If your router supports it, use MAC address filtering. Basically, you need to obtain the MAC addresses of all of your home equipment and those of the eqipment to be used by anyone you've agreed to let use your WiFi. Then enter them via your router's admin interface. If someone with an unknown MAC address attempts to even find your WiFi, they won't. It doesn't exist to any machines except those in the MAC address whitelist.
Also, if your router supports both aministrative and "guest" passwords, only supply the guest password to those outside your LAN. But, MAC address filtering gives you the finest grain of control over your system.
Until they come for your "perfectly legal" service. And, they will. If TWC can do this to BitTorrent users (without a court order or any other probative documentation of illegal behavior) what makes you think they won't decide to throttle your favorite streaming serivce if they think they can get away with it just to protect their expensive cable TV content offerings?
It's what the "neutrality" in the term means. All content gets to use the Internet equally. Period. You got a problem with illegal downloaders steeling "your" bandwidth, take it up with the appropriate authorities. Don't let some fucking cable company (with a built-in conflict of interest) write the rules for you. Let any of the "big media" companies get control of the 'net and your access fees will soon be $6/hour. For 700Kbps.
P.S. I make it a point to not respond to Anonymous Coward postings. But, your comments were just so wrongheaded, I had to make an exception in this case. I will not respond to any response you may leave to this post. Regardless how trollish it may be.
He was using BitTorrent to DL some stuff (don't know what it was exactly). He had the top tier consumer TWC Internet cable service plan (~$50USD/month/8Mbps). Whenever he tried to DL something using BitTorrent, the connection got dropped. No problems witn any other services he used (including Netflix ). Just BitTorrent. Of course, TWC could deny this and it would be hard to prove without access to their internal logs and stuff like that.
At least Netflix (a successfuly corporation itself) could fight back (with lawyers). Not really an option for the BitTorrent folks. Or for you or me.
Where I lived, we had a neighborhood Nike missle site. The only evidence of its existence was an armed, uniformed guard at a little guard house half way up their "driveway." Oddly enough, the little guard house is still there (45-50 years later) and some of the roads in the condo development that was the base have the name Nike in them.
The following conversation almost always takes place there when a codo goes up for sale:
Prospective Condo Buyer: "Wow, that's a really big family room!"
Real Estate Agent: "That's nothing. Wait until you see the basement!"
It's not just Amazon UK that's having problems delivering on time. Amazon US has also been, shall I say, "spotty" in this department recently.
For example, I ordered some software from them (their price was better than the vendor's own "special holiday pricing"). That was a month ago. It still hasn't arrived. The transaction, however, was between my business partner and Amazon. So, I did not get the usual shipping feedback from them (my business partner is following this up, so I'm sort of out of that loop). On the other hand, I recently (last week) purchased an Intel NIC card from them with free 2-3 day shipping. It arrived a day early in perfect condition. In fact, I'm using it right now.
Here's the type of scenario that should really give B&M stores with no on-line presence a bad day.
I was one of the first people to buy a Nook. After a rocky start (which Barnes and Noble handled very well, I hasten to add), it's now over a year later and you will have to pry Nookie out of my dead, cold hands. I love this little thing. So, here's the scenario...
Recently, I was browsing B&N's Web site when I came upon a book I'd never heard about from an author I didn't know. It was "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" by Stieg Larsson. B&N was selling the Nook version for $5.20, so I jumped on it (I like murder mysteries). Just a great book! I remember thinking to myself half-way through that "somebody's going to make this into a movie." So, I went on over to Netflix (I have a "Watch Instantly" account with them -- no physical DVDs -- $8/month). Sure enough, there it was! I clicked play. Watched it right then and there (hence the word "instantly") on my computer at 780p. You know how you "visualize" scenes in a book when you're reading it? You create a whole "world" in your mind based on the author's words. Well, if I didn't know better, I'd swear I wrote the movie script and did the set design and cast selection myself. And, oh, if you're not aware of her, check out the Swedish actress Naomi Rapace -- yowsah!! What a great actress -- she acted exactly as I had imagined her character in the book (Lisbeth Salander — juvenile delinquent, super hacker with a photographic memory and an I.Q. you could use as a down payment on a new car).
But, thanks to my trip to Netflix, I now know there is another book in a trilogy series from Larsson (sadly, he passed away at only 50 years of age shortly after he delivered this trilogy to the publisher). I know this 'cause Netflix already has the Swedish movie of that book available to watch instantly. So, I went back to the B&N site (with the Nook) and bought the next book ("The Girl Who Played With Fire" — it was priced at $7.99 'cause they know they have you hooked after that first one) and started reading it last night. I have the accompanying movie in my Netflix Watch Instantly queue ready for viewing after I finish reading the book. I will repeat this process when I see the movie of the last book in the trilogy (sob!) appear on Netflix (the book is already available).
