The blog post this was based on (http://www.matthewjockers.net/2014/06/05/a-novel-method-for-...) which is from 2014 was widely panned when it was first publicized, and some of the many problems with the methodology pointed out by scholars with more experience and competence with the statistical methods involved.
That's how scholarship is supposed to work. However, it will never stop media from seizing on a great click-baity headline.
I figured it was likely in the app, but for an experiment like this, that appeals to many of the ideals of an open source philosophy, I'm less likely to bother installing it if I'm unaware that it's an open source project.
Obviously the appeal ultimately needs to be greater than just being open source, but that initial bump can't hurt the outcome of the experiment.
This seems buried. Is there a reason it's not mentioned or linked on the kloak page? I actually went looking for the code and couldn't find that repository.
Additional data point for all the people arguing about it deeper in comments: Firefox 3.6 had its last security update 9 months ago (2012-03-13) and hit official end of life from Mozilla a month later.
I prefer to let people read into the original as much as they choose, since it is fairly clear by the third introductory paragraph that the reporter misrepresented what was at issue in the case.
>That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.
That ruling. I don't think it says what you think it says.
I wish I could say this was some of the worst reporting I've ever seen, but alas.
1. Just because it is allowed by the protocol doesn't mean any given client needs to pay any attention. Just like email, I can filter out any messages from people not in my contacts. I may choose not to and instead run each one of those messages through a spam filter. In this respect it really seems no different than email. Individual clients/servers can choose to be as strict as they like (but servers are servers, and they are sitting on the internet, so spammers can see them and send messages that will be ignored if they like).
2. Since connections with most of your contacts are theoretically maintained so you can push out new data, updating is more akin to propagating a new ip through the DNS system than using a redirect. Yes a DNS server can misbehave, but that can only screw up a network of well behaved servers for so long.
Your blog post suggests using MsgPack as a drop in replacement for JSON for client-server communications. In that context every encode/decode operation on the server would be matched by one in the client browser. The <5% gain in performance on the server (and I think that is generous) cannot possibly make up for the performance hit of a javascript implementation of MsgPack.
When MsgPack was written a lot of JSON in the browser was still not native so an argument could be made if you desperately needed that bandwidth and it worked better than average for your specific workload. That is simply not true anymore.
But you can install a c extension implementation for ruby (or pretty much any other language that doesn't already have native JSON built in) on your server fixing that performance gap. That's exactly what you can't do on the browser JS side for MsgPack.
This is against many consumer ISP ToS and they can/will arbitrarily start blocking traffic on certain default ports depending on how draconian they are about it. I agree that hosting on a home server is an option (even a good one) for some people and usecases, but you are still subject to the whims of someone else, and in this case you often have no recourse as you are violating the ToS.
I disagree with your interpretation. The collection of expressive elements such as icons seems copyrightable in aggregate as much as any of the individual elements. What that decision says is not copyrightable is an organization of data (including choice of words that would struggle to qualify as expressive). If they had allowed the copyright on that then things like logical taxonomies would also be copyrightable. User interfaces not built with a platform's standard interface elements are more akin to works of art and can be expressive and assuming it was copyrightable then determining if a clone was infringing would depend on if it was a true clone or if there was some transformative change.
I'm not sure what is accepted case law, but the cited case seems much narrower to me than you are implying.
um, that is not what that decision says. It says the interface may be covered by copyright to the extent that it contains expression. That would seem to me to have a large overlap with look and feel patents.
I wonder if anyone has actually attempted this and seen how dense you can pack it and reliably recover. I imagine you would need measures to counter small misalignments when rescanning and imperfections in the physical media.