If I have the sole copy of my card, or I can prove where all copies of my card were, then I solve the issue of proving that I was not at the ATM at the time rather nicely. After all, you are supposed to need both the physical card and the PIN to withdrawl cash.
Because most banks that I am aware of have a $300 limit on account withdrawls; also, with enough witnesses willing to provide affidavits, you can prove you were not in the location you said you were in at the time the withdrawl took place. The withdrawl limit is to prevent a person from physically accosting you from ATM to ATM trying to take all your money.
I personally didn't think much of them when I first saw them on TV; I mean, c'mon, how much can they really help? But I have a Kyocera QCP2035, and the reception on that is crap, with or without the antenna fully raised.
I went to my local Target store, and they have a section that has a lot of the As Seen On TV crap in it (like the OxyClean, the Lionel clocks, etc...). Well, the one I went to recently had the one that they've been advertising on TV. Since it's Target, I can always bring it back if it doesn't work. So I bought it. It was $20.
It comes with both an internal antenna booster and one of those earpiece covers that supposedly blocks radiation. I just applied the internal antenna.
It doesn't work miracles per se, but I regularly see a 1-2 bar improvement (out of 4) on my cell phone, depending on the coverage. I wouldn't advocate everyone going out and getting these, but my cell phone's reception was definitely helped.
As far as the headaches and stuff that people seem to be claiming about - I haven't noticed anything like that yet. Then again, I use my cell phone 15 minutes a day tops.
Yeah, my bad, sorry. I read that as an 80% probability that somethhing will be done before the end of next year. Sometimes it's not so clear if you're not devoting 100% attention to it...
For n, there is at least one factor that is
between 1 and sqrt(n).
Thus, for 14, factors being 2 and 7,
and sqrt(14) being ~3.741657, your
statement is false.
Although, once you know one factor, the other
must fall into place.
As a side note,
if you're too lazy to figure out which numbers
are prime before trying them, just try all
numbers that end in 1,3,7, and 9. After 10,
those are the only digits a prime can end in.
The bottom line here is this wouldn't be news if it wasn't Microsoft. Hardware fails (think back to the/. failure a short while ago) and sometimes it takes a while to get it going again.
Not quite; if AIM or ICQ failed for a week, it
would be news, too. The tie-in to.NET is
auxilliary to the real point: that a company
which is claiming to have a large, scalable
architecture had a problem which affects a
large number of Internet users (over 10m)
and couldn't fix it in a week's time.
like adult sites currently do, with popup windows if you try to leave one, etc? This could get ugly. And even then, ad proxies won't help all that much - you'll still have to go to, say, doubleclick's site to continue to the rest of the content. I was getting annoyed at Wired et al for putting articles on multiple pages... this doesn't bode well for those who try it first.
That said, the biggest complaint that I have is that this invites dead links by the thousands to a web near you, as the ads get replaced and links to the rest of the content die. While we can't remove banner ads completely, destroying the ability to retrieve content is fundamentally against the spirit and character of the web.
Every time I go to the IRS web site (www.irs.gov), they always have these cheesy "articles" about how people are using IRS services to make their life SO EASY... quite frankly, it's rather annoying.
However, that said, I rarely have a problem finding information on their site within, say, 5 clicks. So that's a plus on the usability front. But if you're looking for design, don't "steal" from the IRS.:-)
This pretty much confirms what we've all come to know about the UDRP - that it rewards the big guy. While there are some cases where the little guy wins, it seems that with the high number of cases where the complainant wins, that someone who rightly holds a domain can lose it without just cause.
One of the more disturbing aspects of this report is the RDNH report - that is, reverse domain name hijacking claims. In the ones listed, I counted only 3 - *3*! - that were even considered. This means that if you lose a domain under UDRP, the chances of getting it back if you had it legitamitely are nil.
The system is quite obviously broken. So how do we fix it? I would argue that not even having regular Internet users elect the panelists would help. Unfortunately, our Internet has become the new playground of the corporates, and all those things we used to love and take for granted are gone.
