That's pretty much what the patent system does. However bridge designs for anything halfway normal have long since been standardised with designed published. There's even a book bridge designs for boy scouts floating around somewhere.
Except funding issues in academic environments means that a lot of old stuff that keeps working is kept on. Even if it is horrific VB hacks that run on windows 95.
Not really. Malware aims a low hanging fruit and people taking active steps to protect their system are in all probability not worth the hassle (and downloading a onetime scanner is pretty active). The tool is also new so malwear writers probably haven't reacted to any great extent yet.
That's been tried several times with Napster and hasn't worked out. In fact I can't think of any of the web's fallen giants who've managed to make a comeback.
Tossing paper planes would probably be fairly secure.
1)data would remain within your line of sight so any attempt to directly intercept would be obvious 2)with correct folding data could be hidden making remote interception impossible 3)It's not standard enough for no one to have developed a standard attack
Said reports came from news corp papers so there is a slight conflict of interest. It's possible that there was some similar activity at other tabloids but the evidence is pretty sketchy.
You appear to have become upset when you couldn't sucessly push the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory and gotten blocked for threatening someone. I would suggest that you are not the most objective of commentators.
Beating top gear in a media battle is difficult to say the least. Beating them in court on the other hand is more viable. Waiting a couple of years is just a standard tactic since it makes cases much harder to defend (do you keep all your documentation for 2 years along with a complete set of signed witness statements about every event?) so with luck the other side will fold and save you some money.
Strangly no. Patent and copyright are about control. Copyright in particular gives you a bunch of rights (such as controling derivative works) that are unrelated to profit. The theory behind trademark is actualy consumer protection of all things
The case was civil law not criminal. The criminal areas of copyright law are in any case almost never used so it's the civil stuff (which applies to all persons natural or otherwise) that matters
Wikipedia has a fairly limited budget and has historically accepted the odd few hours of downtime now and again as the natural result of this. The number of such incidents have reduced over the years though.
Since wikimedia's server admins have long since been divided into two departments known as wing and prayer they can probably avoid any job loses by blaming each other.
The WMF would be free to ignore such a ruling. Indeed it is free to ignore this one however has chosen not to because it thinks the court order is reasonable based on the facts they have available and the English courts do have a passing relationship with sanity (well some of the time anyway).
From wikimedia's POV someone is being a serious dick (WP:NOT somewhere to launch random attacks on people). On top of that they are being a dick in a way that has legal consequences. The person who is being attacked requests an IP. Wikimedia asks for a court ruling effectively to make sure their claims have some validity. They do wikimedia hands over the IP.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty much what the patent system does. However bridge designs for anything halfway normal have long since been standardised with designed published. There's even a book bridge designs for boy scouts floating around somewhere.
Except funding issues in academic environments means that a lot of old stuff that keeps working is kept on. Even if it is horrific VB hacks that run on windows 95.
Not really. Malware aims a low hanging fruit and people taking active steps to protect their system are in all probability not worth the hassle (and downloading a onetime scanner is pretty active). The tool is also new so malwear writers probably haven't reacted to any great extent yet.
"unlimited" just means that your provider is lying to you.
That's been tried several times with Napster and hasn't worked out. In fact I can't think of any of the web's fallen giants who've managed to make a comeback.
Tossing paper planes would probably be fairly secure.
1)data would remain within your line of sight so any attempt to directly intercept would be obvious
2)with correct folding data could be hidden making remote interception impossible
3)It's not standard enough for no one to have developed a standard attack
Said reports came from news corp papers so there is a slight conflict of interest. It's possible that there was some similar activity at other tabloids but the evidence is pretty sketchy.
The next generation are James Murdoch and co and lack their father's competence.
If providing proof of a comment is a waste of time then surely so is the comment.
You appear to have become upset when you couldn't sucessly push the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory and gotten blocked for threatening someone. I would suggest that you are not the most objective of commentators.
Beating top gear in a media battle is difficult to say the least. Beating them in court on the other hand is more viable. Waiting a couple of years is just a standard tactic since it makes cases much harder to defend (do you keep all your documentation for 2 years along with a complete set of signed witness statements about every event?) so with luck the other side will fold and save you some money.
Care to provide some links to back that up?
Not so. For example only one of the sources on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southsea_castle is web based.
You want to argue that a gaming podcast co-host is more notable than one of the worlds best known Game series/TV shows/Card games?
The overwelming majority of pokemon don't have articles.
Strangly no. Patent and copyright are about control. Copyright in particular gives you a bunch of rights (such as controling derivative works) that are unrelated to profit. The theory behind trademark is actualy consumer protection of all things
The case was civil law not criminal. The criminal areas of copyright law are in any case almost never used so it's the civil stuff (which applies to all persons natural or otherwise) that matters
Wikipedia has a fairly limited budget and has historically accepted the odd few hours of downtime now and again as the natural result of this. The number of such incidents have reduced over the years though.
Since wikimedia's server admins have long since been divided into two departments known as wing and prayer they can probably avoid any job loses by blaming each other.
Going by past statsitics the cost of downtime to wikipedia tends to be negative since donations rise. Not that this is something wikimedia aims to do.
The judge has made many many public rulings. There is enough public data to draw a reasonable conclusion as to how much he can be trusted.
Eh it was more the shear amount of generalised vandalism that was coming through TOR rather than conflict of interest issues.
If you read the judgement:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
the court accepts that it doesn't have jurisdiction but that the WMF has agreed to cooperate to an extent.
The WMF would be free to ignore such a ruling. Indeed it is free to ignore this one however has chosen not to because it thinks the court order is reasonable based on the facts they have available and the English courts do have a passing relationship with sanity (well some of the time anyway).
The court ruling is available:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
From wikimedia's POV someone is being a serious dick (WP:NOT somewhere to launch random attacks on people). On top of that they are being a dick in a way that has legal consequences. The person who is being attacked requests an IP. Wikimedia asks for a court ruling effectively to make sure their claims have some validity. They do wikimedia hands over the IP.