Rather, it's either pay $100 to get the same two-year old machine back, complete with scuffed exterior, ugly/dirty keyboard, jerky mouse and, lately, a worrying fan noise; or for an additional $300 get a brand-new faster PC with the latest OS, more memory and bigger drive.
Ah, but then they aren't doing it to "get rid of the virus", are they? They're taking advantage of an opportune moment to upgrade. In this regard, then, getting infected with a load of spyware is no different from one's hard drive giving out, or some other essential component. Various posters here have been talking in the same way, like this is what the article is talking about. If it is, the whole issue is a non-story.
I've stated my opinion about throwing away the pc in lieu of cleaning a virus off in the original post of this story (yes, this is a dupe) - IMO it's idiotic. There's only one new computer purchase that makes sense to me for this purpose - buying a mac. And some people do that. But I don't think the article is that explicit.
I'll change my opinion. Buying a new Windows machine to get rid of viruses (not to upgrade at a point when the old box has "given up", more or less) may not be idiotic, but (IMO) it is deeply ignorant. Seems to me a better machine will just run more spyware and viruses, and faster. This story just further emphasizes the fact that users generally don't seem to want to learn how to keep their computers clean. I mean, frankly, it might be more secure to downgrade one's machine, by which I mean to run Win98 instead of the newer versions. At least there are no universally-accessible services running on that OS.
A great litmus test of any Windows user is to tell them that many problems will go away if they use an account with restricted permissions, and see how they react to the concurrent inconveniences (with e.g. software installation). If they prefer the convenience, then what you have is simply a user who refuses to be learned, or larned as I like to say. People who are looking for a way actually to keep their computer clean will not only deal with the inconvenience, but thank you for the advice.
While it isn't as easy as just paying $50, it's still easily one of the most idiotic ideas I've heard to solve computer woes. I wouldn't throw out old boxen even if the new one cost $0. Only someone who hasn't rebuilt systems, over and over again, thinks the problem is solved by getting a new computer. Someone's already mentioned that it's the reconfiguration of the system where the pain comes in. Most users can't do this for themselves anyway, which means they'd have to call in an expensive geek regardless. Users, bite the fricking bullet and deal with learning the box OR run it as user! I'm telling everyone, if a user tries running as User, they will stick to it, just because they will probably no longer get infected - software installation inconvenience be damned. The only reason people aren't doing this in droves is because they don't know they can do it - they have no concept that they can run the box on restricted permissions. Really. I dare any geek to go to a customer whose box is regularly 0wned by spyware, and tell them, well, there's this simple thing you can do, and you won't get any more bills from me - however, you won't be able to just install any software you want. Believe me, they will follow your suggestion and KISS YOUR FEET.
That solution probably won't work for Windows users. I'm interested in hearing what you think of this idea. Normally there are locks put on database records. What if there were also "locks" put on.cgi files or entire directories? When a user calls mt-comment.cgi (or whatever), the process first adds a "lock" record to a table (or a file or whatever) for the.cgi or parent directory, and subsequent calls to that.cgi check the lock table/file for a call from the same IP (or name your criterion). If that IP/criterion is found, the call dies. At the end of the original.cgi process, the lock is removed and additional calls can be made. Or, the lock could be scheduled to be removed at a later time, say after 2 minutes, or even 1 minute (whatever won't bug the users too much).
Obviously the lock check has to be as inexpensive as possible. If the locks are stored in a database table, though, it would only require a single query. And of course, the criterion for locking is crucial; if a spammer fakes a different IP for each comment-spam, the IP criterion won't work. And also of course, the lock garbage-collection (if locks are scheduled to be removed after an amount of time) has to be fast.
Meanwhile, Alfred Molina (Doctor Octopus) does a stellar job with second rate lines. Now he is an interesting character -- and, unlike spidey, his CG didn't look fake. Why not make a film about him rather than the bland kid in the spider suit?
Look Doc, just because you I can beat the snot out of you with only FOUR limbs is no reason to get bitter and start calling me "bland". I mean, just because it's white bread doesn't mean it won't pack a punch. Know what I mean?
It appears that one of the basic requirements for writing a film these days (and I like to write) is to have not only no knowledge of science, but preferably a vacous gaping city sucking fusion orb where even the most basic science knowledge should be.