By the way, Netflix simply destroys Hulu. What did I find when I searched for "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" on Hulu (I have a trial Plus subscription there)? Trailers and clips. Yawn. And commercials. That's right. Even with trailers and clips. The $7.99/month Hulu Plus subscription does not come commercial-free. Grrrrrr!! Netflix has no commercials. No Web site ads. It's digital Nirvana.
This type of "mashup" is something it would be very difficult for a B&M-only retailer to provide. I didn't even have to leave the house to do any of this book buying or movie buying (good thing, too — there's snow all over the place here right now and the temperature is -8C). I bought both books using the Nook via my home WiFi network (took about 30 seconds to download 440+ pages after I clicked on "By Now"). Used my trusty home desktop computer to find and watch the movie (I could have also watched on my TV via my Blu-ray DVD player that is Internet-enabled for Netflix, Pandora and a whole bunch of other "from the 'net" content).
I think I like the way this new digital world is shaping up. A lot.
Don't forget CSS (and SVG). A subset of SVG is supported by all major browsers except (you guessed it) IE (though IE 8). Fortunately, there are plug-ins available for IE (Adobe still offers an unsupported plug-in and another can be obtained from Examotion).
An excellent book that covers mostly CSS2/3, as well as SVG as implemented with CSS2, is "Advanced CSS" by Joseph R. Lewis and Meitar Moscovitz, 2009, FriendsofED books (ISBN 978-1-4302-1932-3)
retail price $40.
Software and business methods should not be patentable - if for no other reason that most software patents are written by lawyers and therefore incomprehensible.
Almost all patents are written by (patent) lawyers. I do know one guy who received two "method" patents and wrote each one himself. But, that's the exception to the rule. Patents appear to be incomprehensible by design. Call it job security for patent lawyers. If we apply your criteria to all patents, we'd have very few patents (and fewer patent lawyers). Good luck with that.
Time and time again we are required in software contracts to warrant that we do not infringe on third party rights including patents. It is an impossible warranty to give as it is impossible to know if you do. There are so many software patents granted in so many esoteric minute little areas that for any remotely complex software you could spend a lifetime searching and trying to figure out if you did infringe on someone's patent. And the odds are very high that somehow you do. So you sign the contract knowing full well that you most likely are in breach, but the odds of you getting sued are sufficiently low to take the risk.
The courts are fully aware of how it would be impossible for any individual to have complete knowledge of all patents that exist in his or her area of expertise. It's highly unlikely a suit would be brought against you for that reason alone. Then there is also the fact that the plaintiff (whomever asked you to sign that type of document) probably would not win unless they could prove you did, in fact, know about the particular patent(s) they are being sued for infringing when you signed that document.
How software and business method patents could possibly encourage innovation is beyond me.
They encourage innovation for the same reason Industrial Age patents encouraged innovation: they give the "ingenious little guy/company" very powerful protection from greedy people (or bigger companies) with a lot of money who've never had an original idea in their lives. I suggest you study (Wikipedia articles) the history of patents in the development of telephony or radio and TV broadcasting. It would be compelling fiction -- if it were fiction.
The problem is not that the Patent Act is too broadly written. It was intentionally too broadly written. Better to have a bad patent issued from time to time than to reject a good patent (do that enough times and patents become meaningless). The PTO appeals process and, if necessary, the Federal courts are there to "sort things out" in the end.
The USPTO is a conservative institution by design. It is always difficult for these types of institutions to keep up with fundamental changes in society and the economy. The transition from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age (took about 300 years) and from the Industrial Age to the Information Age (took about 30 years) were (and continue to be) all difficult transitions for the USPTO.
Right now, the problem is not that software patents are being issued, it's that really, really bad software patents are being issued. This will only be fixed when Congress decides it's time to provide better training for current patent examiners and to hire more examiners with backgrounds in Information Age technologies.
The political system in the U.S. is FUBAR. The only "vote" we have these days is with our dollars. Don't like being treated like a criminal or a porn star at the airport? Stop flying. Or, if you're running a company, cut back on corporate air travel by 50%. Use teleconferencing. Plan ahead and take the train. I haven't flown anywhere since 2000. But, I've traveled all over the country by train. When you decide to stop flying, make sure you tell them why you're not flying. Their response can be quite entertaining.
When I canceled my cable TV subscription back in 2006, they (Time/Warner) asked why I was leaving. I told them I was sick and tired of paying over $100/month to watch commercials. I was particularly outraged at the (usually animated) self-promotion ads that ran at the bottom of the screen during the show or movie I was trying to watch. The T/W customer "support" person's response was, "Well, sir, we don't have any control over that. Those are decisions made by the network." To which I replied that Time/Warner owned TBS and TBS was, at the time, one of the biggest (ab)users of this type of TV spam. Her response? Dead silence. Made my day.
