I'm with you.. this a'hole has not only the.com but also the.net and.biz of my surname with a three year old static page with his sons frigging picture on it On all THREE DOMAINS!!
What about the.name TLD? After all, that's what it's for.
We recently had a talk from a forensic expert from Deloitte Forensic Data (an australian company) in a Uni Security Engineering lecture. He made it clear that nothing was better than experience when trying to collect forensic information or retrieve hidden data from seized computers.
Thinking about it, that makes complete sense. There are so many ways to hide anything anywhere in a computer. If they want to be safe from this type of tools, people could just verify what the program checks, and do something else. Even with an ever updated database of âoethings to check,â people with things to hide will always be ahead of a non-thinking entity.
[UMP...] used the song during a meeting, and didn't reported it to the french RIAA (SACEM) for artist compensation, wich generally is pretty low.
According to what I've read (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/feb/24/nicolas-sarkozy-party-compensates-mgmt amongst others), it seems that UMP _did_ report to the SACEM. To no avail, it seems. This makes me wonder if such a right-collection association is still relevant...
What about those which developed products with similar features while the patent was under examination?
To they just put their blueprints in the bin and try to find another idea?
I'm actually quite interested, if anyone has an idea, in the answer to this question: if you release a product before you get the patent, and concurent makers release similar products before said patent is granted, doesn't that constitute prior art?
Working in a research lab, we are regularly reminded that we should not publish patentable ideas before having patented them, as such publication would constitute prior art voiding any subsequent patent.
I never got the point of digital cameras making a (badly recorded and replayed) camera sound when they @$%$$%$# don't need to. This is always the first âoefeatureâ (though I would call it a bug) that I disable. Then I can start using it.
I can definitely get the point of such a law-enforced feature. But being supported by law won't make it any less anoying. One can hope this will be implemented using a separate speaker. At least a soldering iron-operated switch could be considered, then.
For a while, I've been using the Linbox Converter [0]. Running on a dedicated Windows server with MS Office installed, it can convert documents sent over the network into âoecleanâ PDFs by print-to-file'ing them, and sending them back.
This is not exactly what's required here, as I suppose the documents have to be editable. The glue to make the system run, however, is mostly written in Python. This may make adding functions like saving as an earlier version of the format (âoebye bye OpemXMLâ) quite easy to implement.
There are Unix and Windows clients available at [0], but I once did a bit of packaging to make the installation of clients easier [1].
(Disclaimer: I once was an intern at Linbox, and did not conduct an unbiased survey of such solutions before deciding to use the aforementionned one. It turned out to work well enough for my needs, though.)
Well, I guess we can say "Same issue with [insert here any Linux-supported architecture which is not x86]"...
Actually, I find it quite misleading to say that "Adobe [..] released version 10 of its [...] Flash Player [...] in a variety of convenient packaging formats for Linux". Adobe didn't. "Adobe released version 10 of its Flash Player in a variety of convenient packaging formats for some version of Linux running on the x86 architecture" is the correct wording.
Binary releases are simply not a viable solution for an open-source based system.
It is also common in my working field that potential employers initiate a background scan on you. Again: I guess being googleable might be an advantage here.
It's good to have interesting/helpful posts, whatever the publicly accessible website/mailing lists. This way, one does not have to find a solution to an already solved problem over and over again. If this post makes it clear that _you_ wrote it well, good on you. So yes, being Googleable on "valuable" things is interesting.
Being Googleable on how drunk you were last weekend, not very much so...
But seriously, I am in the same of situation as the original poster: no Facebook, no MSN, no MySpace. In short, no privacy-spoiling useless crap. However, I haven't run into that many "desocialization" problems, though. I just make sure to express clearly why I don't want (nor need) an account on any of these things. I also mention the fact that there are other seamless ways to do the same things.
It is important to keep in mind, as well, that email is an open protocol: people can keep in touch even if they don't have the same email provider.
That's the same with XMPP. Who specifically needs a Google Talk account when one has a Jabber account which allows to reach as many friends? (It is still arguable, though, that conversations with friends using Talk will still be logged, but one can assume it will never go public.)
Along the same lines, most (sort of young) people having a Google Account use the calendar application, which can send iCal (ICS) invitations. These are usable by any decent calendaring application. So instead than Facebook events, I can receive nice emails containing calendar events in an interoperable format.
I realize there is a bit too much Google in there. It turns out to be a nice integrated UI to these services for non-tech-savvy people. Besides, I do not have experience with services from Yahoo! or others. I hope they are similar. The point is, though, that there are ways to do the regular things (communication, invitations,...) without relying on proprietary social websites (or, more generally, formats).
I found that it was quite well received to casually mention that I do not have/want a Facebook account, but you can send me an invitation using [Google Calendar] via email. in the conversation. Hence, I can have all the benefits (or at least the one that I see as important) from so-called social web-2.0-sites, without having my privacy unnecessarily exposed.
And I still have friends! (Some which do not even think that I am a zealot.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you.. this a'hole has not only the .com but also the .net and .biz of my surname with a three year old static page with his sons frigging picture on it On all THREE DOMAINS!!
What about the .name TLD? After all, that's what it's for.
We recently had a talk from a forensic expert from Deloitte Forensic Data (an australian company) in a Uni Security Engineering lecture. He made it clear that nothing was better than experience when trying to collect forensic information or retrieve hidden data from seized computers.
Thinking about it, that makes complete sense. There are so many ways to hide anything anywhere in a computer. If they want to be safe from this type of tools, people could just verify what the program checks, and do something else. Even with an ever updated database of âoethings to check,â people with things to hide will always be ahead of a non-thinking entity.
Really? I thought for sure slackware would be it.
