I wonder if all this really just about covering up simple human error, or the govt went to all this effort because it wanted to keep the no-fly list unchallengable.
If you're going to have your computers (or any other possession) seized from you, you should at least be told why. Having your property sezied and, when asked why, being told "That's a secret"...
Well, you see, according to SCO, they really, really wanted to have the issue tried in fedetral court before Judge Kimball, but gosh darn it, the rules require them to ask for it to be remanded to the state court. So they're glad they lost the remand.
Sharp, who used to work for Red Hat before joining Microsoft, said building open-source software is a "waste of money" and that a company was in effect giving away its intellectual property, preventing it from getting future benefits. "If you are compelled to give back to the community, then you don't have the opportunity to benefit from that knowledge," he stressed.
Because, of course, Microsoft is sooo concerned about it's potential competitors in the Asian market. "We'd just hate for our competitors to lose profit and stagnate"
So why should a criteria of "large companies" be better than "all websites"? Large companies aren't going to select a better web server just because they're large, and the coroprate culture of large companies can be it's own sort. If you're going to limit yourself to certain types of companies, shouldn't the limit themselves to, say, the 1000 largest dot-coms? Look at companies that couldn't exist without their website. I rather doubt there'll be much IIS among them...
I was sent a form email pointing out that I could face disciplinary action for downloading copyrighted material.
Heh. Don't you do this every time you access a web page? I mean, all written material is copyrighted by default unless it's explicitly placed into the public domain.
This reminds me of the story of the student who was facing disciplinary action for playing Nethack, because the adminstration thought that it had something to do with breaking into comptuers.
A long time ago, I had a mult-player game based on this: each player would have a different colored worm, and if a worm encountered a configuration it hadn't seen before, it would prompt it's player for what to do in that situation; the game wrapped top/bottom and left/right (set on a torus), so it couldn't go on forever. It was sort of psychedelic watching the different colors spread and writhe over the screen,, and interesting to see how your rules interacted with the rules of the other players' worms. Really fun, for such a simple game.
So far as I'm aware, traditional forwarding is done by the system the email was sent to. In the patented method, it is done by the user's mail agent; all the system the email was originally sent to does is bounce it back to the sender.
Yes, software patents are bad, but this one isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be. Here's what's patented:
User sends out email to an innactive/delted account.
Mail gets bounced back to user.
User's email-agent notices the bounce is of a certain type, so it connects to a central machine and asks "for non-working address foo@bar.com, give me an active address for the same perrson"
Email-agent forward the bounced mail to that active adress.
So it doesn't come anywhere near patenting traditional email forwarding.
Movie Image
2318 Shattuck Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 649-0296
They have a lot of anime, plus you can buy special "anime only" packages of rentals.
Why is important infrastructure online?
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why are any of the computers controlling national infrastructure on the Internet or available via modem? Anything that important should be completely cut off from the outside world.
Yes, force applied by gravity on a superconductor doesn't change when it's put in a strong magnetic field. But if a superconductor can do the same thing to gravitational fields as magneticc fields (repulse them), then wouldn't there be less gravity acting on a superconductor than an ordinary conductor?
If a superconductor will float in a static magnetic field, why won't it weigh less in a static gravitational field? If it did, they wouldn't have to go throug elaborate tests to verify the theory.
if you looked almost exactly like someone on the FBI's "most wanted list"; it sucks, but, well, what can you do?
What can you do? How about:
Never take another plane ride again.
Never take another train ride again.
So should the FBI not put out a "most wanted list", because there might be someone out there that really looks like a dangerous criminal? Even if photos are only given to the police, what if a police officer sees a look-alike and gets trigger happy? Should information about dangerous criminals just not be distributed, because it might have bad affects on possible look-alikes?
If a person is mistaken once for a terrorist (or a "normal" criminal), don't you think other recognition points will do the same mistake? What do you do then? Plan a few extra hours each time you take the plane?
I presume that the system would also have a photo of the suspect, so that a human could compare the photo to the person the system flagged as a possible terrorist. If you happen to look almost exactly like a person in the database, so that even humans mistake you for him/her, then it'll like if you looked almost exactly like someone on the FBI's "most wanted list"; it sucks, but, well, what can you do?
For example, with many of MS's rather bland tools, they include C/C++ headers to access varous API's and whatnot.
Yeah, but if the government developer did that, it would be their problem, and they'd have to remove the dependancy on MS's headers. There's nothing any non-MS developer can do that would force MS to open-source anything.
Of course, you could use a scenario like this to say that trying to figure out if a project based on GPL'd code violates the GPL is too time consuming, so you shouldn't even bother with GPL'd code, but that's different than argument than what MS was presenting.
SpamAssassin doesn't use DCC (yet), but rather Vipul's Razor, which is very similar. Using Razor, various RBLs (like MAPS) and a large set of its own heuristics, it sets a score for each message before passing it along to the user. The user's MUA can then act on the score (which is added as a header), or on the "Yes/No this isn/isn't spam" header added.
The sysadmin running the mail server can have it do other things, like put likely spam into a different spam mail account that the user can check periodically.
The network information provider influences the position for a search listing through a continuous online competitive bidding process.... The system and method of the present invention then compares this bid amount with all other bid amounts for the same search term, and generates a rank value for all search listings having that search term.
Just from the abstract, I don't think the patent would apply to Google, since ads don't affect the ranking of the search results. They definately wouldn't apply to Google's AdsWords program, since ranking of the AdWords (the text boxes to the right of the page) are determined by how often the ads are clicked, and the ranking affects the cost of ads, not the other way around.
The patent might, at a stretch, cover Google's AdWords Select program, since that allows you to pay for a rank amongst other ads. However, it this still doesn't affect the search results, only ads that are clearly ads, so it doesn't sound like the patent would cover this either.