If the airlines (big corporations) start feeling the economic heat (sometimes just the well-orchestrated threat of economic heat), you will be amazed at how fast things will change in Washington. And at the airport. But, you have to make sure you tell them why you're leaving and taking your dollars with you.
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Google is not immune./.ers have seen it time and time again over the years. Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, Apple and now, it appears, Google. They've all succumbed to their successes with excesses.
It truly is very difficult to resist using one's power if one is good enough and lucky enough to get some. Most of us never get to experience this heady state of mind (which is probably a good thing). If we were running Google, we'd already be working on our rationalization speech: "But, we're Google. A company that has pledged to Do No Evil. Be honest: would you rather be spammed by a company like ours or some shadowy, suit-populated advertising broker who is only in it for the money?" Uh, wait a minute. Strike the part about the money...
I just finished watching the MythBusters episode to which you referred. The YouTube version is divided into two files. The link included here points to the second file (the fingerprint segment starts about 1:40 into the clip). There is some introductory stuff about the fingerprint scanners used in the first file, but the linked-to file contains the footage in which they beat the door lock scanner.
While it's true that they fooled two fingerprint scanners (one connected to a laptop, the other a standalone door lock), neither of those scanners is in any way similar to the one on my Toshiba. Both of the scanners beat in the MythBusters episode use the photocopier design. The thing being scanned (a thumb in this case) is held steady while the reader moves back and forth under it (or takes a "picture" of it). The scanner built into my Toshiba laptop has no moving parts and is only about 1/8th of an inch top to bottom (and the approximate width of a human finger side-to-side). The human user must drag a finger over the scanner. This design feature is what, I believe, would make a Toshiba-style scanner more difficult to beat with a gummy bear attack.
Could a Toshiba-style fingerprint scanner be fooled with a ballistic gel, latex or copied-to-paper attack? Probably. Provided the issues of mirroring and ridges vs. troughs could be dealt with adequately.
Anyhow, thanks for bringing the MythBusters episode to my attention. It was interesting that they had to lick the gel/latex/paper to make the hack work (I blow moist air onto my finger to get better performance with my Toshiba's scanner). Also, they concluded the (presumably pricey) standalone door lock scanner was easier to fool than the (relatively inexpensive) one connected to the laptop.
Actually, my Toshiba laptop (now about five years old) came with a built-in fingerprint scanner that would not readily fall to the gummy bear attack since you must draw (drag) your finger across the scanner (not just place it on a scan pad). That would create an... err... "sticky" situation for those attempting to use gummy bears to log into my laptop.
I didn't RTFA, but the/. summary sounds a little fishy to me. If you press your finger into a gummy bear to make a copy of your fingerprint, then flip the bear over and present it to a scanner, you are presenting a mirror image for recognition.
For example, say a swirl on your finger tip is a U shape with the left arm of the U taking off at a greater angle than the right arm (sort of like the left arm of a V instead of a U). Flip that over (top stays top) and you have a U shape swirl with the right arm looking like the right arm of a V. In addition, your fingerprint is comprised of ridges. The copy on the gummy bear would be comprised of troughs. The scanner should be able to tell the difference.
So, could a mirror image comprised of troughs rather than ridges really work to fool a scan pad type fingerprint scanner? I kinda doubt it. Anyhow, if I were designing (or buying) such a scanner, I'd make damn sure it couldn't!
I also doubt whether a "two pass" gummy bear attack would work. In a two-pass attack, the attacker would press a human finger into the gelatin on the first gummy bear, thereby creating the mirror image. That gummy bear could then, theoretically, be pressed into a second gummy bear to create a mirror of the mirror, which would be what the scanner should be expecting. But, the result would probably not have sufficient resolution to be acceptable to the scanner because the print copy in the first gummy bear is represented by troughs, not ridges. While the second gummy bear would be comprised of ridges, to get anywhere near usable resolution, one would have to very carefully "melt" gummy bear two "into" gummy bear one, then cool (freeze?) and separate. Lots of work. Lots of hideously-deformed gummy bears scattered about the workbench. Much easier to take the truant's finger with you. They have very good results reattaching stuff like that these days (be sure to keep it on ice when not in use, though).
Returning to the Toshiba laptop... Until you get used to using it, a "drag over" type fingerprint scanner can be frustrating because it seems to reject on the slightest whim (dragged too short, dragged too fast). Eventually, I came up with a technique that gets it to work first time every time: I simply breath on my finger before drawing it over the scanner. This deposits a very thin coating of moisture on my finger which is just enough to slow my drag down to where I get a "good read" first time, every time.
When I initially trained the scanner to recognize my primary finger, I was encouraged (by the registration software) to register a second finger -- preferably on the other hand. Accidents do happen and some types of damage to your primary finger could make it impossible to use. The other hand is recommended because, statistically, people are less likely to sustain damage to both hands in a single accident (think table saw, chain saw, car door, et al.). But, this second finger can also be used as a "fallback" when your primary finger is rejected three times in a row. Guess which finger I picked? In the few instances when I've had to use my fallback finger over the years, the experience has been quite emotionally satisfying!