Doc, you were told before you signed on that the faulty experiments were written into the script. That's just the way it goes in Hollywood. Sure, the fact that you couldn't build a controllable fusion reaction makes you look like a moron, but look at it this way: the writer didn't have me accidentally kill you at the end of the show. That means you can always come back for more humiliation later.
Look, Doc, I don't want there to be any hard feelings. I'll put in a good word for you: I'll ask the writers to have you get over your mental deranged-itude and maybe the equations will start to make sense again. How's that for bonhomie?
Also a complete lack of knowledge of trains is helpful. You might notice an elevated line that is built to go two stories to a dead end at... THE RIVER.
Um.. Doc? New York City? Hel-LO? Like you really care about trains anyway.
Romance is one of the things that saves this film -- because make no mistake about it it's the exact same formula that you've seen and know and love. If you like that film that you've seen a dozen times -- this is it too! Now with extra romance.
Aw, Doc. And here I thought you were just a bad ol' mean person at heart. I'll run this by your therapist and see if he doesn't change his mind about you.
Fun, but a downloader folks
Oh wait, I see; going Internet are you? You'll definitely get the/.ers on your side with that one! Well, I guess I have to admit that the only reason I don't download many mp3s is I'm too busy putting on spandex and sticking to skyscrapers. Maybe in #3 we can rumble in cyberspace! Ta-ta, Doc!
There is no current test for self-awareness. Now, I can tell that I am self aware, because I have a distinct concept of "self".
come on! Don't you realize how this does not support your position, but undermines it? Your position is either (a) these animals have no sentience, or sapience, or whatever, or (b) there is no evidence of said. but then you admit there's no test for whatever it is you're talking about. Well then just how the hell do YOU know? Do you even know what sentience/sapience/intelligence/whatever it is you're talking about IS? You say that you do based on a "distinct concept of self". Come on, that's complete bs. If it's so distinct, you shouldn't have a problem defining it. What's that? You DO have a problem defining it? What - do you mean to say that there's NO way you can define it such that I can't immediately question it? Do tell. Sounds to me like what's "distinct" is your FAITH that you have a sense of self, that you are distinct, or whatever - but it in NO WAY implies that you have anything that these other creatures don't have. In fact, the very nature of your "distinct concept" INSURES that we CAN'T ever tell whether or not these other creatures have it.
You're sure that the rest of us have "distinct concepts of self" because we evince appropriate behavior are you? Well, seems to me that should be distinct as well. Now I challenge you to define this behavior such that it clearly is behavior other animals don't have. Before you start, let me inform you that you will fail. But give it the old college try, maybe you'll learn something.
I get so tired of people who think that other creatures are somehow fundamentally different from us, psychically, emotionally, whatever. EVERY theory (because they are all theories) stating this is nothing more than inherited religious bias MASQUERADING as science. Period. It's so unbelievably, ironically arrogant.
Stress is what we feel when our current abilities are being challenged. It's also at these times that we grow as individuals - we learn to deal with situations which once caused stress, and hence become more capable.
Pain in a muscle might translate to growth, but the kind of stress we're talking about here basically equals overwork. Sure you learn how to deal with stressful situations from dealing with them. But is that the same as having your current abilities challenged? I really don't think so. It only means that you're being made to do more than you have time to do; that's really all it means. In terms of learning, it means you're being asked to absorb a 200-page book in the time it would take you normally to absorb 100 pages. This isn't growth, it's a recipe for incompetence and a poor decision making policy. While stress frequently accompanies "growth" - or learning - that's all it does; it isn't necessary to learning, and I would say not conducive to learning either. I recommend you check out Cziksentmihalyi's Flow, which is about the state of mind in which we're most creative and most able.
If you want more people to use Linux, the best tool by far will be to make it usable by the general public, as easy and understandable as Windows is.
