You're the one who is missing something here. Vipul's Razor is about BLACKlists of known spam, this part of the review is talking about WHITElists (for sender's who can NEVER be marked as spam). There is no whitelist in Razor, but there is a moderation type mechanism in place to correct bad spam IDs.
Does anyone have a copy of a SCO EULA? I'd love to see what it says about warranties. Every software license I've ever seen disclaims any warranty above and beyond the minimum that local law requires, and many even try to take that away.
You might be right. But the use of the word may in the sentence Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas. makes me suspect that this is a bullshit scare tactic and Microsoft knows it.
Microsoft knows full well that an XML schema cannot be patented. The patent nonsense is a way to scare off open source developers. They may hold patents on some algorithms they've used to implement this in MS Office, but we don't have to use those same algorithms to read those documents with an XML schema capable parser and do whatever we like with them.
I think it says no GPL implementations. However, it is a royalty-free license for patents which Microsoft may hold which might cover implementations that display documents that comply to those schemas, but they're not actually saying that they do hold them or what these patents are. My guess is that it is a bluff, and it is perfectly legal to ignore this license and create a GPLed program for reading MS documents based entirely on the copyright license for the schemas.
which stops someone else from patenting it and preventing the community from benfiting.
Community as in everyone (FOSS included). There are numerous for profit companies that would probably like to patent anti-spam techniques (the virus industry - Symantec et al - strike me as candidates). Publishing the details in any way (like this patent) prevents that. But if it was already published in an ACM paper, then that was already taken care of.
Someone else pointed out it is probably not the spammers, but the makers of spamming software, that AT&T could go after with this patent. They might be an easier target.
Having worked at AT&T Labs myself, I do know that their Research Labs, and to an extent their Development Labs, were encouraged (though not with direct pay rises I think) to patent all sorts of irrelevant things for the tax breaks it brings the company when they donate the patent to the public domain. I don't know if it still lives on, as AT&T Labs has been severely scaled back in recent years, but it was certainly policy when this patent was filed.
It looks like a very clever use of the patent system. At the same time as patenting a filter-avoidance scheme so they can go after spammers that use it, they have published an alternative spam rejection scheme that is immune to the patented avoidance scheme. By publishing it in their patent application, it becomes prior art, which stops someone else from patenting it and preventing the community from benfiting.
I recommend YOU spend more time studying history, from a non-American point of view. All countries slant their history lessons, the only way to get an unbiased education is to see both sides, and the point of view of neutral parties.
As to why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen, they were chosen because of their vastly different geography, so the nuclear bomb could be tested in real circumstances. The Americans had to act quickly, as they knew that Japanese surrender was inevitable, and they wanted to demonstrate their military superiority to the world. When cloud cover obscured the target in Kokura, rather than wait for more favorable weather they diverted to Nagasaki, which has similar hilly terrain, so would offer the same conditions for their test.
This was a real ad I saw on jobserve.com back in March when it was looking like I might lose my current job. The job was in Manchester, so not as bad as being in London on that salary, but its still crap.
First things first. Contact the administration at the University of London about the ringleader. You know exactly who he is. After that... I'm not sure, but they need to know.
No, DON'T involve the University! This could alert him to the fact that he's about to be nabbed, and he'll go back to Nigeria. Let the police handle informing the University when the time is right. Hopefully the guy doesn't read slashdot.
I think (though I'm not absolutely sure) that the UK police can use this evidence. Even though it was collected illegally, it is only inadmissible if it was collected by the police.
Go to a phone box and phone the Metropolitan police's fraud squad on +44 20 7230 1212. It is supposed to be for fraud of over 750000, but my guess is that if you total up all the fraud that these guys have done, it will come to that. Explain the situation, and get someones personal email address to send to rather than the generic one.
Or do you not know that a lot of civilians lived in Pearl Harbor as well?
Perhaps your image of Pearl Harbor comes from the movie.
There were 68 civilians killed or missing after the Pearl Harbor Attack, compared with 2500 military personnel. I don't think the US has EVER had such a record in war.
