I estimate about 99.9% of the users doesn't know that MS Office supports scripting or how to use it. This is very much an enterprise-option where some IT person produces templates that includes such scripting. So for most users this is a non-issue.
and an exchange capable PIM like outlook.
Again enterprise-level stuff. Not for the home users or small businesses.
And whether the "look and feel is better" that is usually not as much a matter of preference but a matter of familiarity. Most users are familiar with MS Office already. OOo is different. For many users that is an issue.
This is the thanks I get for dropping money on their product. I passed on Vista. I'll pass on Win7. Once this system has aged to the point of uselessness (translation: can't game any more) I'm going to Linux full time. Why? BECAUSE THEY ACT AS IF THEY OWN MY MACHINE, NOT ME. THAT pisses me off.
So f--- them. I'm done.
It may be redundant for me to point it out to you, I mean this is Slashdot after all, but maybe just maybe you should consider thinking about the fact that there could be other operating systems out there that are not made by MS and that do not employ WGA and related annoyances. Some of them may even be considered "modern" and "secure". Oh and quite some of them may even be downloadable from the Internet for you to try, without having to pay for it.
Ubuntu, Mandriva, FreeBSD, Fedora and Debian are a few names that come to mind.
We (well most of us) live in a free world and are allowed to make choices. If you don't like a product, move on and get something you do like and enjoy.
OOo is widely seen as interesting alternative to Office, but a major complaint is "limited functionality". Now personally I wouldn't know what's lacking - collaboration maybe but that's for big organisations, not for me. Now MS releases an Office with "limited functionality", that sounds very much like OOo.
Interesting parts are of course what functionality is gone, and how it is ad-supported. If there's a blinking moving ad taking up 20% of your screen that's horrible of course. If it is text ads on the side that's much more manageable.
And it probably won't be too hard to disable the ads: they are surely downloaded over the Internet so disconnecting the computer from the network will do already. Otherwise some rules in the firewall or some entries in the hosts file will do.
And I smell food for another anti-trust law suit if they are going to bundle it by default with Windows. Unless they also install alternatives but that's not too likely.
Dell doesn't offer it as option in their web store. It is all Vista that I can find (just checked out their best sellers). It is also not advertised on the front page.
So for the general public I'd call that "not yet released". This is like a preview for tech support to get their operators trained and get familiar, for hardware makers to get their drivers right, etc. As long as it is not in the shops or otherwise available through public channels it's not released in my book. And for a system that is waiting to be released to the general public and is only available through special channels, I'd call 1.5% market share really impressive.
Sorry I didn't realise there was an actual release of Win7 already... it doesn't even have a fancy name. Not too bad for MS to have more market share than Linux for an OS that is not even officially released.
Ask any inventor and they will tell you that finding the problem is the main part of the invention. When you have found the problem, finding the solution is the easy part. That doesn't make a solution less patentable though. The old solution may have worked fine in most situations, and you found where it doesn't work and found a solution for that. Or you found a better way to do the normal stuff.
For example, the problem of attaching two pieces of wood. The easiest way is to use some twine or rope to tie it together. Then later someone thought that it should be done better: tighter fit, less movement. And he invented the pin connection. Make holes in both pieces of wood and stick a pin through it. Later someone invented the nail to make it easier to make the connection. And that was followed by the screw that was harder to apply but makes the connection stronger, because he found the problem of the connection to be too weak.
Or the light bulb: the problem is getting light at night, the obvious solution was open fire. Then someone thought "can't we use that newfangled thing called electricity for that?" There is a problem: make light with electricity. Well the solution is obvious: glowing a wire. That must have been seen many times (short-circuits). But now the problem is how to keep it from burning and breaking? That is the real problem of course. And after that it was just working to a solution.
So really it is both: the problem AND the solution. That makes a patent. The problem of software patents is that a PROBLEM is patented, generally without a real SOLUTION to it. A single problem may have several patents, each giving a different solution. And obviousness... that's always a really tough one to prove or disprove.
Makes me think of a LJ2plus that I bought from surplus some years ago. I don't have it any more, gave it away. Very sturdy, good and reasonably fast prints, but heavy! About 45 kg that one, almost broke my back getting it upstairs. I didn't even put it on the table... too heavy... and too big. But it could print double sided, that was really cool. Built like a tank indeed: strong, heavy, big.