Usability isn't really what's going to sway the masses over to using Linux, because the fact is that any switch between any two operating systems is always a hassle, bringing costs long before the ease of use of the new system can have an effect. The more computers are involved in the switch, the greater the inertia against it. The rule of "good enough" is that systems that satisfy basic requirements, even if not in the most efficient way, will not be replaced by systems which can satisfy those same needs more efficiently, because of the cost of the switch. There has to be significant motivation, significant improvement for uprooting your way of doing things, and I don't think Linux usability will ever provide that kind of improvement. That's what I think because, while Windows ain't pretty like Mac OS, it's still very easy to do most things in it, the OS has been stable since win2k, and though it's got security problems, the steps to make windows mostly secure are well within Jane Sixpack's ability to learn (if he only would).
The only reason it seems horrible is because 25 year olds fresh out of college can no longer expect to make $75k/year making web sites. Boo friggin hoo. Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year.
We should all shut up because we're asking for too much money. I hear this argument a lot. I think it's an ignorant one.
One, IT types fresh out of school are not turning down $45K jobs because they have been told they can expect $75K ones. Usually fresh-out-of-school types are not too assertive about how much money they expect to get, which is why companies commonly like to throw over older, more experienced workers for kids; they accept less for the same amount of work.
Two, IT types NOT fresh out of school also are not turning down $45K jobs, if it's the best thing they can get. Of course more experienced workers are more demanding, and rightfully so. But if they have a choice between $45K and not $0K (or $burger-flippingK), they'll choose $45K, obviously.
Third and most ignorant, arguments like this make it sound like companies are giving workers the option to accept $45K level jobs, OR they will outsource; in other words, that a $45K job wouldn't be outsourced. Wrongo. $45K jobs are going to India too.
Access is a funny thing: it's actually four programs in one.
a) Jet database/sql engine. b) forms engine. c) reports engine. d) visual basic scripting (only differs from normal VB in that it doesn't use the same forms engine and can't compile standalone code).
A sword swallower choking on a toothpick is irony.
No. Irony is incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
Therefore, you consider that the event of a sword-swallower choking on a toothpick to be "congruous".
Therefore you would expect a sword-swallower to choke on a toothpick?
It seems ironic to me that your understanding of irony is not incorrect in itself, but is made incorrect because of your ridiculous (non-)application of the concept.
The DMCA is the key. We like to think the content-providers are technologically stupid, but strategically they aren't. The DMCA makes cracking their little watermarks illegal. I think they realize that the cracking will happen; but the chilling effect of the DMCA slows it down and gives them the ability to keep up with the rate of technological innovation (there's that word again).
IANAL but it seems to me that all this money being spent may be a waste. The way the DMCA is worded, they could simply program a few bits to be at the front of whatever digital content they sell, and force the hardware manufacturers to make their hardware look for just those bits. The wording of the DMCA is broad enough to allow that ridiculous excuse for a tpm under its definition. Maybe the content providers' lawyers don't agree with me, but maybe they're the ones who don't know the tech.
let's all primal scream! WOOORRGGGHAAAAHHHH
on
CPAN Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 1
working it all out
THIS april fool's make yours -- THE ONION
on
CPAN Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 1
In 2001, we had more than a thousand AMD patents granted, many on process technology.
That's a long way from a million. Doesn't seem like AMD is contributing much to your million a year. I know, I'm disappointed too.
Also, probably not too many of those had anything to do with encryption. So that would lessen your number somewhat.
Finally, reflect that with that many patents, it couldn't be that hard to find one which might have shown some prior art. So your point actually undermines itself.
This is a wake up call. This is the most fucked up thing to come out of a fucked up patent office.
This is not fucked up just because it indicates that the USPTO is incompetent. As someone else has said, this patent indicates that the USPTO is not doing a poor job, it is doing NO job.
That means that shysters like this company can be granted a patent and embark on the typical shyster lawsuit strategy: small fry first, maybe some bigger game later, and of course ignore the big game because the big game will eat them and their entire families.
Let's sum up. This company with this bogus patent is nothing but a racket, a group of hoodlums, a pack of criminals hoping to make a quick score. Either than, or they are criminally stupid. And the USPTO is abetting the criminally stupid by failing to do anything remotely resembling their job.
They're all part of a big family by the name of Mud that keeps on gettin bigger.
which is that any such preventative measures will only be used on Joe Blow.