Ah, to be able to take the Internet back to 1996 or earlier, back when banner ads were considered the devil's tool, pages were fairly small by comparison, and the SNR was still high...
about:mozilla no longer works. It brings up the Book of Mozilla, but the N doesn't change into a fire-breathing Mozilla anymore! IMHO, this is the most disappointing aspect of NS6.
Jamie: I did read it. That's why I made my comment. Because I read it and it said what I noted and that was that. If I *hadn't* read it, I would have made comments like the other 400 on this story relating to 'OH, GUINES SUCKS LETZ BOYCOTT' but the fact that I actually bothered to follow the link before replying should say something.
Personally, I have a belief that domain squatters should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's just my belief. Perhaps he is in the right here. But past history (and if you don't respond, that's all they have to go on) indicates that he would just sell these domains, or use them for some 'bad-faith' purpose (god only knows what that is.)
That said, if he *had* responded and they said, 'We're going to ignore you', then I would be up in arms over it. But if you don't say anything, you have no right to complain when things go south.
In your example, that's the prosecutor speaking to the judge, I agree that situation would be outrageous -- if the defendant is sitting in the courtroom! But by waiving appearences, you waive all rights. Maybe, just maybe, if he had sent something in explaining 'I registered these and I'm going to be putting up a page with my claims on it, etc...' then I'd agree with him here.
Last point: I agree that XYZsucks.whatever should be freely available. But the point where it should consider being taken away is when it gets slanderous and libelous. 'XYZ puts dead babies in their product!' That's the only time I see it's appropriate. If the claim can be substantiated, it is neither slanderous nor libelous.
By your logic, if I'm innocent of murdering a child, I shouldn't have to show up in court because I didn't do it.
Thankfully, most legal systems do not work that way. You must be able to prove that you are in fact innocent, or someone else has to prove that you are in fact guilty. And while it can be a hassle, indeed, the alternative of just letting people go because 'hey, they're innocent' is too great of a risk to just banter about.
If you sue me and send me a letter, and I say 'oh well' and throw it away, you *should* win and be able to collect damages. Otherwise, people could just throw away lawsuits they didn't like and only God knows what would happen then...
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. No, not the decision. The 4k article on the front of slashdot decrying the WIPO for taking away some domain names.
Let's look at the facts:
The guy got pissed at Guinness and registered a bunch of domain names that, in effect, stated Guinness sucks.
Guinness got pissed and played hardball to have the domains removed.
The guy never responded to the WIPO inquiry - and he had A MONTH to do so!
The guy has registered (and had taken away) numerous other domain names he registered in bad faith - the docket lists 5 other cases he's been involved in
Finally, instead of doing something - ANYTHING - with the domain names, he posts that he took them from Guinness becasue he was pissed they took his original domain to another site.
I'm sorry, but he DESERVED to have those domains taken away. I've been working to get a domain for a group that I'm friends with, and they can't get it because some squatter claims to be 'opening an email service with 3 letter domains' but all he does is sell domains on it. And, it doesn't even point to itself! Plus the DNS entries contain 'THIS-DOMAIN-FOR-SALE' in whois...
Slashdot needs to look a bit more carefully at the stories they run and select, lest too many more things like this pop up that ruin their credibility further.
From now on, I'm going to have 11 year olds open my software and install it for me. After all, they can't legally be bound by an EULA, right? And last I checked, the EULA binds the person who installs it, not uses it, right? Otherwise anytime you connected to an IIS web server you'd have to read M$'s EULA...
If people want to declare tools illegal because they might be used to break into a system, then I have a very simple solution.
Hold the major application vendors responsible.
Seriously. Let's say I purchase (key word purchase) an application from a vendor. The vendor's application gets compromised (buffer overflow, let's say) - an intruder now has root on my system.
But wait!
That application was used in the attack on my system, and because of its flaws an attacker is now able to control my system. Therefore, they should be punished.
"But what about the EULA?" Doesn't matter. It's still a tool that was used to crack my system!
And it was sold to me! And I had no means to correct its faults! And the vendor told me it was secure!