I can't say anything about their Premium Sponsorship program (the one that puts text ads at the top of the page, rather than to the right) since their website doesn't say anything about ranking of those types of ads.
The point of Chrome is to allow the user to modify the look&feel of the browser to suit his/her/its own tastes...
While an end user can do this, Chrome main point is to let ISP and other such entities to modify and brand the browser before passing on to their users.
If NASA has gotten these things to float in a vacuum, then why haven't we heard about it? (What sources did you get this information from?) Yes, people thought that artificial flight was impossible until the Wright Brothers proved them worng, but your'e saying that people are continuing to think electrogravitics wrong in spite of the evidence? People only have to be "dragged kicking and screaming" in regards to science when there's some radical, fundamental change, like Newtonian versus Quantum physics. If this has already been predicted by General Relativity, one of the most verified scientific theories we have, there wouldn't be much of a reason to oppose it.
Nope, they'll never wake up. Hubbard himself made a rule about this: Never Defend, Always Attack; Scientologists do what Hubbard says. Scientology does things that generate bad press so often that their oposition has developed a name for it: foot bullet. The Scientologists keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over, and they can't stop, because Hubbard himself told them to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if all this really just about covering up simple human error, or the govt went to all this effort because it wanted to keep the no-fly list unchallengable.
Do they strip naked anyone who's wearing natural fiber?
If you're going to have your computers (or any other possession) seized from you, you should at least be told why. Having your property sezied and, when asked why, being told "That's a secret"...
Well, you see, according to SCO, they really, really wanted to have the issue tried in fedetral court before Judge Kimball, but gosh darn it, the rules require them to ask for it to be remanded to the state court. So they're glad they lost the remand.
Sharp, who used to work for Red Hat before joining Microsoft, said building open-source software is a "waste of money" and that a company was in effect giving away its intellectual property, preventing it from getting future benefits. "If you are compelled to give back to the community, then you don't have the opportunity to benefit from that knowledge," he stressed.
Because, of course, Microsoft is sooo concerned about it's potential competitors in the Asian market. "We'd just hate for our competitors to lose profit and stagnate"This is surely one of the signs of the Apocalypse...
So why should a criteria of "large companies" be better than "all websites"? Large companies aren't going to select a better web server just because they're large, and the coroprate culture of large companies can be it's own sort. If you're going to limit yourself to certain types of companies, shouldn't the limit themselves to, say, the 1000 largest dot-coms? Look at companies that couldn't exist without their website. I rather doubt there'll be much IIS among them...
This reminds me of the story of the student who was facing disciplinary action for playing Nethack, because the adminstration thought that it had something to do with breaking into comptuers.
Was this because of the bandwidth used, or did they actually acuse you of piracy?
A long time ago, I had a mult-player game based on this: each player would have a different colored worm, and if a worm encountered a configuration it hadn't seen before, it would prompt it's player for what to do in that situation; the game wrapped top/bottom and left/right (set on a torus), so it couldn't go on forever. It was sort of psychedelic watching the different colors spread and writhe over the screen,, and interesting to see how your rules interacted with the rules of the other players' worms. Really fun, for such a simple game.
So far as I'm aware, traditional forwarding is done by the system the email was sent to. In the patented method, it is done by the user's mail agent; all the system the email was originally sent to does is bounce it back to the sender.
- User sends out email to an innactive/delted account.
- Mail gets bounced back to user.
- User's email-agent notices the bounce is of a certain type, so it connects to a central machine and asks "for non-working address foo@bar.com, give me an active address for the same perrson"
- Email-agent forward the bounced mail to that active adress.
So it doesn't come anywhere near patenting traditional email forwarding.2318 Shattuck Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 649-0296
They have a lot of anime, plus you can buy special "anime only" packages of rentals.
Why are any of the computers controlling national infrastructure on the Internet or available via modem? Anything that important should be completely cut off from the outside world.
Yes, force applied by gravity on a superconductor doesn't change when it's put in a strong magnetic field. But if a superconductor can do the same thing to gravitational fields as magneticc fields (repulse them), then wouldn't there be less gravity acting on a superconductor than an ordinary conductor?
If a superconductor will float in a static magnetic field, why won't it weigh less in a static gravitational field? If it did, they wouldn't have to go throug elaborate tests to verify the theory.
Of course, you could use a scenario like this to say that trying to figure out if a project based on GPL'd code violates the GPL is too time consuming, so you shouldn't even bother with GPL'd code, but that's different than argument than what MS was presenting.
The sysadmin running the mail server can have it do other things, like put likely spam into a different spam mail account that the user can check periodically.
The patent might, at a stretch, cover Google's AdWords Select program, since that allows you to pay for a rank amongst other ads. However, it this still doesn't affect the search results, only ads that are clearly ads, so it doesn't sound like the patent would cover this either.
I can't say anything about their Premium Sponsorship program (the one that puts text ads at the top of the page, rather than to the right) since their website doesn't say anything about ranking of those types of ads.
If NASA has gotten these things to float in a vacuum, then why haven't we heard about it? (What sources did you get this information from?) Yes, people thought that artificial flight was impossible until the Wright Brothers proved them worng, but your'e saying that people are continuing to think electrogravitics wrong in spite of the evidence? People only have to be "dragged kicking and screaming" in regards to science when there's some radical, fundamental change, like Newtonian versus Quantum physics. If this has already been predicted by General Relativity, one of the most verified scientific theories we have, there wouldn't be much of a reason to oppose it.
Nope, they'll never wake up. Hubbard himself made a rule about this: Never Defend, Always Attack; Scientologists do what Hubbard says. Scientology does things that generate bad press so often that their oposition has developed a name for it: foot bullet. The Scientologists keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over, and they can't stop, because Hubbard himself told them to do it.