Also, when was the last time you tried to visit Facebook and it was down?
Well it's been a couple of months, but it does happen. Also one of my friends used to have a problem with her profile being unavailable for hours at a time quite frequently.
Not major issues, it's true, and they're doing a great job, but don't think that they're perfect because they're not. (But then all software has problems from time to time of course)
Would you let me take your dog for my own fun? Not to sell. Just to play with.
If I could do so by near-instantaneously cloning it for essentially zero cost to create an exact copy so we could both do so at the same time, then yes. Why not?
The only way you're not getting a virus on a windows box is either disconnecting it from the internet or run a sandboxed browser with no flash, javascript, java, or pretty much anything adobe.
I run Windows both at work and at home, and I can't remember the last time I saw an infected file (other than attachments to spam, which of course I simply delete).
Either you're doing something very wrong, or we're surfing different Internets.
What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.
That is not and never has been their job:
How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?
We don't. You do.:) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience.
On my last project at work, we had a requirement to create a number of pages in languages other than English. Some of them (such as Tigrinya) use non-Latin character sets. Without a cross-browser way to provide or embed the appropriate font with/in the page, we had to rely on the user having the font installed on their PC (or the PC they happened to be accessing the site from).
Now in most cases that's probably true, as most people accessing those pages will be doing so because they speak that language, and so will presumably have the appropriate font. For everyone else, though, the page would look pretty crappy. (Check out the "weird boxes" on the Wikipedia page I link to)
That's one practical reason why, assuming making your content accessible to as wide an audience as possible is important to you.
They can't be trademarks, trademark law protects names, logos, etc, used as identifying marks while doing trade. I guess you could stretch that to include a logo used by any entity regardless of use for trade, but even so, it can't be used to protect an entire book.
Trade secrets are just that - secrets. Once they leak, tough luck. You can try to seek an injunction to prevent people publishing them further, but good luck with that.
as everyone has known for decades , someone with access to the machine can do what they like
I've met technical people (employed in technical positions, like sysadmins and programmers) who didn't really get that at first; expecting a typical businessman who's been assured that his new laptop "is encrypted" to realise that it's not perfectly safe is a little much.
I could see some very, very corner cases where you need to store data indefinitely, and would be able to recover it with no timeline attached, but that's awfully rare nowadays.
A couple of years ago I worked on a web-based system for searching over database records. Access to and use of the system was monitored, with details of who saw what when written to a database.
While we never took it this far, there was talk of future requirements to store X years' worth of data online (done) with the rest of the data stored off-line but searchable on request essentially forever. There was no talk of what sort of time frame those searches would be required to run in, but the general feeling I got was that less than a couple of weeks would be acceptable.
Not quite what you're talking about, but pretty close. Of course the singular of data isn't anecdote:)
With patents, you either keep your stuff locked up, or you publish it and get the government to enforce exclusivity for you.
I think I know what you mean, but what you say is wrong. Getting a patent is publishing your stuff and getting the government to enforce exclusivity. Not publishing is keeping it a "trade secret", which enjoys far less protection - basically while it's possible to haul someone over the legal coals for industrial espionage or similar, once the secret is out it's out.
With computers, it's not difficult at all to perfectly and quickly replicate most types of information, there's no real scarcity of it at all, only artificial, legally enforced scarcity.
The problem that a lot of people seem to forget is that while reproduction of information is essentially free, the initial creation is not - at least not of high quality information (though in many cases "high quality" is of course a very subjective term).
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but some of us use Windows because we like it. I ran Linux on my desktop for a couple of years and moved back to Windows around SP1 of XP; I simply prefer it.
When there's a number of windows, but none have focus, and one uses alt-f4, one immidiately gets a shutdown dialog.
That behaviour has been present in Windows since at least XP - if no window has focus, then the Desktop has focus. Alt-F4 on the Desktop opens the shut down dialogue. There's nothing to fix here, it simply doesn't work the way you think it should.
There is some stuff you can do with GSA to try to implement document security - you can set up separate collections/indexes (I forget the GSA term) for different parts of your document repository, then restrict the search results to specific indexes based on the logged-in user's credentials. (That's assuming you roll your own interface)
Note that my one use of GSA was a couple of years ago, and we had an extremely simple security model with only 2 user types - one got access to everything, one got access to a simply-defined subset of the document hierarchy.
I agree about it hammering on servers though, we had trouble with that too - specifically with the app servers returning error 500 response codes to the GSA while normal users could access the same pages just fine. Never did get that one ironed out properly (though it may have been an app server problem of course)
Taking on deep pockets is risky though - if you win (or they settle out of court) they can pay out big, but they can also afford to mount a strong defence if they decide to fight it out.
A common strategy is to take on some smaller, weaker player(s) first, bully them into submission, and thus have some air of legitimacy to your claims when you go after the big guys.
Mod this guy up - "Don't blame me, everyone is doing it!" (or worse, "hey, no-one tried to stop me!") is no kind of defence for anyone with a shred of moral responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, when was the last time you tried to visit Facebook and it was down?
Well it's been a couple of months, but it does happen. Also one of my friends used to have a problem with her profile being unavailable for hours at a time quite frequently.
Not major issues, it's true, and they're doing a great job, but don't think that they're perfect because they're not. (But then all software has problems from time to time of course)
Would you let me take your dog for my own fun? Not to sell. Just to play with.
If I could do so by near-instantaneously cloning it for essentially zero cost to create an exact copy so we could both do so at the same time, then yes. Why not?