Boy, if HP, Sun, M$ were all held accountable for the security flaws in their products and design; if they had to pay $1 per incident in damages...
Five years ago, we had the same problem, only in a different fashion. Then, the debate was over libc5 versus glibc. At that time, RedHat was seen as evil because they 'forced' everyone to use glibc with their distribution. After all the flames subsided, glibc came out on top, and the world went on its merry way.
Now, granted, this isn't exactly the same thing. GCC 2.96 isn't necessarily the best choice to maintain compatibility with anything else out there. (And that's an understatement.) But without a leader, no decisions get made.
Maybe the bigger question is, should RedHat be that leader? RedHat seems to me to be the distribution taking the bigger risks and trying to get the biggest lead to show 'how far Linux has come'. So they include patches to the kernel that aren't in anyone's tree yet - AFAIK, that hasn't been a big problem to date. They use bleeding edge software they deem to be stable - hasn't seemed to backfire yet, current issue excepted.
It just seems to me that people criticising RedHat over this decision haven't taken the time to realize RedHat's overall contribution to the community, in terms of writing software, hiring developers, and taking the lead to bring Linux to the average Joe.
If you can't stand it, there are plenty of other good distributions out there that you can use. Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, Stampede, to name a few. Just because RedHat makes a decision you do or don't agree with doesn't mean they are the final word. Plenty of other people have worked long and hard hours to bring what they wanted to the table; try their solutions out.
If there's a license agreement, and you're not shown it until you download and install the software on a platform you don't even own,
are you still violating the license and giving out trade secrets?
I ask because according to the license agreement, so much as hooking up the CueCat to your computer and scanning a barcode is enough to bind you to the agreement. Furthermore, supposedly as soon as you hook it up, you can't reverse-engineer it and tell the world. (Oddly enough, you can reverse-engineer it and tell them.)
Apparently you don't own it either; it's on loan to you.
We've seen issues dealing with click-through licensing agreements before. One issue that comes to mind is the issue of DeCSS, where a commercial player was reverse-engineered to get the CSS decode codes.
Please read the following license agreement carefully before using this
software or hardware as you are agreeing to be bound by the following terms and
conditions of this license. You agree to the terms and conditions of this
license by performing ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) using the:CRQ
software; (2) using the:CueCat reader (3) pressing the "agree" button below;
OR (4) printing out a copy of the agreement, signing the agreement and
returning a copy to Digital:Convergence(TM). If you do not agree to the terms
and conditions of this license, do not press the "agree" button or engage in
any of the foregoing acts.
Not all actions may be available with each copy of this agreement.
Copyright
:CRQ and:CueCat are trademarks of DigitalConvergence.:com Inc. Copyright
1999-2000 DigitalConvergence.:com Inc. All rights reserved.
License
This is a license, not a sales agreement, between you, the end user, and
DigitalConvergence.:com Inc. ("Digital:Convergence").
The software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on
disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (the ":CRQ
software") are licensed to you by Digital:Convergence. The:CRQ software and
any copies made and/or distributed under this License are
subject to this License.
The:CueCat reader is licensed to you by Digital:Convergence. The:CueCat
reader distributed under this License is subject to this License.
Digital:Convergence retains all title to and ownership of the Software and
reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. All rights, title, interest,
and all
copyrights in and to the software, documentation, and any copy made by you
remain with Digital:Convergence.
Permitted Uses and Restrictions
This License allows you to install and use the:CueCat reader and:CRQ software
on a single computer at a time. This License does not allow the:CRQ software
to exist on more than one computer at a time. You may use the Software only on
a stand-alone basis, such that the Software and the functions it provides are
accessible only to persons who are physically present at the location of the
computer on which the Software is loaded. You may not allow the Software or its
functions to be accessed remotely, or transmit all or any portion of the
Software through any network or communication line. You may make one copy of
the:CRQ software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only in support
of your use of the Software on a single computer, provided that you reproduce
on the copy all copyright and other proprietary rights notices included on the
originals of the Software. The backup copy must include all copyright
information contained on the original. You acknowledge that the!