When the big guys visited our location last time, I got pulled out of a very important meeting to help one of them get connected to YahooIM
Mr Big will say "oh, you can't take that away. I need that [websurfing|various personal email accts|instant msg|etc]. Since he's Mr Big he gets what he wants.
Then one day he gets an email from someone who loves him.
And in one desperate moment of cuteness his company's million dollar security policy/implementation goes down the tubes.
Font sizes. That's all I have to say. Well, I'll go on. Large fonts mostly drive me batty. But most co-workers I've worked with seem to like larger fonts. They also frequently like fonts I wouldn't be caught dead with. Would Jef make me use 12 pt just because everyone else is? Nuts.
Here's the thought: if you're working in an environment which necessitates the occasional working-on-another's-computer, instead of worrying about creating the perfect customization, why not create a module of the os or an app which allows even MORE powerful customization, a la storing customization profiles on a separate server? You have to work on Alice's box (sorry Alice), you sit down and call up your customizations. If you're polite you call up Alice's again when your finished. If you're not then Alice has to do it for herself. Pretty simple. And avoids all this debate about efficient vs non-efficient.
Seeing as "begging the question", in logic, is a logical fallacy, I think the first poster was right. Presenting a more questionable "in and of itself" (what does that mean?) argument to bolster another less questionable argument is not a logical fallacy - it just means that you still have work to do. It IS a logical fallacy however to support a claim with an argument that relies on that claim being true, that is, which "begs the question [of the argument]".
Right, that's one place win2k REALLY falls down, hardware compatibility.
As long as we're on it, other areas where win2k falls short that hopefully winxp will change:
deleting files (cnn: "The system promises fewer computer crashes and will allow users to delete data from their hard drive.")
multiple users (cnn: "It is also family-friendly. Each computer can be used by a number of different members of the household so dad's accounts do not have to be closed before the screen is set to the real business of Grand Turismo.")
I'm sure there are many other improvements winxp holds. Boy, I can't wait to get rid of win2k.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather, it's either pay $100 to get the same two-year old machine back, complete with scuffed exterior, ugly/dirty keyboard, jerky mouse and, lately, a worrying fan noise; or for an additional $300 get a brand-new faster PC with the latest OS, more memory and bigger drive.
Ah, but then they aren't doing it to "get rid of the virus", are they? They're taking advantage of an opportune moment to upgrade. In this regard, then, getting infected with a load of spyware is no different from one's hard drive giving out, or some other essential component. Various posters here have been talking in the same way, like this is what the article is talking about. If it is, the whole issue is a non-story.
I've stated my opinion about throwing away the pc in lieu of cleaning a virus off in the original post of this story (yes, this is a dupe) - IMO it's idiotic. There's only one new computer purchase that makes sense to me for this purpose - buying a mac. And some people do that. But I don't think the article is that explicit.
I'll change my opinion. Buying a new Windows machine to get rid of viruses (not to upgrade at a point when the old box has "given up", more or less) may not be idiotic, but (IMO) it is deeply ignorant. Seems to me a better machine will just run more spyware and viruses, and faster. This story just further emphasizes the fact that users generally don't seem to want to learn how to keep their computers clean. I mean, frankly, it might be more secure to downgrade one's machine, by which I mean to run Win98 instead of the newer versions. At least there are no universally-accessible services running on that OS.
A great litmus test of any Windows user is to tell them that many problems will go away if they use an account with restricted permissions, and see how they react to the concurrent inconveniences (with e.g. software installation). If they prefer the convenience, then what you have is simply a user who refuses to be learned, or larned as I like to say. People who are looking for a way actually to keep their computer clean will not only deal with the inconvenience, but thank you for the advice.
While it isn't as easy as just paying $50, it's still easily one of the most idiotic ideas I've heard to solve computer woes. I wouldn't throw out old boxen even if the new one cost $0. Only someone who hasn't rebuilt systems, over and over again, thinks the problem is solved by getting a new computer. Someone's already mentioned that it's the reconfiguration of the system where the pain comes in. Most users can't do this for themselves anyway, which means they'd have to call in an expensive geek regardless. Users, bite the fricking bullet and deal with learning the box OR run it as user! I'm telling everyone, if a user tries running as User, they will stick to it, just because they will probably no longer get infected - software installation inconvenience be damned. The only reason people aren't doing this in droves is because they don't know they can do it - they have no concept that they can run the box on restricted permissions. Really. I dare any geek to go to a customer whose box is regularly 0wned by spyware, and tell them, well, there's this simple thing you can do, and you won't get any more bills from me - however, you won't be able to just install any software you want. Believe me, they will follow your suggestion and KISS YOUR FEET.