When do we reach a point that we cannot possibly see the difference between a resolution, and an even higher pixel density?
That would be at about 50 years of age. Or when you have to take your glasses off in order to read the nutrition information on labels in the grocery store. Whichever comes first.
Well... when they say "we're sending you an email" in the email.. that usually means some goniff in the basement had a brainwave and acted on it before anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could stop him..
Geeze. I mean even Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan haven't sunk to dunning the paparazzi (or the cops) for taking and, then, publishing (for monetary gain) some truly awful, no-panties, pictures of them. You didn't create Stonehenge. Where do you get off claiming copyright?. It's sitting out there on public land. In plain view. Indeed, since tourism makes up a good chunk of GB's GDP, one would think you'd be paying professional photographers to take and publish pictures of Stonehenge. Not the other way around. What are you going to claim next? Pictures of Big Ben taken by non-English Heritage photographers and used for profit? Parliament? Prince Charles (well, actually, I'm kinda with you on that one).
If you don't want people taking pictures of Stonehenge, drape a big, black tarp over the whole damn thing and charge photographers to remove it. Yeah, that's it. Reduce Stonehenge to a peepshow.
We promise not to use photographs of Stonehenge taken by you or someone you hired. But, that's all you get. And you'll like it.
A second incorrect word or phrase used in a/. SIG in as many days. Is this the start of an epidemic? "For all intensive purposes..." is incorrect. The correct phrase is "For all intents and purposes..."
There is no reason why a purpose couldn't be "intensive," I suppose. Still it just doesn't "sound right." One could intensively pursue a purpose, but pursuing an intensive purpose seems odd usage to my ear. Given this (seemingly) odd usage, coupled with the homonymous relationship of the phrase used in your SIG to the commonly-used phrase, I believe this to be a case of incorrect usage as the result of phonetic confusion.
As to the substance of your SIG... For the purposes of informal writing or speaking, it's probably okay to use "who" when its objective case version is the preferred usage. I certainly don't always recognize when the objective case is required. One would have to keep a copy of a grammar textbook in one's back pocket (or on one's e-reader), to get it right every time. But, for those of us who truly love the English language, "whom" will continue to be preferred in all contexts. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" just feels better than "For Who the Bell Tolls."
FYI, WordWeb is an indispensable tool for serious writers of English. Currently, it's only available for Windows (sorry) 2000 or later, including Windows 7. There is a free version (if you qualify) and a Pro version. It's not a spelling checker and it's not a grammar textbook but it contains elements of both and has a very nice Web interface (using which you can find help with grammar and words your spelling checker doesn't know about).
I'm working hard to win the Slashdot Grammar Nazi of the Year award. Tell me how I'm doing!
When you turn fifty, you'll be able to answer that question for yourself. Trust me.
Ageism is Silicon Valley's "dirty little (not so) secret." If you're a commercial software developer and you're not in "management" by the time you hit forty or so, your days are numbered. Once you hit fifty, your career is over unless you have what it takes (money, talent, energy, time and luck -- mostly luck) to put a successful start-up together.
There is nothing funny about ageism, just as there is nothing funny about racism. Ask yourself this question: "What would happen if I posted a sarcastic message about a racial minority on/.?" Racism is no different than ageism except in one respect: my race is unlikely to change in my lifetime; but, no one escapes growing old.
Don't be silly, we ALL played Commander Keen and Myst and Descent.
Can't stand when you old fart's try to be hip by dropping the names of all these new games like "Quake" and "Doom"
Come back and read that message when you turn fifty (when you're the "old fart"). I can't stand it when you young farts... well... act your age.
Haven't read all the replies yet, but, so far, I haven't seen Core Wars mentioned. We had a real active CW club on CompuServe Programmers' SIG/Forum in the early 1980's. Loads of fun for programmers. The play was mostly off-line (with downloaded warriors other people had written in Red Code -- the CW "machine language"), but the bragging wasn't!
NoScript Rocks! I provide a rules.abe file with each of my Web sites. All Web developers should.
Users should enable ABE rule pushing. Click the Options button, select the Advanced tab, select the ABE tab and check Allow sites to push their own rulesets (instructions based on NoScript v2.0.3.2). You'll be glad you did.
If they'd had significant outstanding receivables, they probably would have factored them (i.e., borrowed cash against them). It's not the first solution a company wants to consider when in a cash flow jam, but it's usually better than going under.
Slashdot Mirror
If your router supports it, use MAC address filtering. Basically, you need to obtain the MAC addresses of all of your home equipment and those of the eqipment to be used by anyone you've agreed to let use your WiFi. Then enter them via your router's admin interface. If someone with an unknown MAC address attempts to even find your WiFi, they won't. It doesn't exist to any machines except those in the MAC address whitelist.