Software and:CueCat reader contain trade secrets and other proprietary
information of Digital:Convergence and its licensors. Except as expressly
permitted in this License, you may not decompile, reverse engineer,
disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create
derivative works based upon the:CRQ software or:CueCat reader in whole or
part or transmit the:CRQ software over a network or from one computer to
another. The:CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and
may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or
control of the:CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to
you in the:CueCat reader. Except as expressly permitted in this License, you
may not reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense,
or distribute the:CueCat reader. In any event, you will notify
Digital:Convergence of any information derived from reverse engineering or such
other activities, and the results thereof will constitute the confidential
information of Digital:Convergence that may be used only in connection with
the Software and:CueCat reader. Your rights under this License will terminate
automatically without notice from Digital:Convergence if you fail to comply
with any term(s) of this License.
Disclaimer of Warranty on:CRQ software
YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ACHIEVE
YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION, USE, AND RESULTS OBTAINED FROM
THE SOFTWARE. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE USE OF THE:CRQ
SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION RISKS RELATED TO
ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN LINKS. THE:CRQ SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY
QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY
RIGHTS. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN
THE:CRQ SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE:CRQ SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERUPTED OR ERROR FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE:CRQ
SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED. FURTHERMORE, DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES
NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE
USE OF THE:CRQ SOFTWARE OR RELATED DOCUMENTATION IN TERMS OF THEIR
CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN
INFORMATION OR ADVISE GIVEN BY DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE OR A DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THIS
WARRANTY.
Disclaimer of Warranty on:CueCat reader
YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THE:CUECAT READER TO
ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF THE:CUECAT
READER. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE USE OF THE:CUECAT READER
IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE:CUECAT READER IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY QUALITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE:CUECAT READER WILL MEET YOUR
REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE:CUECAT READER WILL BE UNINTERUPTED
OR ERROR FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE:CUECAT READER WILL BE CORRECTED.
FURTHERMORE, DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS
REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE:CUECAT READER OR
RELATED DOCUMENTATION IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR
OTHERWISE. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVISE GIVEN BY
DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE OR A DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A
WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THIS WARRANTY.
Limitation of Liability
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, SHALL DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE BE
LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS LICENSE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE
LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT
APPLY TO YOU.
Digital:Convergence shall have no liability for any claims you may have
relating to any third party act, obligation, assertion or omission or your use
of any third party product or service regardless of whether you have used the
Digital:Convergence software and/or hardware licensed hereunder to link to any
third party web site. Without limiting the foregoing, Digital:Convergence
disclaims that there is any endorsement, authorization or other association
between parties (or among such parties and Digital:Convergence) related to
ISBN, UPC or other codes or materials, on the one hand, and the sites or pages
to which they are linked by the:CRQ software or otherwise, on the other hand.
This disclaimer includes, without limitation, any claims you may have under any
product liability laws, statutes, codes, or regulations.
Complete Agreement
This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect
to the use of the:CRQ software and:CueCat reader and supersedes all prior or
contemporaneous understandings regarding such subject matter. No amendment to
or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and signed by
Digital:Convergence.
Governing Law
This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and the rights of the parties
determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas (without reference
to its choice of law provisions).
Your Signature
____________________
Agreement may be sent via facsimile to Digital:Convergence at (214) 292-6001.
Well, I would say that's not entirely fully correct.
When new security holes are found in open-source software, and reported to Bugtraq or similar sources, usually the maintainers get a heads-up before it's made public and they get an opportunity to fix it before the world at large knows how to exploit it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending MS. What I am saying is that MS might have been working on a patch that they would release when the time was right... oh, say 2036.
Re:Mirror sites for the PDF version of the opinion
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
I mirrored the PDF version here. (I screwed up the last time and posted the direct PDF link... but if you download it there you don't need a mirror, do you?:-)
Re:Mirror sites for the PDF version of the opinion
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, well, read the PRNewswire article (as mentioned above, it's here). First, it's not really a PRNewswire article - you'll notice the URL of the frame on the right is "http://www.publius.net/hoax/home.html". Second, look at the other headlines on the bottom of the page.