But the intent matters; most people who steal money don't intend for people to die. The same is definitely not true of your gunman.
The only way you're not getting a virus on a windows box is either disconnecting it from the internet or run a sandboxed browser with no flash, javascript, java, or pretty much anything adobe.
I run Windows both at work and at home, and I can't remember the last time I saw an infected file (other than attachments to spam, which of course I simply delete).
Either you're doing something very wrong, or we're surfing different Internets.
The Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of the Earth's; that's low, but is by no means "more or less zero".
What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.
That is not and never has been their job:
That's taken from the FAQ.
Now I'm not saying that that's how it *should* be, but that's how it *is*.
From a pure rational analysis though, spreading your genes gives you absolutely no benefits.
That's not entirely true - some people (will) rely on their children to help look after them in their old age, or even to completely support them.
On my last project at work, we had a requirement to create a number of pages in languages other than English. Some of them (such as Tigrinya) use non-Latin character sets. Without a cross-browser way to provide or embed the appropriate font with/in the page, we had to rely on the user having the font installed on their PC (or the PC they happened to be accessing the site from).
Now in most cases that's probably true, as most people accessing those pages will be doing so because they speak that language, and so will presumably have the appropriate font. For everyone else, though, the page would look pretty crappy. (Check out the "weird boxes" on the Wikipedia page I link to)
That's one practical reason why, assuming making your content accessible to as wide an audience as possible is important to you.
Only if they are actually committing fraud.
They can't be trademarks, trademark law protects names, logos, etc, used as identifying marks while doing trade. I guess you could stretch that to include a logo used by any entity regardless of use for trade, but even so, it can't be used to protect an entire book.
Trade secrets are just that - secrets. Once they leak, tough luck. You can try to seek an injunction to prevent people publishing them further, but good luck with that.
As always, IANAL.
as everyone has known for decades , someone with access to the machine can do what they like
I've met technical people (employed in technical positions, like sysadmins and programmers) who didn't really get that at first; expecting a typical businessman who's been assured that his new laptop "is encrypted" to realise that it's not perfectly safe is a little much.
It is legal to modify copyrighted works you own.
Unless you're doing it to circumvent a copyright protection system of course...
I could see some very, very corner cases where you need to store data indefinitely, and would be able to recover it with no timeline attached, but that's awfully rare nowadays.
A couple of years ago I worked on a web-based system for searching over database records. Access to and use of the system was monitored, with details of who saw what when written to a database.
While we never took it this far, there was talk of future requirements to store X years' worth of data online (done) with the rest of the data stored off-line but searchable on request essentially forever. There was no talk of what sort of time frame those searches would be required to run in, but the general feeling I got was that less than a couple of weeks would be acceptable.
Not quite what you're talking about, but pretty close. Of course the singular of data isn't anecdote :)
With patents, you either keep your stuff locked up, or you publish it and get the government to enforce exclusivity for you.
I think I know what you mean, but what you say is wrong. Getting a patent is publishing your stuff and getting the government to enforce exclusivity. Not publishing is keeping it a "trade secret", which enjoys far less protection - basically while it's possible to haul someone over the legal coals for industrial espionage or similar, once the secret is out it's out.
We're supposed to have beards now?
Why was I not included on the memo!?
With computers, it's not difficult at all to perfectly and quickly replicate most types of information, there's no real scarcity of it at all, only artificial, legally enforced scarcity.
The problem that a lot of people seem to forget is that while reproduction of information is essentially free, the initial creation is not - at least not of high quality information (though in many cases "high quality" is of course a very subjective term).
Then stop reading this site.
From the bottom of every page:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.
Now I wish I had a better spell chequer than a teacher shouting at me when I was growing up.
I have to ask - was that intentional?
You must be new here.
(Seriously, some editors in the past became notorious for posting little but trollish, flamebait articles)
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but some of us use Windows because we like it. I ran Linux on my desktop for a couple of years and moved back to Windows around SP1 of XP; I simply prefer it.
When there's a number of windows, but none have focus, and one uses alt-f4, one immidiately gets a shutdown dialog.
That behaviour has been present in Windows since at least XP - if no window has focus, then the Desktop has focus. Alt-F4 on the Desktop opens the shut down dialogue. There's nothing to fix here, it simply doesn't work the way you think it should.
There is some stuff you can do with GSA to try to implement document security - you can set up separate collections/indexes (I forget the GSA term) for different parts of your document repository, then restrict the search results to specific indexes based on the logged-in user's credentials. (That's assuming you roll your own interface)
Note that my one use of GSA was a couple of years ago, and we had an extremely simple security model with only 2 user types - one got access to everything, one got access to a simply-defined subset of the document hierarchy.
I agree about it hammering on servers though, we had trouble with that too - specifically with the app servers returning error 500 response codes to the GSA while normal users could access the same pages just fine. Never did get that one ironed out properly (though it may have been an app server problem of course)
You mean cyberdildonics (and no, I'm not going to google you a link for that, I'm at work)
Taking on deep pockets is risky though - if you win (or they settle out of court) they can pay out big, but they can also afford to mount a strong defence if they decide to fight it out.
A common strategy is to take on some smaller, weaker player(s) first, bully them into submission, and thus have some air of legitimacy to your claims when you go after the big guys.
Not that Apple is exactly small-time though...
Mod this guy up - "Don't blame me, everyone is doing it!" (or worse, "hey, no-one tried to stop me!") is no kind of defence for anyone with a shred of moral responsibility.