I thought that was lame, too...but, now that I've seen the show, not really. An enemy 'from the future' isn't automatically lame, and time travel isn't a bad plot device.
It's just a bad plot solution.
As long as all the time travel stuff is simply the enemy having advanced tech (The tech levels between different races never made any sense anyway.) and knowing what's going to happen so they turn up at exactly the wrong moment, I'll be happy with it.
However, what does that say to that company's customers? Especially if they are a tech-savvy company? That their abilities of system/network administration are sub-standard?
So...you think people shouldn't know the truth? It's like with libel, it's not a crime if the information you give about someone is true. A company couldn't sue someone for breaking in and making them look bad, because they should look bad.
Not that it should be legal or anything, but a company that gets broken into deserves to have a reputation for not being secure...as they aren't.
While it's probably too late for anyone to care, Win-OS/2 is Windows for all intents and purposes.
It is simply the Windows 3.x source code with some memory managment stuff hacked so it can run under another OS. 99.999% of it was bit-for-bit identical with Windows 3.x. (Whatever release it was based off, I think 3.1.)
I vote for the Libertarian party, despite them being a bunch of complete lunatics, because they can't possibly win, and it shows I truely don't respect either major party, in a much better way then not voting ever did.
I consider it the same as saying 'None of the Above'.
I have no idea that GPL code you're talking about that can 'read HTML pages'. The only thing I can think of is mozilla, which is MPL, not GPL. Socket support is in libc, which is LGPL, and thus anyone can connect to it.
Wait, do you mean libghttp? THat's under the LGPL too. As long as you don't go copying code out of it, that's fine and legal to dynamically link to.
IANAL, but it doesn't take one to see that the only people who have potentially grounds to sue are the direct authors of the GPL'd works in question.
That's a hell of a lot of people. Linux has seveal dozen copyright owners, libc has tons, samba has quite a lot, and this probably violates Apache's license, too, because I have believe you have to give credit. It's a lot of people, possibly up to 300.
And at most their recovery will be a portion of the revenues of the "infringer," since as the GPL authors have already essentially given up their right to directly profit from the work, the claimant will have woefully little basis to demonstrate damages.
Erm, since when? We already have a few examples of copyright holders on GPL things also selling said program under another license. Reiserfs leaps to mind, and I'm sure there are more.
(jumping ahead a few steps, but in the interest of keeping this post short,) therefore, it is not a bad strategy for for-profit companies to ignore the GPL and simply include GPL'd code in commercial products. Doubly true considering that much code can be included into obscure compiled binaries where the chances of getting caught are quite slim.
It's rather funny to watch a commercial company put a rescretive license on something, then it turns out they themselves are in violations of licenses. Reveals what hypocrits they are.
Furthermore (gets on rant horse). Can one of you stallman-swallowers please explain to us Normals your duplicity when it comes to licences? How many of you guys "sticking it to the man and his restrictive licences" when you, oh, I don't know, encourage piracy of content and software by using "anti-censorship" systems such as the peer-to-peer flavor of the week, are also getting your panties in a wad when somebody abuses a restriction of the GPL?
What are you talking about? Did you suddenly turn into a troll? I love the 'anti-censorship' crack, though, you'll get all sort of people leaping out of the woodwork to yell at you about censorship.
Erm..if someone says 'You can't find a price this low, even on eBay.', it imples that the lowest place you'd find a price would, in fact, be eBay. It means 'If you search all the places, including eBay in the search, you won't find a price that low'. The obvious reason eBay was included is that people would expect it to have a lower price then most places, and thus it has been explictedly included as having been checked.
IPv6 addresses follow a heirarchy. You never need to know more than the addresses of the people above and below you. And the addresses of the people below you will all be subsets of your addresses, and you will be a subset of the people above you. No exceptions allowed.
Independently creating works that are copyrighted by other people is completely legal, unlike, say, patents, which the fact you came up with it yourself isn't an excuse.
Good luck convincing a judge you magically came up with the exact bitsquence on the latest Chumbawumba album, though.
The reason CSS is fundementally flaws is not that they didn't test it, but that the concept itself is flawed. You cannot give someone a hunk of data, and a way to decode that data, and think they will be unable to come up with another way of decoding the data then the way you made.
The only possible way to do something like that is to seal your decoder inside a self destructing box, making people unable to reverse engineer it. Once people can poke around the decoder, you're completely screwed.
Of course, this isn't to say that a sealed decoder is foolproof, people could still brute force any single player player keep and, tada, you're screwed, but handing people software players is simply impossible to make work. Even if MS somehow came up with a 100% unbreakable way of making certain programs not reverse-engineerable, it's is a fundamental law that computer are Turing complete, and *any* computer can emulate any other.
In an office, I cannot beat people with sticks, shoot them, plant evidence that will send them to prison for years, etc.