Slashdot Mirror
If I have the sole copy of my card, or I can prove where all copies of my card were, then I solve the issue of proving that I was not at the ATM at the time rather nicely. After all, you are supposed to need both the physical card and the PIN to withdrawl cash.
Because most banks that I am aware of have a $300 limit on account withdrawls; also, with enough witnesses willing to provide affidavits, you can prove you were not in the location you said you were in at the time the withdrawl took place. The withdrawl limit is to prevent a person from physically accosting you from ATM to ATM trying to take all your money.
I went to my local Target store, and they have a section that has a lot of the As Seen On TV crap in it (like the OxyClean, the Lionel clocks, etc...). Well, the one I went to recently had the one that they've been advertising on TV. Since it's Target, I can always bring it back if it doesn't work. So I bought it. It was $20.
It comes with both an internal antenna booster and one of those earpiece covers that supposedly blocks radiation. I just applied the internal antenna.
It doesn't work miracles per se, but I regularly see a 1-2 bar improvement (out of 4) on my cell phone, depending on the coverage. I wouldn't advocate everyone going out and getting these, but my cell phone's reception was definitely helped.
As far as the headaches and stuff that people seem to be claiming about - I haven't noticed anything like that yet. Then again, I use my cell phone 15 minutes a day tops.
Yeah, my bad, sorry. I read that as an 80% probability that somethhing will be done before the end of next year. Sometimes it's not so clear if you're not devoting 100% attention to it...
Cached copy at Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.feer.com/ 2001/0109_20/p034innov.html
Not exactly...
For n, there is at least one factor that is between 1 and sqrt(n).
Thus, for 14, factors being 2 and 7, and sqrt(14) being ~3.741657, your statement is false.
Although, once you know one factor, the other must fall into place.
As a side note, if you're too lazy to figure out which numbers are prime before trying them, just try all numbers that end in 1,3,7, and 9. After 10, those are the only digits a prime can end in.
Sometimes, news is news.
like adult sites currently do, with popup windows if you try to leave one, etc? This could get ugly. And even then, ad proxies won't help all that much - you'll still have to go to, say, doubleclick's site to continue to the rest of the content. I was getting annoyed at Wired et al for putting articles on multiple pages... this doesn't bode well for those who try it first.
That said, the biggest complaint that I have is that this invites dead links by the thousands to a web near you, as the ads get replaced and links to the rest of the content die. While we can't remove banner ads completely, destroying the ability to retrieve content is fundamentally against the spirit and character of the web.
Every time I go to the IRS web site (www.irs.gov), they always have these cheesy "articles" about how people are using IRS services to make their life SO EASY... quite frankly, it's rather annoying.
:-)
However, that said, I rarely have a problem finding information on their site within, say, 5 clicks. So that's a plus on the usability front. But if you're looking for design, don't "steal" from the IRS.
This pretty much confirms what we've all come to know about the UDRP - that it rewards the big guy. While there are some cases where the little guy wins, it seems that with the high number of cases where the complainant wins, that someone who rightly holds a domain can lose it without just cause.
One of the more disturbing aspects of this report is the RDNH report - that is, reverse domain name hijacking claims. In the ones listed, I counted only 3 - *3*! - that were even considered. This means that if you lose a domain under UDRP, the chances of getting it back if you had it legitamitely are nil.
The system is quite obviously broken. So how do we fix it? I would argue that not even having regular Internet users elect the panelists would help. Unfortunately, our Internet has become the new playground of the corporates, and all those things we used to love and take for granted are gone.
Ah, to be able to take the Internet back to 1996 or earlier, back when banner ads were considered the devil's tool, pages were fairly small by comparison, and the SNR was still high...
about:mozilla no longer works. It brings up the Book of Mozilla, but the N doesn't change into a fire-breathing Mozilla anymore! IMHO, this is the most disappointing aspect of NS6.