The comparisons made immediately after 9/11 by US politicians to Pearl Harbor made me sick. However, Pearl Harbor was similar to 9/11 in one very important way. In both cases the US government did not act on intelligence information that was readily available, and in both cases that cost American lives. It is fairly certain that Roosevelt failed to act deliberately, in order to sway public opinion in favour of war. I hope it does not turn out that Bush did the same.
The lawsuit was bold, alleging trademark infringement on a hot market segment, Linux.
I think this statement from Tom Taulli's article pretty much sums up what the average investor can make out what this lawsuit is about. There is no genuine reason for SCO to be suing IBM, so they make up their own (wrong) speculation.
I know that foreign companies which sell their imports below average cost here can attract big tarrifs that way
To be upheld by the WTO, the foreign companies have to be selling their exports below the price they are charging in their domestic market. Merely producing things at a lower cost is not dumping in and of itself.
You've obviously never been to Thailand. I have no trouble imagining a family of four on that thing. A family of five would still need a stepthrough scooter though.
Who's to say that Microsft haven't been doing a little unpublished research, looking for buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities that they're soon going to demonstrate?
Microsoft's claim is that Open Source security bugs take longer to fix after they are revealed than Microsoft bugs. If they are about to reveal a whole host of Open Source bugs they could just be proved wrong. I think it is more likely that their claims will be centred around the fact that they do not consider a Microsoft bug to be revealed until Microsoft themselves admit to it, which is usually in the release notes to the bugfix. So Microsoft security bugs are fixed within 0 days of being "revealed", whereas Open Source authors tend to alert users to security problems before they have released the fix if a fix cannot be released immediately.
Windows (glass ones) are relatively easy to smash. Do people go around saying don't go after the theives, the window companies should be making everything out of bulletproof glass?
Currently a certain subsection of our society (a disproportionate number of them Slashdot posters) think it is socially acceptable to cause damage to other peoples PCs. Microsoft is taking the right approach in sending a clear signal that this behaviour is not to be tolerated.
Never heard of that...Location based services definitely exist, and have done for some time. That particular example say that they require prior permission, but that doesn't mean all do (especially if it was a trial, the rules from the phone companies may have since changed).
My phone accepts 15 SMS messages before the buffer fills up. If more shops start doing this (whether by bluetooth or SMS), deleting the messages to make sure there's enough room for my friends' messages to get through is going to be more annoying than email spam.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the one who is missing something here. Vipul's Razor is about BLACKlists of known spam, this part of the review is talking about WHITElists (for sender's who can NEVER be marked as spam). There is no whitelist in Razor, but there is a moderation type mechanism in place to correct bad spam IDs.
Does anyone have a copy of a SCO EULA? I'd love to see what it says about warranties. Every software license I've ever seen disclaims any warranty above and beyond the minimum that local law requires, and many even try to take that away.
You might be right. But the use of the word may in the sentence Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas. makes me suspect that this is a bullshit scare tactic and Microsoft knows it.
Sure, but then it wouldn't be GPL compatible, so you better not use any GPL'd code in there.
Microsoft knows full well that an XML schema cannot be patented. The patent nonsense is a way to scare off open source developers. They may hold patents on some algorithms they've used to implement this in MS Office, but we don't have to use those same algorithms to read those documents with an XML schema capable parser and do whatever we like with them.
Actually not just GPL'd, any open source license is screwed by the "You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights."
I think it says no GPL implementations. However, it is a royalty-free license for patents which Microsoft may hold which might cover implementations that display documents that comply to those schemas, but they're not actually saying that they do hold them or what these patents are. My guess is that it is a bluff, and it is perfectly legal to ignore this license and create a GPLed program for reading MS documents based entirely on the copyright license for the schemas.
Community as in everyone (FOSS included). There are numerous for profit companies that would probably like to patent anti-spam techniques (the virus industry - Symantec et al - strike me as candidates). Publishing the details in any way (like this patent) prevents that. But if it was already published in an ACM paper, then that was already taken care of.
Someone else pointed out it is probably not the spammers, but the makers of spamming software, that AT&T could go after with this patent. They might be an easier target.
