Good luck selling an OTCBB or pink sheet stock short. No broker is goign to let you do that. Shorting those stocks are something that mere mortals don't get to do, only the chosen ones.
It isn't different. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this spam was driven by some washed up analyst somewhere. If all you've done your whole life is scam people, it would be hard to learn a new trade.
The spammer buys in, driving the price up. They then sell against some of the early suckers, who are left holding the bag. By this time the price has probably started falling already. Then the suckers eventually wise up and start selling, against the very thin market, which can depress the price even further.
It's entirely possible for a stock to wind up a lot lower than it started out after one of these schemes hits it.
Because probably, the spammers are causing the majority of the price increase themselves. By the time the spam goes out, the spammer is the one selling, they sell it down slowly.
This is total crap. I can't believe anyone would give any second thought to Chinese propaganda.
MD5 and RC4 was not "cracked" and I highly doubt SHA-1 was "cracked" either. Some weaknesses were found in MD5 that do not affect the majority of uses of it. I suspect the situation is the same here.
Who cares what you want, or what society wants? Education is not some socialist wet dream. The market forces of supply and demand will control which universities succeed and which fail.
The ones that keep teaching useless crap, will fail.
The ones that teach in a modern way will succeed. An english major that required you to learn how to make paper and pencils would be laughed at. Those were important skills in the beginning of the written word though. Why do we still teach CS and engineering majors tons of higher math? It's a vestigial remnant of what computers and engineering used to be about. Today we have computers to do the math for us.
Universities will adapt or die. The ones that insist on teaching CS or engineering like it's just some subset of a math major will go away.
I run NTSC into the open source motion program for home security. When a wasp checks out the camera (often), their wings are beating so fast that half the scan lines have the wings up and half have it down.
So with interlaced signals we already do get some temporal aliasing.:P
MEMS is one of the major advances in overall technology that the human race has had recently. It's probably as important as the transistor or the laser. Read up.
On the contrary, one of the drawbacks of normal cameras is that you can only have one exposure level for the entire image.
I saw a lecture on a technology that takes 3 different exposure pictures, then combines them to put a lot more depth into a picture with some bright areas and some dark areas.
I don't know if this has made it into hardware yet, but with this serial method, each pixel could have a different exposure.
Think outside the box man! The idea that you only get one shot at an exposure level is a throwback to analog film.
The only thing Apple determined was a new way to fuck their customers out of a little more money. Their creative reading of the act would make nearly all software updates illegal.
There's satellite, RF, and like you said at least 2 or 3 industries that have right of ways that land-based backbone could go in.
Low risk I'd say. Also reality has shown that the backbone space is still pretty diverse, even with all the mergers and such in telecom. There are currently 8 real tier 1 networks.
You said that this was an attempt to smear BSD by calling it GPL-like. I said that calling the BSD license GPL-like could equally be construed as a compliment, becase the GPL is far more popular.
The modern telephone company grew from a government granted monopoly. It is not a product of the free market, it's a product of the worst kind of government interference, the kind that gives advantages to some corporations at the cost of other corporations and the public.
The modern Telco isn't an example of the failing of the free market, it's an example of what happens when you unduly restrain the free market for the benefit of corporations.
The only problem that needs solving is the last mile. It's the only place where a natural monopoly can exist. Net neutrality attempts to address some hypothetical problem with the backbones (that will never materialize), and doesn't address the last mile very much.
I'm a libertarian and even I advocate municipal ownership of the last mile. It should be licensed to carriers on a non-descriminatory basis.
There's no problem on the backbones. If Verizon or one of these companies tried funny business there, they would be dropped like a hot potato. It's not very useful to have an internet infrastructure if every other company refuses to carry your traffic. It would be suicide.
Because you still have posession of virtual assets. An inventory, a file system of sorts, on the server.
To your streaming point, I did hear a judge recently ruled that merely passing copyright infringing traffic through a router was a type of infringement. I forget what country that was in. Wasn't the USA.
You can't draw a straight parallel between this and commerce.
Look at the TV show "Fear Factor"... they go to great pains to ensure that the contestant are in no real danger. They still fuck up sometimes, but most of the time there's no real risk of injury.
Now, many of their stunts are of the sort like "walk across this beam 500 feet in the air". The people are wearing safety harnesses, of course.
If the Fear Factor staff forgot to tie the other end of the safety harness to something, and the person fell to their death, you bet your ass they would be liable. The person made a sober decision to walk out on the ledge, but they were under the impression that the people challenging them to do so had taken their safety into account.
The key in tort law was that there was a negligent omission or action that a prudent person could easily forsee causing injury. It's not about thoughtless irresponsibility. It's about someone implicitly or explicitly taking responsibiilty for your protection, and then failing to provide the protection you trusted them to provide.
I'm not really sure what part of this you have a problem with. Was it because it was an omission instead of an action? Do you think negligent omission shouldn't be a legal cause of action? If your doctor sews up a surgical towel inside of you, that's a negligent omission. Should that not be actionable as well?
If you have to rely on closed products to make that point, I think you proved my point about the superiority of the GPL in protecting the openness of code.
There's a dozen different ways to look at this, if you looked at unique lines of code in distribution, GPL would probably win by a wide margin.