Irony: I live in Boulder, Colorado.
Have you perhaps heard of JonBenet Ramsey?
Jamie: I did read it. That's why I made my comment. Because I read it and it said what I noted and that was that. If I *hadn't* read it, I would have made comments like the other 400 on this story relating to 'OH, GUINES SUCKS LETZ BOYCOTT' but the fact that I actually bothered to follow the link before replying should say something.
Personally, I have a belief that domain squatters should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's just my belief. Perhaps he is in the right here. But past history (and if you don't respond, that's all they have to go on) indicates that he would just sell these domains, or use them for some 'bad-faith' purpose (god only knows what that is.)
That said, if he *had* responded and they said, 'We're going to ignore you', then I would be up in arms over it. But if you don't say anything, you have no right to complain when things go south.
In your example, that's the prosecutor speaking to the judge, I agree that situation would be outrageous -- if the defendant is sitting in the courtroom! But by waiving appearences, you waive all rights. Maybe, just maybe, if he had sent something in explaining 'I registered these and I'm going to be putting up a page with my claims on it, etc...' then I'd agree with him here.
Last point: I agree that XYZsucks.whatever should be freely available. But the point where it should consider being taken away is when it gets slanderous and libelous. 'XYZ puts dead babies in their product!' That's the only time I see it's appropriate. If the claim can be substantiated, it is neither slanderous nor libelous.
By your logic, if I'm innocent of murdering a child, I shouldn't have to show up in court because I didn't do it.
Thankfully, most legal systems do not work that way. You must be able to prove that you are in fact innocent, or someone else has to prove that you are in fact guilty. And while it can be a hassle, indeed, the alternative of just letting people go because 'hey, they're innocent' is too great of a risk to just banter about.
If you sue me and send me a letter, and I say 'oh well' and throw it away, you *should* win and be able to collect damages. Otherwise, people could just throw away lawsuits they didn't like and only God knows what would happen then...
Let's look at the facts:
- The guy got pissed at Guinness and registered a bunch of domain names that, in effect, stated Guinness sucks.
- Guinness got pissed and played hardball to have the domains removed.
- The guy never responded to the WIPO inquiry - and he had A MONTH to do so!
- The guy has registered (and had taken away) numerous other domain names he registered in bad faith - the docket lists 5 other cases he's been involved in
- Finally, instead of doing something - ANYTHING - with the domain names, he posts that he took them from Guinness becasue he was pissed they took his original domain to another site.
I'm sorry, but he DESERVED to have those domains taken away. I've been working to get a domain for a group that I'm friends with, and they can't get it because some squatter claims to be 'opening an email service with 3 letter domains' but all he does is sell domains on it. And, it doesn't even point to itself! Plus the DNS entries contain 'THIS-DOMAIN-FOR-SALE' in whois...Slashdot needs to look a bit more carefully at the stories they run and select, lest too many more things like this pop up that ruin their credibility further.
Score: -1, Flamebait
I've got an idea...
From now on, I'm going to have 11 year olds open my software and install it for me. After all, they can't legally be bound by an EULA, right? And last I checked, the EULA binds the person who installs it, not uses it, right? Otherwise anytime you connected to an IIS web server you'd have to read M$'s EULA...
This has some very interesting uses...
If people want to declare tools illegal because they might be used to break into a system, then I have a very simple solution.
Hold the major application vendors responsible.
Seriously. Let's say I purchase (key word purchase) an application from a vendor. The vendor's application gets compromised (buffer overflow, let's say) - an intruder now has root on my system.
But wait!
That application was used in the attack on my system, and because of its flaws an attacker is now able to control my system. Therefore, they should be punished.
"But what about the EULA?" Doesn't matter. It's still a tool that was used to crack my system! And it was sold to me! And I had no means to correct its faults! And the vendor told me it was secure!
Boy, if HP, Sun, M$ were all held accountable for the security flaws in their products and design; if they had to pay $1 per incident in damages...