I think PC games are different for historical reasons. By the time PCs got powerful enough to play games (that was the time of the first 486 processors, when colour displays were not even standard equipment yet) the consoles were there for like ages already. Connecting usually to the TV as display (colour!), with far better graphics than what the PC could do. Heck my MSX home computer, at least 10 years older, could do better in that aspect than most PCs until the 386 era.
Console games were surely traded lively at the time already. PC games are from a much later era - an era where game makers started to get more greedy and started to think of ways to curb the second hand market. The console second hand game market was probably simply too developed to stop. Just like second hand books: it is unthinkable to stop that trade now. We are too used to it. For PC games the game makers obviously succeeded.
Another difference may be that until not so long ago PC games came on floppy/CD, easily copyable, while console games came on memory cassettes, not easy to copy without special equipment. So it was relatively hard to get your hands on pirated copies.
The only way to do that, more or less, is to sue the board or some other top manager for wilful misconduct. This is of course something that is really hard to prove, but I'm sure it has been done before.
It is indeed a problem that for punishing companies they can not be put in jail. Especially bigger companies. Fines is the only way - you could argue for forced liquidation but that would be the equivalent of the death penalty. And in case of liquidating a company would have quite some collateral damage (many people losing their jobs). Fines so high they are forced into bankruptcy have the same effect.
So translated you are predicting the following doom scenario for Microsoft (and with it most of the computing world, as even if you are not using Windows you will be affected by this):
Some company scratches an itch with Windows, gains market share. Well actually a whole bunch do this.
MS takes notices, and embraces this issue, bringing out their own software that scratches this itch.
MS offering is actually better than current competition. Partly probably made possible because they know the internals of Windows so much better.
MS includes software with OS for free, extinguishes competition.
MS stops innovating, puts product on backburner, and lets it wither.
Now we're talking about anti-virus, so virus writers quickly take over, rendering MS solution worthless, and in the process rendering every computer running Windows useless to anyone but the virus controller.
And a total meltdown follows, hopefully with MS taking the brunt of the criticism. Though by then the real damage is done.
Indeed. They are mentioned no-where. Not even on slashdot. Who is this Microsoft you are talking about anyway? Are they in computers or so? Then maybe we should give them a front-page story or so now and then.
I doubt they need marketing for that. As long as they have the big-box makers in their pockets Joe Sixpack has a choice between white and black computers. All come with Windows pre-installed. Some in bigger case, some maybe with nice lights in it, but they will all run Windows. No expensive marketing campaigns needed, anyone but a geek (who knows about the alternatives already) will every try to install their own O/S in the first place.
Of course it is possible to put a back door in virtually any computer or piece of software. I am not going to deny that. My main point is that GP suggests "this is from a Chinese company and made in China so we'd better assume it has back doors". That is just plain silly.
And actually no I don't know about that back door, and "the standard C compiler" is also quite broadly stated. The most interesting part of such a back door would be who put it in, why they put it in, and by who is/was this used?
If Lenovo would build in back doors, and is found out, then at best they go bankrupt. I think that is enough of a reason for any company NOT to build in that kind of back doors. And they will be found: non-standard chips present in the hardware are a prime target for further investigation, and BIOSes can be flashed (or, presumably, the original software checked against known-good implementations or at the very least decompiled for investigation).
So even if the PLA is part-owner of Lenovo, why would you think there ARE back doors built in? Because that is exactly what you are now suggesting. And on the same line, why would laptops from US companies NOT have back doors? E.g. Microsoft, being let off the hook for anti-trust suits all the time, would have a case of secretly cooperating with the US government to build in back doors as compensation for being allowed to live.
The only thing that can more or less guarantee no back doors is to develop it all from scratch by yourself. Then you have control over back doors present or not.
And by the way what is it with you Americans that everything linked to China is automatically considered evil these days?
on eBook readers [...] the real benefit is an e-ink display, which this most certainly does not have unless Microsoft has made some technological breakthroughs they're not sharing.