That solution probably won't work for Windows users. I'm interested in hearing what you think of this idea. Normally there are locks put on database records. What if there were also "locks" put on .cgi files or entire directories? When a user calls mt-comment.cgi (or whatever), the process first adds a "lock" record to a table (or a file or whatever) for the .cgi or parent directory, and subsequent calls to that .cgi check the lock table/file for a call from the same IP (or name your criterion). If that IP/criterion is found, the call dies. At the end of the original .cgi process, the lock is removed and additional calls can be made. Or, the lock could be scheduled to be removed at a later time, say after 2 minutes, or even 1 minute (whatever won't bug the users too much).
Obviously the lock check has to be as inexpensive as possible. If the locks are stored in a database table, though, it would only require a single query. And of course, the criterion for locking is crucial; if a spammer fakes a different IP for each comment-spam, the IP criterion won't work. And also of course, the lock garbage-collection (if locks are scheduled to be removed after an amount of time) has to be fast.
Meanwhile, Alfred Molina (Doctor Octopus) does a stellar job with second rate lines. Now he is an interesting character -- and, unlike spidey, his CG didn't look fake. Why not make a film about him rather than the bland kid in the spider suit?
Look Doc, just because you I can beat the snot out of you with only FOUR limbs is no reason to get bitter and start calling me "bland". I mean, just because it's white bread doesn't mean it won't pack a punch. Know what I mean?
It appears that one of the basic requirements for writing a film these days (and I like to write) is to have not only no knowledge of science, but preferably a vacous gaping city sucking fusion orb where even the most basic science knowledge should be.
Doc, you were told before you signed on that the faulty experiments were written into the script. That's just the way it goes in Hollywood. Sure, the fact that you couldn't build a controllable fusion reaction makes you look like a moron, but look at it this way: the writer didn't have me accidentally kill you at the end of the show. That means you can always come back for more humiliation later.
Look, Doc, I don't want there to be any hard feelings. I'll put in a good word for you: I'll ask the writers to have you get over your mental deranged-itude and maybe the equations will start to make sense again. How's that for bonhomie?
Also a complete lack of knowledge of trains is helpful. You might notice an elevated line that is built to go two stories to a dead end at... THE RIVER.
Um.. Doc? New York City? Hel-LO? Like you really care about trains anyway.
Romance is one of the things that saves this film -- because make no mistake about it it's the exact same formula that you've seen and know and love. If you like that film that you've seen a dozen times -- this is it too! Now with extra romance.
Aw, Doc. And here I thought you were just a bad ol' mean person at heart. I'll run this by your therapist and see if he doesn't change his mind about you.
Fun, but a downloader folks
Oh wait, I see; going Internet are you? You'll definitely get the /.ers on your side with that one! Well, I guess I have to admit that the only reason I don't download many mp3s is I'm too busy putting on spandex and sticking to skyscrapers. Maybe in #3 we can rumble in cyberspace! Ta-ta, Doc!
signed,
YOUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN
as in, he should have a couple of.
as in, his attitude is like a.
as in, what he no doubt does for a living.
Sorry Prune baby! It was there, I had to go for it!
I only have 0 spywares on my ENTIRE network. :(
There is no current test for self-awareness. Now, I can tell that I am self aware, because I have a distinct concept of "self".
come on! Don't you realize how this does not support your position, but undermines it? Your position is either (a) these animals have no sentience, or sapience, or whatever, or (b) there is no evidence of said. but then you admit there's no test for whatever it is you're talking about. Well then just how the hell do YOU know? Do you even know what sentience/sapience/intelligence/whatever it is you're talking about IS? You say that you do based on a "distinct concept of self". Come on, that's complete bs. If it's so distinct, you shouldn't have a problem defining it. What's that? You DO have a problem defining it? What - do you mean to say that there's NO way you can define it such that I can't immediately question it? Do tell. Sounds to me like what's "distinct" is your FAITH that you have a sense of self, that you are distinct, or whatever - but it in NO WAY implies that you have anything that these other creatures don't have. In fact, the very nature of your "distinct concept" INSURES that we CAN'T ever tell whether or not these other creatures have it.