Also, if your router supports both aministrative and "guest" passwords, only supply the guest password to those outside your LAN. But, MAC address filtering gives you the finest grain of control over your system.
Until they come for your "perfectly legal" service. And, they will. If TWC can do this to BitTorrent users (without a court order or any other probative documentation of illegal behavior) what makes you think they won't decide to throttle your favorite streaming serivce if they think they can get away with it just to protect their expensive cable TV content offerings?
It's what the "neutrality" in the term means. All content gets to use the Internet equally. Period. You got a problem with illegal downloaders steeling "your" bandwidth, take it up with the appropriate authorities. Don't let some fucking cable company (with a built-in conflict of interest) write the rules for you. Let any of the "big media" companies get control of the 'net and your access fees will soon be $6/hour. For 700Kbps.
P.S. I make it a point to not respond to Anonymous Coward postings. But, your comments were just so wrongheaded, I had to make an exception in this case. I will not respond to any response you may leave to this post. Regardless how trollish it may be.
TWC already did that to my next door neighbor.
He was using BitTorrent to DL some stuff (don't know what it was exactly). He had the top tier consumer TWC Internet cable service plan (~$50USD/month/8Mbps). Whenever he tried to DL something using BitTorrent, the connection got dropped. No problems witn any other services he used (including Netflix ). Just BitTorrent. Of course, TWC could deny this and it would be hard to prove without access to their internal logs and stuff like that.
At least Netflix (a successfuly corporation itself) could fight back (with lawyers). Not really an option for the BitTorrent folks. Or for you or me.
Where I lived, we had a neighborhood Nike missle site. The only evidence of its existence was an armed, uniformed guard at a little guard house half way up their "driveway." Oddly enough, the little guard house is still there (45-50 years later) and some of the roads in the condo development that was the base have the name Nike in them.
The following conversation almost always takes place there when a codo goes up for sale:
Prospective Condo Buyer: "Wow, that's a really big family room!"
Real Estate Agent: "That's nothing. Wait until you see the basement!"
It's not just Amazon UK that's having problems delivering on time. Amazon US has also been, shall I say, "spotty" in this department recently.
For example, I ordered some software from them (their price was better than the vendor's own "special holiday pricing"). That was a month ago. It still hasn't arrived. The transaction, however, was between my business partner and Amazon. So, I did not get the usual shipping feedback from them (my business partner is following this up, so I'm sort of out of that loop). On the other hand, I recently (last week) purchased an Intel NIC card from them with free 2-3 day shipping. It arrived a day early in perfect condition. In fact, I'm using it right now.
Here's the type of scenario that should really give B&M stores with no on-line presence a bad day.
I was one of the first people to buy a Nook. After a rocky start (which Barnes and Noble handled very well, I hasten to add), it's now over a year later and you will have to pry Nookie out of my dead, cold hands. I love this little thing. So, here's the scenario...
Recently, I was browsing B&N's Web site when I came upon a book I'd never heard about from an author I didn't know. It was "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" by Stieg Larsson. B&N was selling the Nook version for $5.20, so I jumped on it (I like murder mysteries). Just a great book! I remember thinking to myself half-way through that "somebody's going to make this into a movie." So, I went on over to Netflix (I have a "Watch Instantly" account with them -- no physical DVDs -- $8/month). Sure enough, there it was! I clicked play. Watched it right then and there (hence the word "instantly") on my computer at 780p. You know how you "visualize" scenes in a book when you're reading it? You create a whole "world" in your mind based on the author's words. Well, if I didn't know better, I'd swear I wrote the movie script and did the set design and cast selection myself. And, oh, if you're not aware of her, check out the Swedish actress Naomi Rapace -- yowsah!! What a great actress -- she acted exactly as I had imagined her character in the book (Lisbeth Salander — juvenile delinquent, super hacker with a photographic memory and an I.Q. you could use as a down payment on a new car).
But, thanks to my trip to Netflix, I now know there is another book in a trilogy series from Larsson (sadly, he passed away at only 50 years of age shortly after he delivered this trilogy to the publisher). I know this 'cause Netflix already has the Swedish movie of that book available to watch instantly. So, I went back to the B&N site (with the Nook) and bought the next book ("The Girl Who Played With Fire" — it was priced at $7.99 'cause they know they have you hooked after that first one) and started reading it last night. I have the accompanying movie in my Netflix Watch Instantly queue ready for viewing after I finish reading the book. I will repeat this process when I see the movie of the last book in the trilogy (sob!) appear on Netflix (the book is already available).
By the way, Netflix simply destroys Hulu. What did I find when I searched for "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" on Hulu (I have a trial Plus subscription there)? Trailers and clips. Yawn. And commercials. That's right. Even with trailers and clips. The $7.99/month Hulu Plus subscription does not come commercial-free. Grrrrrr!! Netflix has no commercials. No Web site ads. It's digital Nirvana.