I'd say they for sure do not have such a tech. MS doesn't develop hardware, they are primarily a software company that is also putting together hardware devices. They do not develop hardware tech really - they use off-the-shelf (a PC with nice case = XBOX) tech and use that to build their stuff. That is not meant negatively; Apple is doing much of the same, just a bit more successful. It's like playing with legos, the creativity is in how you put the parts together.
But then it's Microsoft and it is not a release version so likely all the cool features will be removed by then.
Ok, joking aside: what OS will they be running? Is Win7 capable of such neat touch-screen tricks already? Is such a tablet (which looks a bit like a double PDA to me) powerful enough for such a big system? I don't think I have ever seen or heard about a system that can do the things they demoed (well it was a complete mock-up: the user's hand was even drawn so it was for sure not a video of a real-life demo), so not sure whether MS actually has a system that can do what they showed in that video.
How exactly does that work with, for example, stolen goods? Some poor schmuck robs a bank and drives off with with $5,000,000. Police chase, he goes off a bridge trying to get away. Money floats down the river while the crook swims to shore. Police pick him up some time later in the woods, without a dime on him, and claim he stashed the goods some where in the woods. Judge offers leniency if money is returned.
The police will be able to verify this story by finding money floating in the river, stuck under tree trunks, witness reports, whatever.
So the judge asks, "Where is the money?" The response? "Lost in a fire." "Scattered over the Amazon." "Under a big 'W'." "Stolen by Jimmy the Nose." "I just don't know, your honor." The crook goes back in the cell for "contempt".
How does one prove lack of knowledge? How do you prove something is truly lost or destroyed?
Many of these things leave traces; and unless the story is completely made up there will be traces - or at least ways to verify it's believable or not. Stolen by or paid to other criminal? Name this guy, police can chase him down. Lost in a fire? Well there will likely be a record of that fire at some fire department. Can be checked.
And if nothing works - of course you will be able to come up with scenarios where the criminal is the "good guy" - well shit happens, nothing is perfect, not even the western judicial system. We can just do our best to make it as close to perfect as possible. Maybe the guy shouldn't have robbed that bank in the first place, after all we are talking about people that have been convicted already.
or (3. show the court what happened to their income, and that they have given full disclosure of their assets). To be thrown in jail for not disclosing assets means that the court has certain proof that there must be certain undisclosed assets present. E.g. someone has been proven to have received illegal income of say a couple million dollars, but only discloses half a million worth of assets. What happened to the rest?
I can not imagine that there is a way for the court to put someone in jail without having any proof. Even in the USA where it is all so messed up. But what I hear coming out of that place is that the COURTS and JUDGES are still doing their job pretty well - it is the GOVERNMENT and POLICE (and related agencies like FBI/CIA/whatever) that lost their integrity by faking proof, torture, extrajudiciary imprisonment (Gitmo, secret CIA prisons).
And if the person does not actually "posses the keys", sucks to be him. good luck proving that you honsetly do not know the password, that the money is really gone, etc.
Proving money is really gone is not too hard: just give full (and I mean full) disclosure of assets and transactions. The courts will have the proof that certain money transactions went your way (that's why they can recover that - one way or another it's proven you got it). It is your responsibility for tax reasons to keep your financial administration for a certain period of time (no idea on the actual period in the USA) and certainly banks will keep records of transactions in and out of your accounts. Then you can explain each transaction to the courts, and tell them where the money has gone. You may also have to give disclosure of overseas accounts of course.
If they were really selling to just 30 fanboys then for sure the publication would have stopped long ago. You may not like their comics, but for sure there is a big market for them. The ongoing existence and creation of new stories with old characters proves that.
An old, flawed analogy. I have seen it so many times, it's truly sad that people still come up with it.
This man is ordered to build the wall, and in advance knows how much he's going to get paid - basically no risk there, do the job well and get paid. The owner of the property has a good idea on how much the value is of that wall, based on the effect of the wall and the quality of the workmanship of the mason. The wall wasn't the mason's idea, it was the property owner's idea.
This is similar to a company ordering creative work: think of all the artists working for Disney. They do not get copyrights paid over their arts, they get a salary for what they are doing. The Pocahontas movie was not their idea, it was the company's idea. They just implemented it. Or a research company developing a chip (e.g. ARM), where the designers of said chip do not get royalties but they do get their salary. ARM later tries to make money by licensing that design. Again no risk for the creative people, they have their money in advance. The idea of investing a lot of money in a energy efficient micro processor was also not their idea, they merely implemented it.
