I disocvered that Youtube was delivering to me via IPv6 and I didn't even realize that. The main site has no AAAA record that I can see. But the video delivery actually went over IPv6, despite me only using IPv4 for DNS. I suspect they bugged the page with a transparent image that asks for a hostname that is only on IPv6, and set a cookie or something to engage IPv6.
I haven't seen the evidence. I do BELIEVE GW is happening AND is caused mostly by US. Just saying I BELIEVE it because it is so incredibly plausible, but I don't KNOW it because I haven't seen the evidence. There needs to be more genuine evidence gathering and start chipping away at the ignorance with truth.
I agree for the most part. The reality is we can't really know when the PoNR is. It's all fuzzy, anyway. We might be past the PoNR, already. What I do think is clear (to me) is that the effects are very real, and that we are contributing to at least some of them. These are effects that have happened in the past. So we can't just say because it is happening, that we caused it. But we can at least do something. People like Hansen, however, alienate so much of the population that it is too hard to convince others that the basis of what Hansen is talking about has truth to it.
There is a group of us who do believe in God and that natural selection is one of his means to achieve his goals. Then I look at the Republican party and really see TWO separate groups. One group is the God believers. The other is the Business believers. There's actually not much overlap. They just happen to be together as part of the same political party in part because decades ago the Democrats ousted the God believers with it's position on abortion. So therefore we have the odd couple that accept, or maybe more accurately, tolerate, each others position, but are big enough to make a substantial go of it together.
I know many people who are Republicans simply to not be a Democrat and to not support certain positions of the Democratic party. The largest of those positions makes up at least 75 percent of these "anything but Democrat" group, and that is the abortion issue (Democrats call it Women's Choice and this group calls it Women Murdering Children).
But I cannot be in the Republican party despite my strong lifelong opposition to abortion (and support of gun rights, strong military, etc) because of it perilous destructive nature on economic balance, fairness, the rule of law, etc. But is this position by the Democrats to allow the killing of not yet born children so important to hold on to?
We're going to destroy ourselves just because we have these TWO parties.
Once the sky falls enough for a piece to hit you in the head, then it's too late to prevent its complete collapse. So do we want to prevent it from falling, or not?
I remember my Apple II with 110, 300, and 1200 baud serial. The 1200 baud would not work on the 110/300 baud modems of the day. But I figured out how to get the serial port working at 440 baud by crossing some flags for 110 with some flags for 1200 in the serial port device register. Amazingly, that actually worked on a 300 baud modem calling another setup done exactly the same way.
If you buy a stolen phone, don't expect it to operate. If you didn't know it was stolen, someone duped you. Go after them and report them to police. It's no different than if they had shipped you a brick.
Harboring known (or should have known) criminals is itself a crime. A carrier re-activating a phone that is known to be stolen, because it is reported by the verified owner that it is, or the original owner's term contract is still active, and not reporting that person to the police, is a crime. And as Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, too", that corporation needs to spend its 30 days in jail, if convicted.
They bought the phone from AT&T or from Apple. They have a record of this. That and we can presume that whoever first signed up the phone for an account is the original owner. Of course, a few phones might be stolen before the buyer gets them activated for the very first time. But, other than this, it's easy check the IMEI number.
The receipt is only needed if AT&T is too stupid to keep records. Are they? Are they that stupid? Even if they are, that doesn't justify the stupidity.
This is simple. If the phone is reported stolen while plan is active, lock out the IMEI. Then if another party trying to activate it claims they legally purchased it, THEY have to produce the receipt.
It flopped only because they didn't know how to make it go viral. I didn't even hear about it until after they canceled it. I remember the thought because I heard about it being canceled first and was thinking "WTF".
But extreme marketing doesn't warrant any granted exclusivity. Any company can do extreme marketing (there's prior art on extreme marketing in general).
The syntax of a computer language cannot be copyrighted.
I disagree. The specification itself can be copyrighted. Another specification document that writes about the same programming language with the same described syntax and semantics, is a derived work, IMHO. A compiler is an expression of the language specification. So it, too, is a derived work.