You're sure that the rest of us have "distinct concepts of self" because we evince appropriate behavior are you? Well, seems to me that should be distinct as well. Now I challenge you to define this behavior such that it clearly is behavior other animals don't have. Before you start, let me inform you that you will fail. But give it the old college try, maybe you'll learn something.
I get so tired of people who think that other creatures are somehow fundamentally different from us, psychically, emotionally, whatever. EVERY theory (because they are all theories) stating this is nothing more than inherited religious bias MASQUERADING as science. Period. It's so unbelievably, ironically arrogant.
Stress is what we feel when our current abilities are being challenged. It's also at these times that we grow as individuals - we learn to deal with situations which once caused stress, and hence become more capable.
Pain in a muscle might translate to growth, but the kind of stress we're talking about here basically equals overwork. Sure you learn how to deal with stressful situations from dealing with them. But is that the same as having your current abilities challenged? I really don't think so. It only means that you're being made to do more than you have time to do; that's really all it means. In terms of learning, it means you're being asked to absorb a 200-page book in the time it would take you normally to absorb 100 pages. This isn't growth, it's a recipe for incompetence and a poor decision making policy. While stress frequently accompanies "growth" - or learning - that's all it does; it isn't necessary to learning, and I would say not conducive to learning either. I recommend you check out Cziksentmihalyi's Flow, which is about the state of mind in which we're most creative and most able.
If you want more people to use Linux, the best tool by far will be to make it usable by the general public, as easy and understandable as Windows is.
Usability isn't really what's going to sway the masses over to using Linux, because the fact is that any switch between any two operating systems is always a hassle, bringing costs long before the ease of use of the new system can have an effect. The more computers are involved in the switch, the greater the inertia against it. The rule of "good enough" is that systems that satisfy basic requirements, even if not in the most efficient way, will not be replaced by systems which can satisfy those same needs more efficiently, because of the cost of the switch. There has to be significant motivation, significant improvement for uprooting your way of doing things, and I don't think Linux usability will ever provide that kind of improvement. That's what I think because, while Windows ain't pretty like Mac OS, it's still very easy to do most things in it, the OS has been stable since win2k, and though it's got security problems, the steps to make windows mostly secure are well within Jane Sixpack's ability to learn (if he only would).
Try R-Studio, if you need to read "lost" partitions. Saved my ass when I deleted my parents' system (yes -- the whole system).
The only reason it seems horrible is because 25 year olds fresh out of college can no longer expect to make $75k/year making web sites. Boo friggin hoo. Many people work their entire lives in their profession and never earn more than $45k/year.
We should all shut up because we're asking for too much money. I hear this argument a lot. I think it's an ignorant one.
One, IT types fresh out of school are not turning down $45K jobs because they have been told they can expect $75K ones. Usually fresh-out-of-school types are not too assertive about how much money they expect to get, which is why companies commonly like to throw over older, more experienced workers for kids; they accept less for the same amount of work.
Two, IT types NOT fresh out of school also are not turning down $45K jobs, if it's the best thing they can get. Of course more experienced workers are more demanding, and rightfully so. But if they have a choice between $45K and not $0K (or $burger-flippingK), they'll choose $45K, obviously.
Third and most ignorant, arguments like this make it sound like companies are giving workers the option to accept $45K level jobs, OR they will outsource; in other words, that a $45K job wouldn't be outsourced. Wrongo. $45K jobs are going to India too.
Access is a funny thing: it's actually four programs in one.
:)_
a) Jet database/sql engine.
b) forms engine.
c) reports engine.
d) visual basic scripting (only differs from normal VB in that it doesn't use the same forms engine and can't compile standalone code).
I don't count macros. Never have.
A sword swallower choking on a toothpick is irony.
No. Irony is incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
Therefore, you consider that the event of a sword-swallower choking on a toothpick to be "congruous".
Therefore you would expect a sword-swallower to choke on a toothpick?