PS Dpon't even bother attempting to pretend I was talking about all cops. I was simply talking abou the fact cops have more power then people at 'an office'.
Slashdot Mirror
Um...duh...because you'd have to drop your shields to do it? Not a very smooth thing to do in a firefight.
It's just a bad plot solution.
As long as all the time travel stuff is simply the enemy having advanced tech (The tech levels between different races never made any sense anyway.) and knowing what's going to happen so they turn up at exactly the wrong moment, I'll be happy with it.
So...you think people shouldn't know the truth? It's like with libel, it's not a crime if the information you give about someone is true. A company couldn't sue someone for breaking in and making them look bad, because they should look bad.
Not that it should be legal or anything, but a company that gets broken into deserves to have a reputation for not being secure...as they aren't.
I think murder does have a statue of limitatons, at least in some places.
I'm too lazy to look them up, but it's a good start.
Or are we just blocking stupid people from cheating?
It is simply the Windows 3.x source code with some memory managment stuff hacked so it can run under another OS. 99.999% of it was bit-for-bit identical with Windows 3.x. (Whatever release it was based off, I think 3.1.)
ObWindowsBashing: On the plus side, the booth would fail randomly and for days at a time, because it would be running Windows.
I consider it the same as saying 'None of the Above'.
Heh! That's a complete and total violation them...they don't have permission to distribute the binaries at all.
Wait, do you mean libghttp? THat's under the LGPL too. As long as you don't go copying code out of it, that's fine and legal to dynamically link to.
That's a hell of a lot of people. Linux has seveal dozen copyright owners, libc has tons, samba has quite a lot, and this probably violates Apache's license, too, because I have believe you have to give credit. It's a lot of people, possibly up to 300.
And at most their recovery will be a portion of the revenues of the "infringer," since as the GPL authors have already essentially given up their right to directly profit from the work, the claimant will have woefully little basis to demonstrate damages.
Erm, since when? We already have a few examples of copyright holders on GPL things also selling said program under another license. Reiserfs leaps to mind, and I'm sure there are more.
(jumping ahead a few steps, but in the interest of keeping this post short,) therefore, it is not a bad strategy for for-profit companies to ignore the GPL and simply include GPL'd code in commercial products. Doubly true considering that much code can be included into obscure compiled binaries where the chances of getting caught are quite slim.
It's rather funny to watch a commercial company put a rescretive license on something, then it turns out they themselves are in violations of licenses. Reveals what hypocrits they are.
Furthermore (gets on rant horse). Can one of you stallman-swallowers please explain to us Normals your duplicity when it comes to licences? How many of you guys "sticking it to the man and his restrictive licences" when you, oh, I don't know, encourage piracy of content and software by using "anti-censorship" systems such as the peer-to-peer flavor of the week, are also getting your panties in a wad when somebody abuses a restriction of the GPL?
What are you talking about? Did you suddenly turn into a troll? I love the 'anti-censorship' crack, though, you'll get all sort of people leaping out of the woodwork to yell at you about censorship.
Becuase, maybe, they didn't write the software? Duh. They took other people's GPL'd software and didn't follow the GPL.
The things some companies have managed to convince people of, sheesh.
At least in our earth English.
Which kinda makes your contract violation look like small potatoes, doesn't it?
Dude, they already 'assign' IPv6 addresses. You just use the ones that are a subset of yur providers. And you can get free providers.
IPv6 addresses follow a heirarchy. You never need to know more than the addresses of the people above and below you. And the addresses of the people below you will all be subsets of your addresses, and you will be a subset of the people above you. No exceptions allowed.
Good luck convincing a judge you magically came up with the exact bitsquence on the latest Chumbawumba album, though.
Companies would pretty much automatically prefer anything that makes them money. That doesn't mean they have a right to it.
The only possible way to do something like that is to seal your decoder inside a self destructing box, making people unable to reverse engineer it. Once people can poke around the decoder, you're completely screwed.
Of course, this isn't to say that a sealed decoder is foolproof, people could still brute force any single player player keep and, tada, you're screwed, but handing people software players is simply impossible to make work. Even if MS somehow came up with a 100% unbreakable way of making certain programs not reverse-engineerable, it's is a fundamental law that computer are Turing complete, and *any* computer can emulate any other.
I don't think not opening the door would open you up to those charges, but shutting and locking the door in their face might.
-David T. C.
Of course, not really, because the suspect would have had the rights without the ruling. The ruling just made the police tell him.
-David T. C.
PS Dpon't even bother attempting to pretend I was talking about all cops. I was simply talking abou the fact cops have more power then people at 'an office'.
-David T. C.
<sarcasm>
Yeah, cause everyone knows black people can't read.
</sarcasm>
-David T. C.