Actually, Slackware is a heavily modified version of SLS, touched by Pat's blessing hand (:
[UMP ...] used the song during a meeting, and didn't reported it to the french RIAA (SACEM) for artist compensation, wich generally is pretty low.
According to what I've read (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/feb/24/nicolas-sarkozy-party-compensates-mgmt amongst others), it seems that UMP _did_ report to the SACEM. To no avail, it seems. This makes me wonder if such a right-collection association is still relevant...
what will this mean to other touch developers?
What about those which developed products with similar features while the patent was under examination?
To they just put their blueprints in the bin and try to find another idea?
I'm actually quite interested, if anyone has an idea, in the answer to this question: if you release a product before you get the patent, and concurent makers release similar products before said patent is granted, doesn't that constitute prior art?
Working in a research lab, we are regularly reminded that we should not publish patentable ideas before having patented them, as such publication would constitute prior art voiding any subsequent patent.
Anybody has clarifications?
I never got the point of digital cameras making a (badly recorded and replayed) camera sound when they @$%$$%$# don't need to. This is always the first âoefeatureâ (though I would call it a bug) that I disable. Then I can start using it.
I can definitely get the point of such a law-enforced feature. But being supported by law won't make it any less anoying. One can hope this will be implemented using a separate speaker. At least a soldering iron-operated switch could be considered, then.
For a while, I've been using the Linbox Converter [0]. Running on a dedicated Windows server with MS Office installed, it can convert documents sent over the network into âoecleanâ PDFs by print-to-file'ing them, and sending them back.
This is not exactly what's required here, as I suppose the documents have to be editable. The glue to make the system run, however, is mostly written in Python. This may make adding functions like saving as an earlier version of the format (âoebye bye OpemXMLâ) quite easy to implement.
There are Unix and Windows clients available at [0], but I once did a bit of packaging to make the installation of clients easier [1].
(Disclaimer: I once was an intern at Linbox, and did not conduct an unbiased survey of such solutions before deciding to use the aforementionned one. It turned out to work well enough for my needs, though.)
[0] http://www.linbox.com/en/converter
[1] http://gforge.inria.fr/frs/?group_id=424&release_id=897
Is this anything like Dasher?
I thought so by reading the post, but the linked articles shows that it's not the case.
I still think a Dasher-like system may be a viable input system for keyboard-less devices, though. Modulo some fine tuning, of course...
> One liners are for show, not for actual usage.
Mostly true. But it's always a bit of a perverse sense of satisfaction when you come out with an obscure one-liner that does exactly what you want.
Besides, I indulge myself in that way too much these days. It turns out that reading completely illegible one-liners is mostly a matter of habit.
Sometimes, I scare myself.
On a very slightly different matter, I always keep http://sed.sourceforge.net/sed1line.txt closeby, it has proven useful more than once.
Same issue with PPC.
Well, I guess we can say "Same issue with [insert here any Linux-supported architecture which is not x86]"...
Actually, I find it quite misleading to say that "Adobe [..] released version 10 of its [...] Flash Player [...] in a variety of convenient packaging formats for Linux". Adobe didn't. "Adobe released version 10 of its Flash Player in a variety of convenient packaging formats for some version of Linux running on the x86 architecture" is the correct wording.
Binary releases are simply not a viable solution for an open-source based system.
It is also common in my working field that potential employers initiate a background scan on you. Again: I guess being googleable might be an advantage here.
It's good to have interesting/helpful posts, whatever the publicly accessible website/mailing lists. This way, one does not have to find a solution to an already solved problem over and over again. If this post makes it clear that _you_ wrote it well, good on you. So yes, being Googleable on "valuable" things is interesting.
Being Googleable on how drunk you were last weekend, not very much so...
But seriously, I am in the same of situation as the original poster: no Facebook, no MSN, no MySpace. In short, no privacy-spoiling useless crap. However, I haven't run into that many "desocialization" problems, though. I just make sure to express clearly why I don't want (nor need) an account on any of these things. I also mention the fact that there are other seamless ways to do the same things.
It is important to keep in mind, as well, that email is an open protocol: people can keep in touch even if they don't have the same email provider.
That's the same with XMPP. Who specifically needs a Google Talk account when one has a Jabber account which allows to reach as many friends? (It is still arguable, though, that conversations with friends using Talk will still be logged, but one can assume it will never go public.)
Along the same lines, most (sort of young) people having a Google Account use the calendar application, which can send iCal (ICS) invitations. These are usable by any decent calendaring application. So instead than Facebook events, I can receive nice emails containing calendar events in an interoperable format.
I realize there is a bit too much Google in there. It turns out to be a nice integrated UI to these services for non-tech-savvy people. Besides, I do not have experience with services from Yahoo! or others. I hope they are similar. The point is, though, that there are ways to do the regular things (communication, invitations,...) without relying on proprietary social websites (or, more generally, formats).
I found that it was quite well received to casually mention that I do not have/want a Facebook account, but you can send me an invitation using [Google Calendar] via email. in the conversation. Hence, I can have all the benefits (or at least the one that I see as important) from so-called social web-2.0-sites, without having my privacy unnecessarily exposed.
And I still have friends! (Some which do not even think that I am a zealot.)
I have used X-Lite a few time, and was fairly satisfied with it (if one excepts the obnoxious skinned interface).
I've had good luck with Ekiga on Linux, but my friends that use windows have stability problems with it.
The thing is that Ekiga is an SIP client, so there is no need for the other party to be using the same program (yay for standards-based interop!).
Ekiga works well for me under Linux, and there is a vast choice of (free as in beer) SIP clients for Windows.
It is worth to note that ekiga.net can provide SIP account (and STUN server) for free.
No reason not to go for it, then (;
If he saw the photos, then he could download them. In fact, his computer had already downloaded the data _before_ he could see anything.
That would at least be the thumbnail that he saw. But definitely something he could keep.