Having worked at AT&T Labs myself, I do know that their Research Labs, and to an extent their Development Labs, were encouraged (though not with direct pay rises I think) to patent all sorts of irrelevant things for the tax breaks it brings the company when they donate the patent to the public domain. I don't know if it still lives on, as AT&T Labs has been severely scaled back in recent years, but it was certainly policy when this patent was filed.
It looks like a very clever use of the patent system. At the same time as patenting a filter-avoidance scheme so they can go after spammers that use it, they have published an alternative spam rejection scheme that is immune to the patented avoidance scheme. By publishing it in their patent application, it becomes prior art, which stops someone else from patenting it and preventing the community from benfiting.
As to why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen, they were chosen because of their vastly different geography, so the nuclear bomb could be tested in real circumstances. The Americans had to act quickly, as they knew that Japanese surrender was inevitable, and they wanted to demonstrate their military superiority to the world. When cloud cover obscured the target in Kokura, rather than wait for more favorable weather they diverted to Nagasaki, which has similar hilly terrain, so would offer the same conditions for their test.
This was a real ad I saw on jobserve.com back in March when it was looking like I might lose my current job. The job was in Manchester, so not as bad as being in London on that salary, but its still crap.
No, DON'T involve the University! This could alert him to the fact that he's about to be nabbed, and he'll go back to Nigeria. Let the police handle informing the University when the time is right. Hopefully the guy doesn't read slashdot.
I think (though I'm not absolutely sure) that the UK police can use this evidence. Even though it was collected illegally, it is only inadmissible if it was collected by the police.
Go to a phone box and phone the Metropolitan police's fraud squad on +44 20 7230 1212. It is supposed to be for fraud of over 750000, but my guess is that if you total up all the fraud that these guys have done, it will come to that. Explain the situation, and get someones personal email address to send to rather than the generic one.
Perhaps your image of Pearl Harbor comes from the movie.
There were 68 civilians killed or missing after the Pearl Harbor Attack, compared with 2500 military personnel. I don't think the US has EVER had such a record in war.
The comparisons made immediately after 9/11 by US politicians to Pearl Harbor made me sick. However, Pearl Harbor was similar to 9/11 in one very important way. In both cases the US government did not act on intelligence information that was readily available, and in both cases that cost American lives. It is fairly certain that Roosevelt failed to act deliberately, in order to sway public opinion in favour of war. I hope it does not turn out that Bush did the same.
Yeah, I'm looking. How does a strategic attack on a military base compare with the total devastation of two whole cities?
I think this statement from Tom Taulli's article pretty much sums up what the average investor can make out what this lawsuit is about. There is no genuine reason for SCO to be suing IBM, so they make up their own (wrong) speculation.
I always suspected Microsoft does not listen to its customers. Now it has been confirmed.
To be upheld by the WTO, the foreign companies have to be selling their exports below the price they are charging in their domestic market. Merely producing things at a lower cost is not dumping in and of itself.
You've obviously never been to Thailand. I have no trouble imagining a family of four on that thing. A family of five would still need a stepthrough scooter though.
Microsoft's claim is that Open Source security bugs take longer to fix after they are revealed than Microsoft bugs. If they are about to reveal a whole host of Open Source bugs they could just be proved wrong. I think it is more likely that their claims will be centred around the fact that they do not consider a Microsoft bug to be revealed until Microsoft themselves admit to it, which is usually in the release notes to the bugfix. So Microsoft security bugs are fixed within 0 days of being "revealed", whereas Open Source authors tend to alert users to security problems before they have released the fix if a fix cannot be released immediately.
Currently a certain subsection of our society (a disproportionate number of them Slashdot posters) think it is socially acceptable to cause damage to other peoples PCs. Microsoft is taking the right approach in sending a clear signal that this behaviour is not to be tolerated.
Never heard of that... Location based services definitely exist, and have done for some time. That particular example say that they require prior permission, but that doesn't mean all do (especially if it was a trial, the rules from the phone companies may have since changed).
My phone accepts 15 SMS messages before the buffer fills up. If more shops start doing this (whether by bluetooth or SMS), deleting the messages to make sure there's enough room for my friends' messages to get through is going to be more annoying than email spam.