But I also argue that writing a program in the language of concern is not a derivation of the language specification sufficiently to merit it as a derived work of that language specification, because that program is not expressing what the language is. Instead, I argue that a program source code written in language FOO is a fair use of the specification of FOO (and is an expression of some other idea). A compiler is an expression of what the language is.
If you really had copyrighted it at the time you really created it, and no one else had, and the copyright has not expired, then sure, it would be yours. Then no one can write a compiler of it.
... Beijing Police arrested a man believed to have shouted "Fire!" in the crowded downtown theatre where dozens of movie viewers were injured in the mad stampede to evacuate. Fortunately there were no deaths. Fire officials found no evidence there had been any fire, smoke, or any risk of a fire. A theatre official said the theatre is a modern one built to the utmost safety standards.
The very concept of a programming language that fulfills a particular need (portability, for example) is the idea. The creation of Java, and all the symbols and names of the language, is an expression of that idea. The creation of another language that operates similarly, but sufficiently different in symbols and names to be clear that it is not a derived work (for example, the Forth language), but is a new and original expression, could be an expression of that same idea (though not exactly in this case). So I'm afraid that Oracle, as much as I hate it, may be right on this one.
While I believe that it can be argued that programs written in Java are not expressions of Java, the difficulty is whether the expression of a compiler containing the same collection of symbols and names is, or is not, a derived work. I believe that it is... because it cannot be shown that the set of symbols and names came from another source or is an original creation. We know it came from Java.
A language may also be patentable (e.g. this set of components, symbols, names, and semantics, is an innovative solution to that problem), especially under our messed up patent system. But that's not arguable in this case as far as I know.
Maybe Google should just shift Android over to Go or Dart or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Never underestimate the stupidity of lower court judges. That's why we have appeals courts.
Never underestimate the stupidity of appeals court judges. That's why we have a Supreme Court.
Never underestimate the stupidity of ... uh ... oh ... hmmm ... nevermind.
And you can secure it with encfs.
... can I migrate my megauploads?
They could do the same with it as they did with SELinux. If it's truly secure, it can be fully open. Just don't leave the keys in it.
So you are saying the MitM has the keys?
What data? All you can see are a bunch of scrambled bits.
I disocvered that Youtube was delivering to me via IPv6 and I didn't even realize that. The main site has no AAAA record that I can see. But the video delivery actually went over IPv6, despite me only using IPv4 for DNS. I suspect they bugged the page with a transparent image that asks for a hostname that is only on IPv6, and set a cookie or something to engage IPv6.
How about instead of cutting back OUR lifestyle, we cut back everyone ELSE's lifestyle. Maybe that's the real hidden agenda they have.
I haven't seen the evidence. I do BELIEVE GW is happening AND is caused mostly by US. Just saying I BELIEVE it because it is so incredibly plausible, but I don't KNOW it because I haven't seen the evidence. There needs to be more genuine evidence gathering and start chipping away at the ignorance with truth.
How was your steak and baked potatoes?
Well, of course, if they can't refute the message itself, then go after the messenger. The public eats it up.
I agree for the most part. The reality is we can't really know when the PoNR is. It's all fuzzy, anyway. We might be past the PoNR, already. What I do think is clear (to me) is that the effects are very real, and that we are contributing to at least some of them. These are effects that have happened in the past. So we can't just say because it is happening, that we caused it. But we can at least do something. People like Hansen, however, alienate so much of the population that it is too hard to convince others that the basis of what Hansen is talking about has truth to it.
There is a group of us who do believe in God and that natural selection is one of his means to achieve his goals. Then I look at the Republican party and really see TWO separate groups. One group is the God believers. The other is the Business believers. There's actually not much overlap. They just happen to be together as part of the same political party in part because decades ago the Democrats ousted the God believers with it's position on abortion. So therefore we have the odd couple that accept, or maybe more accurately, tolerate, each others position, but are big enough to make a substantial go of it together.
I know many people who are Republicans simply to not be a Democrat and to not support certain positions of the Democratic party. The largest of those positions makes up at least 75 percent of these "anything but Democrat" group, and that is the abortion issue (Democrats call it Women's Choice and this group calls it Women Murdering Children).