When an independent author is writing a book, no-one ordered him to do so. He wants it because he likes it, or because he thinks he has a great idea and a great story to tell and hopes to sell this story. Thus he owns the copyrights, and can license it to anyone he likes. The independent author doesn't get any money for writing the book, he invests a lot of time (and money: to eat and pay the rent while writing) in the book, but has also take a great risk. The book may flop and he ends up with nothing. The book may also become a bestseller, and he ends up rich.
It is basic business here: the greater the risk taken, the greater the potential rewards. That's all. And now please stop that nonsense of wanting to be paid forever for something that someone else asked you to do.
Exactly what I thought. I don't know how the Enigma was developed but it was a very sound device, and there are still messages that we can not decypher. Even having one in your hands didn't help much if you don't know the settings.
But then this feels like a pretty much US centric article, only looking at cryptographic advances in the US (admittedly most comes from there - but the article lists exclusively US achievements).
Germany was certainly very advanced cryptographically with their Enigma machine. Unfortunately this machine ended up on the losing side of the war, so a lot of the knowledge will have been lost thanks to that.
If those allegations are true then what is in the way of starting a john-doe kind of law suit, or at least try to convince the judge that libel is taking place or something else illegal (imposing as police officer or so), subsequently get a warrant, and get the information the legal way. I don't think there are more laws needed for that, or are there?
Then with that warrant the identity of a poster may be revealed, after which this poster may or may not be found guilty. Maybe the poster they suspect of imposing a police office is the actual officer in question... now that would be fun.
Anyway we are talking about the police here, they certainly know how to do a proper criminal investigation. After all that is one of their tasks. And just because this involves computers and not traditional media to spread alleged libel doesn't mean traditional laws can not be used any more.
Slashdot Mirror
What it's lacking is MS compatible scripting
I estimate about 99.9% of the users doesn't know that MS Office supports scripting or how to use it. This is very much an enterprise-option where some IT person produces templates that includes such scripting. So for most users this is a non-issue.
and an exchange capable PIM like outlook.
Again enterprise-level stuff. Not for the home users or small businesses.
And whether the "look and feel is better" that is usually not as much a matter of preference but a matter of familiarity. Most users are familiar with MS Office already. OOo is different. For many users that is an issue.
[WGA rant]
This is the thanks I get for dropping money on their product. I passed on Vista. I'll pass on Win7. Once this system has aged to the point of uselessness (translation: can't game any more) I'm going to Linux full time. Why? BECAUSE THEY ACT AS IF THEY OWN MY MACHINE, NOT ME. THAT pisses me off.
So f--- them. I'm done.
It may be redundant for me to point it out to you, I mean this is Slashdot after all, but maybe just maybe you should consider thinking about the fact that there could be other operating systems out there that are not made by MS and that do not employ WGA and related annoyances. Some of them may even be considered "modern" and "secure". Oh and quite some of them may even be downloadable from the Internet for you to try, without having to pay for it.
Ubuntu, Mandriva, FreeBSD, Fedora and Debian are a few names that come to mind.
We (well most of us) live in a free world and are allowed to make choices. If you don't like a product, move on and get something you do like and enjoy.
This seems to be MS' direct answer to OOo.
OOo is widely seen as interesting alternative to Office, but a major complaint is "limited functionality". Now personally I wouldn't know what's lacking - collaboration maybe but that's for big organisations, not for me. Now MS releases an Office with "limited functionality", that sounds very much like OOo.
Interesting parts are of course what functionality is gone, and how it is ad-supported. If there's a blinking moving ad taking up 20% of your screen that's horrible of course. If it is text ads on the side that's much more manageable.
And it probably won't be too hard to disable the ads: they are surely downloaded over the Internet so disconnecting the computer from the network will do already. Otherwise some rules in the firewall or some entries in the hosts file will do.
And I smell food for another anti-trust law suit if they are going to bundle it by default with Windows. Unless they also install alternatives but that's not too likely.
Dell doesn't offer it as option in their web store. It is all Vista that I can find (just checked out their best sellers). It is also not advertised on the front page.