This type of "mashup" is something it would be very difficult for a B&M-only retailer to provide. I didn't even have to leave the house to do any of this book buying or movie buying (good thing, too — there's snow all over the place here right now and the temperature is -8C). I bought both books using the Nook via my home WiFi network (took about 30 seconds to download 440+ pages after I clicked on "By Now"). Used my trusty home desktop computer to find and watch the movie (I could have also watched on my TV via my Blu-ray DVD player that is Internet-enabled for Netflix, Pandora and a whole bunch of other "from the 'net" content).
I think I like the way this new digital world is shaping up. A lot.
String Theory. The new religion! No observation needed. Just Have Faith!
My mom warned me I'd go blind if I didn't stop googling myself five to six times a day..
Don't forget CSS (and SVG). A subset of SVG is supported by all major browsers except (you guessed it) IE (though IE 8). Fortunately, there are plug-ins available for IE (Adobe still offers an unsupported plug-in and another can be obtained from Examotion).
An excellent book that covers mostly CSS2/3, as well as SVG as implemented with CSS2, is "Advanced CSS" by Joseph R. Lewis and Meitar Moscovitz, 2009, FriendsofED books (ISBN 978-1-4302-1932-3) retail price $40.
Software and business methods should not be patentable - if for no other reason that most software patents are written by lawyers and therefore incomprehensible.
Almost all patents are written by (patent) lawyers. I do know one guy who received two "method" patents and wrote each one himself. But, that's the exception to the rule. Patents appear to be incomprehensible by design. Call it job security for patent lawyers. If we apply your criteria to all patents, we'd have very few patents (and fewer patent lawyers). Good luck with that.
Time and time again we are required in software contracts to warrant that we do not infringe on third party rights including patents. It is an impossible warranty to give as it is impossible to know if you do. There are so many software patents granted in so many esoteric minute little areas that for any remotely complex software you could spend a lifetime searching and trying to figure out if you did infringe on someone's patent. And the odds are very high that somehow you do. So you sign the contract knowing full well that you most likely are in breach, but the odds of you getting sued are sufficiently low to take the risk.
The courts are fully aware of how it would be impossible for any individual to have complete knowledge of all patents that exist in his or her area of expertise. It's highly unlikely a suit would be brought against you for that reason alone. Then there is also the fact that the plaintiff (whomever asked you to sign that type of document) probably would not win unless they could prove you did, in fact, know about the particular patent(s) they are being sued for infringing when you signed that document.
How software and business method patents could possibly encourage innovation is beyond me.
They encourage innovation for the same reason Industrial Age patents encouraged innovation: they give the "ingenious little guy/company" very powerful protection from greedy people (or bigger companies) with a lot of money who've never had an original idea in their lives. I suggest you study (Wikipedia articles) the history of patents in the development of telephony or radio and TV broadcasting. It would be compelling fiction -- if it were fiction.
The problem is not that the Patent Act is too broadly written. It was intentionally too broadly written. Better to have a bad patent issued from time to time than to reject a good patent (do that enough times and patents become meaningless). The PTO appeals process and, if necessary, the Federal courts are there to "sort things out" in the end.
The USPTO is a conservative institution by design. It is always difficult for these types of institutions to keep up with fundamental changes in society and the economy. The transition from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age (took about 300 years) and from the Industrial Age to the Information Age (took about 30 years) were (and continue to be) all difficult transitions for the USPTO.
Right now, the problem is not that software patents are being issued, it's that really, really bad software patents are being issued. This will only be fixed when Congress decides it's time to provide better training for current patent examiners and to hire more examiners with backgrounds in Information Age technologies.
The political system in the U.S. is FUBAR. The only "vote" we have these days is with our dollars. Don't like being treated like a criminal or a porn star at the airport? Stop flying. Or, if you're running a company, cut back on corporate air travel by 50%. Use teleconferencing. Plan ahead and take the train. I haven't flown anywhere since 2000. But, I've traveled all over the country by train. When you decide to stop flying, make sure you tell them why you're not flying. Their response can be quite entertaining.
When I canceled my cable TV subscription back in 2006, they (Time/Warner) asked why I was leaving. I told them I was sick and tired of paying over $100/month to watch commercials. I was particularly outraged at the (usually animated) self-promotion ads that ran at the bottom of the screen during the show or movie I was trying to watch. The T/W customer "support" person's response was, "Well, sir, we don't have any control over that. Those are decisions made by the network." To which I replied that Time/Warner owned TBS and TBS was, at the time, one of the biggest (ab)users of this type of TV spam. Her response? Dead silence. Made my day.
If the airlines (big corporations) start feeling the economic heat (sometimes just the well-orchestrated threat of economic heat), you will be amazed at how fast things will change in Washington. And at the airport. But, you have to make sure you tell them why you're leaving and taking your dollars with you.