But I cannot be in the Republican party despite my strong lifelong opposition to abortion (and support of gun rights, strong military, etc) because of it perilous destructive nature on economic balance, fairness, the rule of law, etc. But is this position by the Democrats to allow the killing of not yet born children so important to hold on to?
We're going to destroy ourselves just because we have these TWO parties.
Once the sky falls enough for a piece to hit you in the head, then it's too late to prevent its complete collapse. So do we want to prevent it from falling, or not?
I remember my Apple II with 110, 300, and 1200 baud serial. The 1200 baud would not work on the 110/300 baud modems of the day. But I figured out how to get the serial port working at 440 baud by crossing some flags for 110 with some flags for 1200 in the serial port device register. Amazingly, that actually worked on a 300 baud modem calling another setup done exactly the same way.
If you buy a stolen phone, don't expect it to operate. If you didn't know it was stolen, someone duped you. Go after them and report them to police. It's no different than if they had shipped you a brick.
Harboring known (or should have known) criminals is itself a crime. A carrier re-activating a phone that is known to be stolen, because it is reported by the verified owner that it is, or the original owner's term contract is still active, and not reporting that person to the police, is a crime. And as Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, too", that corporation needs to spend its 30 days in jail, if convicted.
They bought the phone from AT&T or from Apple. They have a record of this. That and we can presume that whoever first signed up the phone for an account is the original owner. Of course, a few phones might be stolen before the buyer gets them activated for the very first time. But, other than this, it's easy check the IMEI number.
The receipt is only needed if AT&T is too stupid to keep records. Are they? Are they that stupid? Even if they are, that doesn't justify the stupidity.
This is simple. If the phone is reported stolen while plan is active, lock out the IMEI. Then if another party trying to activate it claims they legally purchased it, THEY have to produce the receipt.
It flopped only because they didn't know how to make it go viral. I didn't even hear about it until after they canceled it. I remember the thought because I heard about it being canceled first and was thinking "WTF".
But extreme marketing doesn't warrant any granted exclusivity. Any company can do extreme marketing (there's prior art on extreme marketing in general).
The syntax of a computer language cannot be copyrighted.
I disagree. The specification itself can be copyrighted. Another specification document that writes about the same programming language with the same described syntax and semantics, is a derived work, IMHO. A compiler is an expression of the language specification. So it, too, is a derived work.
But I also argue that writing a program in the language of concern is not a derivation of the language specification sufficiently to merit it as a derived work of that language specification, because that program is not expressing what the language is. Instead, I argue that a program source code written in language FOO is a fair use of the specification of FOO (and is an expression of some other idea). A compiler is an expression of what the language is.
If you really had copyrighted it at the time you really created it, and no one else had, and the copyright has not expired, then sure, it would be yours. Then no one can write a compiler of it.
I'm saying a compiler is a derived work of the language specification for the language it compiles, NOT the language it is implemented in.
... Beijing Police arrested a man believed to have shouted "Fire!" in the crowded downtown theatre where dozens of movie viewers were injured in the mad stampede to evacuate. Fortunately there were no deaths. Fire officials found no evidence there had been any fire, smoke, or any risk of a fire. A theatre official said the theatre is a modern one built to the utmost safety standards.
The very concept of a programming language that fulfills a particular need (portability, for example) is the idea. The creation of Java, and all the symbols and names of the language, is an expression of that idea. The creation of another language that operates similarly, but sufficiently different in symbols and names to be clear that it is not a derived work (for example, the Forth language), but is a new and original expression, could be an expression of that same idea (though not exactly in this case). So I'm afraid that Oracle, as much as I hate it, may be right on this one.
While I believe that it can be argued that programs written in Java are not expressions of Java, the difficulty is whether the expression of a compiler containing the same collection of symbols and names is, or is not, a derived work. I believe that it is ... because it cannot be shown that the set of symbols and names came from another source or is an original creation. We know it came from Java.
A language may also be patentable (e.g. this set of components, symbols, names, and semantics, is an innovative solution to that problem), especially under our messed up patent system. But that's not arguable in this case as far as I know.
Maybe Google should just shift Android over to Go or Dart or something.