So for the general public I'd call that "not yet released". This is like a preview for tech support to get their operators trained and get familiar, for hardware makers to get their drivers right, etc. As long as it is not in the shops or otherwise available through public channels it's not released in my book. And for a system that is waiting to be released to the general public and is only available through special channels, I'd call 1.5% market share really impressive.
Sorry I didn't realise there was an actual release of Win7 already... it doesn't even have a fancy name. Not too bad for MS to have more market share than Linux for an OS that is not even officially released.
Ask any inventor and they will tell you that finding the problem is the main part of the invention. When you have found the problem, finding the solution is the easy part. That doesn't make a solution less patentable though. The old solution may have worked fine in most situations, and you found where it doesn't work and found a solution for that. Or you found a better way to do the normal stuff.
For example, the problem of attaching two pieces of wood. The easiest way is to use some twine or rope to tie it together. Then later someone thought that it should be done better: tighter fit, less movement. And he invented the pin connection. Make holes in both pieces of wood and stick a pin through it. Later someone invented the nail to make it easier to make the connection. And that was followed by the screw that was harder to apply but makes the connection stronger, because he found the problem of the connection to be too weak.
Or the light bulb: the problem is getting light at night, the obvious solution was open fire. Then someone thought "can't we use that newfangled thing called electricity for that?" There is a problem: make light with electricity. Well the solution is obvious: glowing a wire. That must have been seen many times (short-circuits). But now the problem is how to keep it from burning and breaking? That is the real problem of course. And after that it was just working to a solution.
So really it is both: the problem AND the solution. That makes a patent. The problem of software patents is that a PROBLEM is patented, generally without a real SOLUTION to it. A single problem may have several patents, each giving a different solution. And obviousness... that's always a really tough one to prove or disprove.
Makes me think of a LJ2plus that I bought from surplus some years ago. I don't have it any more, gave it away. Very sturdy, good and reasonably fast prints, but heavy! About 45 kg that one, almost broke my back getting it upstairs. I didn't even put it on the table... too heavy... and too big. But it could print double sided, that was really cool. Built like a tank indeed: strong, heavy, big.
I think PC games are different for historical reasons. By the time PCs got powerful enough to play games (that was the time of the first 486 processors, when colour displays were not even standard equipment yet) the consoles were there for like ages already. Connecting usually to the TV as display (colour!), with far better graphics than what the PC could do. Heck my MSX home computer, at least 10 years older, could do better in that aspect than most PCs until the 386 era.
Console games were surely traded lively at the time already. PC games are from a much later era - an era where game makers started to get more greedy and started to think of ways to curb the second hand market. The console second hand game market was probably simply too developed to stop. Just like second hand books: it is unthinkable to stop that trade now. We are too used to it. For PC games the game makers obviously succeeded.
Another difference may be that until not so long ago PC games came on floppy/CD, easily copyable, while console games came on memory cassettes, not easy to copy without special equipment. So it was relatively hard to get your hands on pirated copies.
The only way to do that, more or less, is to sue the board or some other top manager for wilful misconduct. This is of course something that is really hard to prove, but I'm sure it has been done before.
It is indeed a problem that for punishing companies they can not be put in jail. Especially bigger companies. Fines is the only way - you could argue for forced liquidation but that would be the equivalent of the death penalty. And in case of liquidating a company would have quite some collateral damage (many people losing their jobs). Fines so high they are forced into bankruptcy have the same effect.
So translated you are predicting the following doom scenario for Microsoft (and with it most of the computing world, as even if you are not using Windows you will be affected by this):
Some company scratches an itch with Windows, gains market share. Well actually a whole bunch do this.
MS takes notices, and embraces this issue, bringing out their own software that scratches this itch.
MS offering is actually better than current competition. Partly probably made possible because they know the internals of Windows so much better.
MS includes software with OS for free, extinguishes competition.
MS stops innovating, puts product on backburner, and lets it wither.
Now we're talking about anti-virus, so virus writers quickly take over, rendering MS solution worthless, and in the process rendering every computer running Windows useless to anyone but the virus controller.
And a total meltdown follows, hopefully with MS taking the brunt of the criticism. Though by then the real damage is done.
Am I right here?