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Google is not immune. /.ers have seen it time and time again over the years. Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, Apple and now, it appears, Google. They've all succumbed to their successes with excesses.
It truly is very difficult to resist using one's power if one is good enough and lucky enough to get some. Most of us never get to experience this heady state of mind (which is probably a good thing). If we were running Google, we'd already be working on our rationalization speech: "But, we're Google. A company that has pledged to Do No Evil. Be honest: would you rather be spammed by a company like ours or some shadowy, suit-populated advertising broker who is only in it for the money?" Uh, wait a minute. Strike the part about the money...
Nothing really new here.
I just finished watching the MythBusters episode to which you referred. The YouTube version is divided into two files. The link included here points to the second file (the fingerprint segment starts about 1:40 into the clip). There is some introductory stuff about the fingerprint scanners used in the first file, but the linked-to file contains the footage in which they beat the door lock scanner.
While it's true that they fooled two fingerprint scanners (one connected to a laptop, the other a standalone door lock), neither of those scanners is in any way similar to the one on my Toshiba. Both of the scanners beat in the MythBusters episode use the photocopier design. The thing being scanned (a thumb in this case) is held steady while the reader moves back and forth under it (or takes a "picture" of it). The scanner built into my Toshiba laptop has no moving parts and is only about 1/8th of an inch top to bottom (and the approximate width of a human finger side-to-side). The human user must drag a finger over the scanner. This design feature is what, I believe, would make a Toshiba-style scanner more difficult to beat with a gummy bear attack.
Could a Toshiba-style fingerprint scanner be fooled with a ballistic gel, latex or copied-to-paper attack? Probably. Provided the issues of mirroring and ridges vs. troughs could be dealt with adequately.
Anyhow, thanks for bringing the MythBusters episode to my attention. It was interesting that they had to lick the gel/latex/paper to make the hack work (I blow moist air onto my finger to get better performance with my Toshiba's scanner). Also, they concluded the (presumably pricey) standalone door lock scanner was easier to fool than the (relatively inexpensive) one connected to the laptop.
Actually, my Toshiba laptop (now about five years old) came with a built-in fingerprint scanner that would not readily fall to the gummy bear attack since you must draw (drag) your finger across the scanner (not just place it on a scan pad). That would create an ... err ... "sticky" situation for those attempting to use gummy bears to log into my laptop.
I didn't RTFA, but the /. summary sounds a little fishy to me. If you press your finger into a gummy bear to make a copy of your fingerprint, then flip the bear over and present it to a scanner, you are presenting a mirror image for recognition.
For example, say a swirl on your finger tip is a U shape with the left arm of the U taking off at a greater angle than the right arm (sort of like the left arm of a V instead of a U). Flip that over (top stays top) and you have a U shape swirl with the right arm looking like the right arm of a V. In addition, your fingerprint is comprised of ridges. The copy on the gummy bear would be comprised of troughs. The scanner should be able to tell the difference.
So, could a mirror image comprised of troughs rather than ridges really work to fool a scan pad type fingerprint scanner? I kinda doubt it. Anyhow, if I were designing (or buying) such a scanner, I'd make damn sure it couldn't!
I also doubt whether a "two pass" gummy bear attack would work. In a two-pass attack, the attacker would press a human finger into the gelatin on the first gummy bear, thereby creating the mirror image. That gummy bear could then, theoretically, be pressed into a second gummy bear to create a mirror of the mirror, which would be what the scanner should be expecting. But, the result would probably not have sufficient resolution to be acceptable to the scanner because the print copy in the first gummy bear is represented by troughs, not ridges. While the second gummy bear would be comprised of ridges, to get anywhere near usable resolution, one would have to very carefully "melt" gummy bear two "into" gummy bear one, then cool (freeze?) and separate. Lots of work. Lots of hideously-deformed gummy bears scattered about the workbench. Much easier to take the truant's finger with you. They have very good results reattaching stuff like that these days (be sure to keep it on ice when not in use, though).
Returning to the Toshiba laptop... Until you get used to using it, a "drag over" type fingerprint scanner can be frustrating because it seems to reject on the slightest whim (dragged too short, dragged too fast). Eventually, I came up with a technique that gets it to work first time every time: I simply breath on my finger before drawing it over the scanner. This deposits a very thin coating of moisture on my finger which is just enough to slow my drag down to where I get a "good read" first time, every time.
When I initially trained the scanner to recognize my primary finger, I was encouraged (by the registration software) to register a second finger -- preferably on the other hand. Accidents do happen and some types of damage to your primary finger could make it impossible to use. The other hand is recommended because, statistically, people are less likely to sustain damage to both hands in a single accident (think table saw, chain saw, car door, et al.). But, this second finger can also be used as a "fallback" when your primary finger is rejected three times in a row. Guess which finger I picked? In the few instances when I've had to use my fallback finger over the years, the experience has been quite emotionally satisfying!
