too badly they weren't a financial drag.

That, by the way, is apparently the genesis of Bell Labs. As long as they spent money on something plausibly related to improving telephone service, every dollar they spent brought in a dollar and six cents or so. So Bell hired a lot of smart people, gave them equipment, and told them to go to it (and just publish a couple articles a year in the company journal). (Financially, though, it was a "failure": Chartered to lose money, it actually made money, even in its first year, by licensing the technology it developed.)

Each application does its own rendering? 31-bit pixel counter?

This sounds like it's all pixels, like X, rather than geometry, like NeWS or display postscript.

So if I have monitors with high resolution I still have to tell all the applications to change their size, individually, or use a microscope to read the text, right?

If I stretch a window (intending to scale it, rather than just see more of what it shows) it has to go back to the application for re-rendering, right?

And if I have adjacent monitors with different resolutions they won't match up. Heaven help me if I lay a window across the boundary between two, the T between 3, or the + between four. Right?

Or have I missed something?

[] his observations might have been the result of standardizing the test scores... IE if you have a test that only scores 50 max and you scale it to 100 obviously you aren't going to have many odd numbers in the results.

He points out that in some of the tests all scores of 94-100 inclusive were obtained, so it's not a case of leaving out odds or a regularly-spaced set of numbers based on a simple scaling up/down.

If you have a maximum score of 53 you might chose a mapping function like this:
    (rawscore 48) ? (rawscore * 2) : (rawscore + 47). That gives you a non-linear mapping with the slope cut in half for a small interval on the right side. The "can get steps of one and two" on the top mean nothing about what you can get below the knee when the mapping is non-linear.

Similar mappings can end up with both ends smooth and only the middle spiky.

Why do that? So you only get ONE discontinuity in the data, near the top, rather than one point of roundoff noising up the spacing and comparisons between students all through it.

A skewed distribution is hardly surprising, especially when the bulk of the measurements are near one end of a finite numbering system. Further, the non-linear mapping above would make the downslope on the right hand side shallower by a 2:1 ratio, exactly what you see. A distribution skewed toward the high end also argues for using a mapping like the one above - to spread out the pile of high-scoring students and make differences in score less divergent from differences in percentile rank.

The deficits just below passing scores and the spikes at them, however, are just bogus. The only "mapping" that can reasonably explain them is the "courtesy points" shoveling of just-failing students into just-passing. However, this can be explained as mercy being built into the mapping. (It can also be explained as protecting just-passing students from being unfairly pushed into the just-failing region due to a center-spreading, hump-flattening, non-linear mapping applied as a convenience for admissions officers.) The total absence of scores just below the fail point says it's not favoritism or individual corruption, but a systematic benefit given to all just-failing students.