Five years ago, we had the same problem, only in a different fashion. Then, the debate was over libc5 versus glibc. At that time, RedHat was seen as evil because they 'forced' everyone to use glibc with their distribution. After all the flames subsided, glibc came out on top, and the world went on its merry way.
Now, granted, this isn't exactly the same thing. GCC 2.96 isn't necessarily the best choice to maintain compatibility with anything else out there. (And that's an understatement.) But without a leader, no decisions get made.
Maybe the bigger question is, should RedHat be that leader? RedHat seems to me to be the distribution taking the bigger risks and trying to get the biggest lead to show 'how far Linux has come'. So they include patches to the kernel that aren't in anyone's tree yet - AFAIK, that hasn't been a big problem to date. They use bleeding edge software they deem to be stable - hasn't seemed to backfire yet, current issue excepted.
It just seems to me that people criticising RedHat over this decision haven't taken the time to realize RedHat's overall contribution to the community, in terms of writing software, hiring developers, and taking the lead to bring Linux to the average Joe.
If you can't stand it, there are plenty of other good distributions out there that you can use. Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, Stampede, to name a few. Just because RedHat makes a decision you do or don't agree with doesn't mean they are the final word. Plenty of other people have worked long and hard hours to bring what they wanted to the table; try their solutions out.
If there's a license agreement, and you're not shown it until you download and install the software on a platform you don't even own, are you still violating the license and giving out trade secrets?
:CRQ(TM) Software and :CueCat(TM) Reader Hardware License
:CRQ
software; (2) using the :CueCat reader (3) pressing the "agree" button below;
OR (4) printing out a copy of the agreement, signing the agreement and
returning a copy to Digital:Convergence(TM). If you do not agree to the terms
and conditions of this license, do not press the "agree" button or engage in
any of the foregoing acts.
:CRQ and :CueCat are trademarks of DigitalConvergence.:com Inc. Copyright
1999-2000 DigitalConvergence.:com Inc. All rights reserved.
:CRQ software and
any copies made and/or distributed under this License are
subject to this License.
:CueCat reader is licensed to you by Digital:Convergence. The :CueCat
reader distributed under this License is subject to this License.
:CueCat reader and :CRQ software
on a single computer at a time. This License does not allow the :CRQ software
to exist on more than one computer at a time. You may use the Software only on
a stand-alone basis, such that the Software and the functions it provides are
accessible only to persons who are physically present at the location of the
computer on which the Software is loaded. You may not allow the Software or its
functions to be accessed remotely, or transmit all or any portion of the
Software through any network or communication line. You may make one copy of
the :CRQ software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only in support
of your use of the Software on a single computer, provided that you reproduce
on the copy all copyright and other proprietary rights notices included on the
originals of the Software. The backup copy must include all copyright
information contained on the original. You acknowledge that the!
Software and :CueCat reader contain trade secrets and other proprietary
information of Digital:Convergence and its licensors. Except as expressly
permitted in this License, you may not decompile, reverse engineer,
disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create
derivative works based upon the :CRQ software or :CueCat reader in whole or
part or transmit the :CRQ software over a network or from one computer to
another. The :CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and
may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or
control of the :CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to
you in the :CueCat reader. Except as expressly permitted in this License, you
may not reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense,
or distribute the :CueCat reader. In any event, you will notify
Digital:Convergence of any information derived from reverse engineering or such
other activities, and the results thereof will constitute the confidential
information of Digital:Convergence that may be used only in connection with
the Software and :CueCat reader. Your rights under this License will terminate
automatically without notice from Digital:Convergence if you fail to comply
with any term(s) of this License.
:CRQ software
:CRQ
SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION RISKS RELATED TO
ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN LINKS. THE :CRQ SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY
QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY
RIGHTS. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN
THE :CRQ SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE :CRQ SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERUPTED OR ERROR FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE :CRQ
SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED. FURTHERMORE, DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES
NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE
USE OF THE :CRQ SOFTWARE OR RELATED DOCUMENTATION IN TERMS OF THEIR
CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN
INFORMATION OR ADVISE GIVEN BY DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE OR A DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THIS
WARRANTY.