It seems ironic to me that your understanding of irony is not incorrect in itself, but is made incorrect because of your ridiculous (non-)application of the concept.
Um.. he don't want one? um.. like he been handing them out to all his customers n shit? um.. u know?
The DMCA is the key. We like to think the content-providers are technologically stupid, but strategically they aren't. The DMCA makes cracking their little watermarks illegal. I think they realize that the cracking will happen; but the chilling effect of the DMCA slows it down and gives them the ability to keep up with the rate of technological innovation (there's that word again).
IANAL but it seems to me that all this money being spent may be a waste. The way the DMCA is worded, they could simply program a few bits to be at the front of whatever digital content they sell, and force the hardware manufacturers to make their hardware look for just those bits. The wording of the DMCA is broad enough to allow that ridiculous excuse for a tpm under its definition. Maybe the content providers' lawyers don't agree with me, but maybe they're the ones who don't know the tech.
working it all out
yeah!
there you have it.
quoth the AMD CEO:
In 2001, we had more than a thousand AMD patents granted, many on process technology.
That's a long way from a million. Doesn't seem like AMD is contributing much to your million a year. I know, I'm disappointed too.
Also, probably not too many of those had anything to do with encryption. So that would lessen your number somewhat.
Finally, reflect that with that many patents, it couldn't be that hard to find one which might have shown some prior art. So your point actually undermines itself.
This is a wake up call. This is the most fucked up thing to come out of a fucked up patent office.
This is not fucked up just because it indicates that the USPTO is incompetent. As someone else has said, this patent indicates that the USPTO is not doing a poor job, it is doing NO job.
That means that shysters like this company can be granted a patent and embark on the typical shyster lawsuit strategy: small fry first, maybe some bigger game later, and of course ignore the big game because the big game will eat them and their entire families.
Let's sum up. This company with this bogus patent is nothing but a racket, a group of hoodlums, a pack of criminals hoping to make a quick score. Either than, or they are criminally stupid. And the USPTO is abetting the criminally stupid by failing to do anything remotely resembling their job.
They're all part of a big family by the name of Mud that keeps on gettin bigger.
which is that any such preventative measures will only be used on Joe Blow.
When the big guys visited our location last time, I got pulled out of a very important meeting to help one of them get connected to YahooIM
Mr Big will say "oh, you can't take that away. I need that [websurfing|various personal email accts|instant msg|etc]. Since he's Mr Big he gets what he wants.
Then one day he gets an email from someone who loves him.
And in one desperate moment of cuteness his company's million dollar security policy/implementation goes down the tubes.
Font sizes. That's all I have to say. Well, I'll go on. Large fonts mostly drive me batty. But most co-workers I've worked with seem to like larger fonts. They also frequently like fonts I wouldn't be caught dead with. Would Jef make me use 12 pt just because everyone else is? Nuts.
Here's the thought: if you're working in an environment which necessitates the occasional working-on-another's-computer, instead of worrying about creating the perfect customization, why not create a module of the os or an app which allows even MORE powerful customization, a la storing customization profiles on a separate server? You have to work on Alice's box (sorry Alice), you sit down and call up your customizations. If you're polite you call up Alice's again when your finished. If you're not then Alice has to do it for herself. Pretty simple. And avoids all this debate about efficient vs non-efficient.
So much for your rules!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seeing as "begging the question", in logic, is a logical fallacy, I think the first poster was right. Presenting a more questionable "in and of itself" (what does that mean?) argument to bolster another less questionable argument is not a logical fallacy - it just means that you still have work to do. It IS a logical fallacy however to support a claim with an argument that relies on that claim being true, that is, which "begs the question [of the argument]".
more drivers
Right, that's one place win2k REALLY falls down, hardware compatibility.
As long as we're on it, other areas where win2k falls short that hopefully winxp will change:
deleting files (cnn: "The system promises fewer computer crashes and will allow users to delete data from their hard drive.")
multiple users (cnn: "It is also family-friendly. Each computer can be used by a number of different members of the household so dad's accounts do not have to be closed before the screen is set to the real business of Grand Turismo.")
I'm sure there are many other improvements winxp holds. Boy, I can't wait to get rid of win2k.