Indeed. They are mentioned no-where. Not even on slashdot. Who is this Microsoft you are talking about anyway? Are they in computers or so? Then maybe we should give them a front-page story or so now and then.
I doubt they need marketing for that. As long as they have the big-box makers in their pockets Joe Sixpack has a choice between white and black computers. All come with Windows pre-installed. Some in bigger case, some maybe with nice lights in it, but they will all run Windows. No expensive marketing campaigns needed, anyone but a geek (who knows about the alternatives already) will every try to install their own O/S in the first place.
Of course it is possible to put a back door in virtually any computer or piece of software. I am not going to deny that. My main point is that GP suggests "this is from a Chinese company and made in China so we'd better assume it has back doors". That is just plain silly.
And actually no I don't know about that back door, and "the standard C compiler" is also quite broadly stated. The most interesting part of such a back door would be who put it in, why they put it in, and by who is/was this used?
If Lenovo would build in back doors, and is found out, then at best they go bankrupt. I think that is enough of a reason for any company NOT to build in that kind of back doors. And they will be found: non-standard chips present in the hardware are a prime target for further investigation, and BIOSes can be flashed (or, presumably, the original software checked against known-good implementations or at the very least decompiled for investigation).
So even if the PLA is part-owner of Lenovo, why would you think there ARE back doors built in? Because that is exactly what you are now suggesting. And on the same line, why would laptops from US companies NOT have back doors? E.g. Microsoft, being let off the hook for anti-trust suits all the time, would have a case of secretly cooperating with the US government to build in back doors as compensation for being allowed to live.
The only thing that can more or less guarantee no back doors is to develop it all from scratch by yourself. Then you have control over back doors present or not.
And by the way what is it with you Americans that everything linked to China is automatically considered evil these days?
on eBook readers [...] the real benefit is an e-ink display, which this most certainly does not have unless Microsoft has made some technological breakthroughs they're not sharing.
I'd say they for sure do not have such a tech. MS doesn't develop hardware, they are primarily a software company that is also putting together hardware devices. They do not develop hardware tech really - they use off-the-shelf (a PC with nice case = XBOX) tech and use that to build their stuff. That is not meant negatively; Apple is doing much of the same, just a bit more successful. It's like playing with legos, the creativity is in how you put the parts together.
But then it's Microsoft and it is not a release version so likely all the cool features will be removed by then.
Ok, joking aside: what OS will they be running? Is Win7 capable of such neat touch-screen tricks already? Is such a tablet (which looks a bit like a double PDA to me) powerful enough for such a big system? I don't think I have ever seen or heard about a system that can do the things they demoed (well it was a complete mock-up: the user's hand was even drawn so it was for sure not a video of a real-life demo), so not sure whether MS actually has a system that can do what they showed in that video.
How exactly does that work with, for example, stolen goods? Some poor schmuck robs a bank and drives off with with $5,000,000. Police chase, he goes off a bridge trying to get away. Money floats down the river while the crook swims to shore. Police pick him up some time later in the woods, without a dime on him, and claim he stashed the goods some where in the woods. Judge offers leniency if money is returned.
The police will be able to verify this story by finding money floating in the river, stuck under tree trunks, witness reports, whatever.
So the judge asks, "Where is the money?" The response? "Lost in a fire." "Scattered over the Amazon." "Under a big 'W'." "Stolen by Jimmy the Nose." "I just don't know, your honor." The crook goes back in the cell for "contempt".
How does one prove lack of knowledge? How do you prove something is truly lost or destroyed?
Many of these things leave traces; and unless the story is completely made up there will be traces - or at least ways to verify it's believable or not. Stolen by or paid to other criminal? Name this guy, police can chase him down. Lost in a fire? Well there will likely be a record of that fire at some fire department. Can be checked.
And if nothing works - of course you will be able to come up with scenarios where the criminal is the "good guy" - well shit happens, nothing is perfect, not even the western judicial system. We can just do our best to make it as close to perfect as possible. Maybe the guy shouldn't have robbed that bank in the first place, after all we are talking about people that have been convicted already.
or (3. show the court what happened to their income, and that they have given full disclosure of their assets). To be thrown in jail for not disclosing assets means that the court has certain proof that there must be certain undisclosed assets present. E.g. someone has been proven to have received illegal income of say a couple million dollars, but only discloses half a million worth of assets. What happened to the rest?