:CueCat reader
:CUECAT READER TO
ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF THE :CUECAT
READER. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE USE OF THE :CUECAT READER
IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE :CUECAT READER IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY QUALITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE :CUECAT READER WILL MEET YOUR
REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE :CUECAT READER WILL BE UNINTERUPTED
OR ERROR FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE :CUECAT READER WILL BE CORRECTED.
FURTHERMORE, DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS
REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE :CUECAT READER OR
RELATED DOCUMENTATION IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR
OTHERWISE. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVISE GIVEN BY
DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE OR A DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A
WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THIS WARRANTY.
:CRQ software or otherwise, on the other hand.
This disclaimer includes, without limitation, any claims you may have under any
product liability laws, statutes, codes, or regulations.
:CRQ software and :CueCat reader and supersedes all prior or
contemporaneous understandings regarding such subject matter. No amendment to
or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and signed by
Digital:Convergence.
I ask because according to the license agreement, so much as hooking up the CueCat to your computer and scanning a barcode is enough to bind you to the agreement. Furthermore, supposedly as soon as you hook it up, you can't reverse-engineer it and tell the world. (Oddly enough, you can reverse-engineer it and tell them.)
Apparently you don't own it either; it's on loan to you.
We've seen issues dealing with click-through licensing agreements before. One issue that comes to mind is the issue of DeCSS, where a commercial player was reverse-engineered to get the CSS decode codes.
The license agreement follows:
Please read the following license agreement carefully before using this software or hardware as you are agreeing to be bound by the following terms and conditions of this license. You agree to the terms and conditions of this license by performing ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) using the
Not all actions may be available with each copy of this agreement.
Copyright
License
This is a license, not a sales agreement, between you, the end user, and DigitalConvergence.:com Inc. ("Digital:Convergence").
The software, documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (the ":CRQ software") are licensed to you by Digital:Convergence. The
The
Digital:Convergence retains all title to and ownership of the Software and reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. All rights, title, interest, and all copyrights in and to the software, documentation, and any copy made by you remain with Digital:Convergence.
Permitted Uses and Restrictions
This License allows you to install and use the
Disclaimer of Warranty on
YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION, USE, AND RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE SOFTWARE. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE USE OF THE
Disclaimer of Warranty on
YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THE
Limitation of Liability
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, SHALL DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS LICENSE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
Digital:Convergence shall have no liability for any claims you may have relating to any third party act, obligation, assertion or omission or your use of any third party product or service regardless of whether you have used the Digital:Convergence software and/or hardware licensed hereunder to link to any third party web site. Without limiting the foregoing, Digital:Convergence disclaims that there is any endorsement, authorization or other association between parties (or among such parties and Digital:Convergence) related to ISBN, UPC or other codes or materials, on the one hand, and the sites or pages to which they are linked by the
Complete Agreement
This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the use of the
Governing Law
This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and the rights of the parties determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas (without reference to its choice of law provisions).
Your Signature
____________________
Agreement may be sent via facsimile to Digital:Convergence at (214) 292-6001.
Well, I would say that's not entirely fully correct.
When new security holes are found in open-source software, and reported to Bugtraq or similar sources, usually the maintainers get a heads-up before it's made public and they get an opportunity to fix it before the world at large knows how to exploit it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending MS. What I am saying is that MS might have been working on a patch that they would release when the time was right... oh, say 2036.
I mirrored the PDF version here. (I screwed up the last time and posted the direct PDF link... but if you download it there you don't need a mirror, do you? :-)
I mirrored the PDF version here.
Mirror of the findings available here
I don't think this is a joke. It looks decent enough. It just seems that the editors decided to run it through a Swedish Chef filter. So be it.
Yeah, well, read the PRNewswire article (as mentioned above, it's here). First, it's not really a PRNewswire article - you'll notice the URL of the frame on the right is "http://www.publius.net/hoax/home.html". Second, look at the other headlines on the bottom of the page.
It is a bad joke. Sorry to spoil it so early.