Or when you fail to notice that your comment has been inadvertantly rendered as a quote before clicking on Submit. Sorry 'bout that!
When do we reach a point that we cannot possibly see the difference between a resolution, and an even higher pixel density?
That would be at about 50 years of age. Or when you have to take your glasses off in order to read the nutrition information on labels in the grocery store. Whichever comes first.
Well... when they say "we're sending you an email" in the email.. that usually means some goniff in the basement had a brainwave and acted on it before anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could stop him..
Geeze. I mean even Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan haven't sunk to dunning the paparazzi (or the cops) for taking and, then, publishing (for monetary gain) some truly awful, no-panties, pictures of them. You didn't create Stonehenge. Where do you get off claiming copyright?. It's sitting out there on public land. In plain view. Indeed, since tourism makes up a good chunk of GB's GDP, one would think you'd be paying professional photographers to take and publish pictures of Stonehenge. Not the other way around. What are you going to claim next? Pictures of Big Ben taken by non-English Heritage photographers and used for profit? Parliament? Prince Charles (well, actually, I'm kinda with you on that one).
If you don't want people taking pictures of Stonehenge, drape a big, black tarp over the whole damn thing and charge photographers to remove it. Yeah, that's it. Reduce Stonehenge to a peepshow.
We promise not to use photographs of Stonehenge taken by you or someone you hired. But, that's all you get. And you'll like it.
Now, please be a darling and FUCK OFF!
Cheers
Not long once the conclusions of a recent scientific study become public.
According to this study, photocopying your ass makes it look HUGE and photocopying your penis makes it look TINY.
There. Fixed that for you.
The actual data was only about 500K. The rest was XML markup.
A second incorrect word or phrase used in a /. SIG in as many days. Is this the start of an epidemic? "For all intensive purposes..." is incorrect. The correct phrase is "For all intents and purposes..."
There is no reason why a purpose couldn't be "intensive," I suppose. Still it just doesn't "sound right." One could intensively pursue a purpose, but pursuing an intensive purpose seems odd usage to my ear. Given this (seemingly) odd usage, coupled with the homonymous relationship of the phrase used in your SIG to the commonly-used phrase, I believe this to be a case of incorrect usage as the result of phonetic confusion.
As to the substance of your SIG... For the purposes of informal writing or speaking, it's probably okay to use "who" when its objective case version is the preferred usage. I certainly don't always recognize when the objective case is required. One would have to keep a copy of a grammar textbook in one's back pocket (or on one's e-reader), to get it right every time. But, for those of us who truly love the English language, "whom" will continue to be preferred in all contexts. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" just feels better than "For Who the Bell Tolls."
FYI, WordWeb is an indispensable tool for serious writers of English. Currently, it's only available for Windows (sorry) 2000 or later, including Windows 7. There is a free version (if you qualify) and a Pro version. It's not a spelling checker and it's not a grammar textbook but it contains elements of both and has a very nice Web interface (using which you can find help with grammar and words your spelling checker doesn't know about).
I'm working hard to win the Slashdot Grammar Nazi of the Year award. Tell me how I'm doing!
When you turn fifty, you'll be able to answer that question for yourself. Trust me.
/.?" Racism is no different than ageism except in one respect: my race is unlikely to change in my lifetime; but, no one escapes growing old.
Ageism is Silicon Valley's "dirty little (not so) secret." If you're a commercial software developer and you're not in "management" by the time you hit forty or so, your days are numbered. Once you hit fifty, your career is over unless you have what it takes (money, talent, energy, time and luck -- mostly luck) to put a successful start-up together.
There is nothing funny about ageism, just as there is nothing funny about racism. Ask yourself this question: "What would happen if I posted a sarcastic message about a racial minority on
Don't be silly, we ALL played Commander Keen and Myst and Descent. Can't stand when you old fart's try to be hip by dropping the names of all these new games like "Quake" and "Doom"
Come back and read that message when you turn fifty (when you're the "old fart"). I can't stand it when you young farts ... well ... act your age.
Haven't read all the replies yet, but, so far, I haven't seen Core Wars mentioned. We had a real active CW club on CompuServe Programmers' SIG/Forum in the early 1980's. Loads of fun for programmers. The play was mostly off-line (with downloaded warriors other people had written in Red Code -- the CW "machine language"), but the bragging wasn't!
At the risk of being labelled a "Grammar Nazi," I think you meant to say in your SIG: "Snoop unto them as they snoop unto unto us."
NoScript Rocks! I provide a rules.abe file with each of my Web sites. All Web developers should.
Users should enable ABE rule pushing. Click the Options button, select the Advanced tab, select the ABE tab and check Allow sites to push their own rulesets (instructions based on NoScript v2.0.3.2). You'll be glad you did.
If they'd had significant outstanding receivables, they probably would have factored them (i.e., borrowed cash against them). It's not the first solution a company wants to consider when in a cash flow jam, but it's usually better than going under.