I can not imagine that there is a way for the court to put someone in jail without having any proof. Even in the USA where it is all so messed up. But what I hear coming out of that place is that the COURTS and JUDGES are still doing their job pretty well - it is the GOVERNMENT and POLICE (and related agencies like FBI/CIA/whatever) that lost their integrity by faking proof, torture, extrajudiciary imprisonment (Gitmo, secret CIA prisons).
And if the person does not actually "posses the keys", sucks to be him. good luck proving that you honsetly do not know the password, that the money is really gone, etc.
Proving money is really gone is not too hard: just give full (and I mean full) disclosure of assets and transactions. The courts will have the proof that certain money transactions went your way (that's why they can recover that - one way or another it's proven you got it). It is your responsibility for tax reasons to keep your financial administration for a certain period of time (no idea on the actual period in the USA) and certainly banks will keep records of transactions in and out of your accounts. Then you can explain each transaction to the courts, and tell them where the money has gone. You may also have to give disclosure of overseas accounts of course.
It also means that clearly there has been a court case that defendant lost. The locking-up part is merely a way of enforcing a court order.
If they were really selling to just 30 fanboys then for sure the publication would have stopped long ago. You may not like their comics, but for sure there is a big market for them. The ongoing existence and creation of new stories with old characters proves that.
An old, flawed analogy. I have seen it so many times, it's truly sad that people still come up with it.
This man is ordered to build the wall, and in advance knows how much he's going to get paid - basically no risk there, do the job well and get paid. The owner of the property has a good idea on how much the value is of that wall, based on the effect of the wall and the quality of the workmanship of the mason. The wall wasn't the mason's idea, it was the property owner's idea.
This is similar to a company ordering creative work: think of all the artists working for Disney. They do not get copyrights paid over their arts, they get a salary for what they are doing. The Pocahontas movie was not their idea, it was the company's idea. They just implemented it. Or a research company developing a chip (e.g. ARM), where the designers of said chip do not get royalties but they do get their salary. ARM later tries to make money by licensing that design. Again no risk for the creative people, they have their money in advance. The idea of investing a lot of money in a energy efficient micro processor was also not their idea, they merely implemented it.
When an independent author is writing a book, no-one ordered him to do so. He wants it because he likes it, or because he thinks he has a great idea and a great story to tell and hopes to sell this story. Thus he owns the copyrights, and can license it to anyone he likes. The independent author doesn't get any money for writing the book, he invests a lot of time (and money: to eat and pay the rent while writing) in the book, but has also take a great risk. The book may flop and he ends up with nothing. The book may also become a bestseller, and he ends up rich.
It is basic business here: the greater the risk taken, the greater the potential rewards. That's all. And now please stop that nonsense of wanting to be paid forever for something that someone else asked you to do.
They are both important.
Marketing/PR is needed to get the character known by the masses to begin with. Of course comic books do come a dime a dozen.
A great creative mind is needed to prevent the character from being forgotten soon after, or from it becoming a one day fly.
Exactly what I thought. I don't know how the Enigma was developed but it was a very sound device, and there are still messages that we can not decypher. Even having one in your hands didn't help much if you don't know the settings.
But then this feels like a pretty much US centric article, only looking at cryptographic advances in the US (admittedly most comes from there - but the article lists exclusively US achievements).
Germany was certainly very advanced cryptographically with their Enigma machine. Unfortunately this machine ended up on the losing side of the war, so a lot of the knowledge will have been lost thanks to that.
If those allegations are true then what is in the way of starting a john-doe kind of law suit, or at least try to convince the judge that libel is taking place or something else illegal (imposing as police officer or so), subsequently get a warrant, and get the information the legal way. I don't think there are more laws needed for that, or are there?
Then with that warrant the identity of a poster may be revealed, after which this poster may or may not be found guilty. Maybe the poster they suspect of imposing a police office is the actual officer in question... now that would be fun.
Anyway we are talking about the police here, they certainly know how to do a proper criminal investigation. After all that is one of their tasks. And just because this involves computers and not traditional media to spread alleged libel doesn't mean traditional laws can not be used any more.