If you go on straight lines of code in distribution (counting the same thing multiple times), you'd probably have a few billion copies of zlib, libpng, TCP sockets and a few other common BSD-style licensed libraries that would take up the majority of the statistic.
Regarding the kid, to be honest, spyware and adware probably didn't put that porn on his computer. Most likely he did.
On the other hand, I think it raises enough of a reasonable doubt to make a conviction wrong.
I also think it's kinda wrong that kids can be charged with those sorts of crimes. Why should it be a crime to want to see porn of your own age group? It'd be a different matter if he was producing the stuff, but simply downloading it...
Reminds me of the kid charged with kiddy porn because she uploaded her own picture. The system is kinda fucked up when it comes to this stuff.
I don't know if you were joking or not, but that solves nothing.
Second Life is very much like that world you describe. Everything is on the server, even the objects I create. My computer is merely a viewer.
One can still infringe on copyright, possess kiddy porn, have illegal self-replicating grid attacking objects, and various other illegal things in Second Life.
A judge isn't going to give one whit whether the data is stored on some server somewhere or if it's on a hard disk in your living room. If it's in your account, it's still possession, it's still under your control and at your disposal.
I know this is irrelevant in terms of tort law, but look at the standards for criminal entrapment.
There has to be an enticement to do a crime the person wasn't predisposed to do otherwise. This is a high standard to meet, and very few accusations entrapment are ruled in favor of.
It does reflect something about the morality of law, that people should not be held as strictly responsible for actions that they were enticed into doing for one reason or another, that they were not predisposed to do otherwise.
I can only assume that Ms. Strange was not someone that would regularly drink gallons of water in a short period of time.
I fully believe in taking responsibility for your actions, but in this case the station put Ms. Strange in harm's way. A prudent man (an important concept in tort law) would have researched the possible dangers of excessive water consumption, limited the intake accordingly, had medical staff on hand, and monitored the contestants for a period afterward. The station did not act with this prudence.
She was injured in a way that was caused by their negligence. It's a pretty clear cut case.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck selling an OTCBB or pink sheet stock short. No broker is goign to let you do that. Shorting those stocks are something that mere mortals don't get to do, only the chosen ones.
it'll go the way of nigerian spams.
You mean more common than ever?
It isn't different. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this spam was driven by some washed up analyst somewhere. If all you've done your whole life is scam people, it would be hard to learn a new trade.
The company itself is an innocent bystander.
The spammer buys in, driving the price up. They then sell against some of the early suckers, who are left holding the bag. By this time the price has probably started falling already. Then the suckers eventually wise up and start selling, against the very thin market, which can depress the price even further.
It's entirely possible for a stock to wind up a lot lower than it started out after one of these schemes hits it.
Because probably, the spammers are causing the majority of the price increase themselves. By the time the spam goes out, the spammer is the one selling, they sell it down slowly.
This is total crap. I can't believe anyone would give any second thought to Chinese propaganda.
MD5 and RC4 was not "cracked" and I highly doubt SHA-1 was "cracked" either. Some weaknesses were found in MD5 that do not affect the majority of uses of it. I suspect the situation is the same here.
Who cares what you want, or what society wants? Education is not some socialist wet dream. The market forces of supply and demand will control which universities succeed and which fail.
The ones that keep teaching useless crap, will fail.
The ones that teach in a modern way will succeed. An english major that required you to learn how to make paper and pencils would be laughed at. Those were important skills in the beginning of the written word though. Why do we still teach CS and engineering majors tons of higher math? It's a vestigial remnant of what computers and engineering used to be about. Today we have computers to do the math for us.
Universities will adapt or die. The ones that insist on teaching CS or engineering like it's just some subset of a math major will go away.
Hah!
:P
I run NTSC into the open source motion program for home security. When a wasp checks out the camera (often), their wings are beating so fast that half the scan lines have the wings up and half have it down.
So with interlaced signals we already do get some temporal aliasing.
Never heard of MEMS I see.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/dlp1.htm
It's fast enough for DLP!
MEMS is one of the major advances in overall technology that the human race has had recently. It's probably as important as the transistor or the laser. Read up.
On the contrary, one of the drawbacks of normal cameras is that you can only have one exposure level for the entire image.
I saw a lecture on a technology that takes 3 different exposure pictures, then combines them to put a lot more depth into a picture with some bright areas and some dark areas.
I don't know if this has made it into hardware yet, but with this serial method, each pixel could have a different exposure.
Think outside the box man! The idea that you only get one shot at an exposure level is a throwback to analog film.
The only thing Apple determined was a new way to fuck their customers out of a little more money. Their creative reading of the act would make nearly all software updates illegal.
The word "free" has picked up unfortunate connotations lately.
There's satellite, RF, and like you said at least 2 or 3 industries that have right of ways that land-based backbone could go in.
Low risk I'd say. Also reality has shown that the backbone space is still pretty diverse, even with all the mergers and such in telecom. There are currently 8 real tier 1 networks.
Still haven't read the article I see. He advocates municipal/co-op ownership of the last mile, as do I.
That's what they said about CDs. I have foil flaking off all my CD-Rs that are more than 5 years old now.
You said that this was an attempt to smear BSD by calling it GPL-like. I said that calling the BSD license GPL-like could equally be construed as a compliment, becase the GPL is far more popular.
The modern telephone company grew from a government granted monopoly. It is not a product of the free market, it's a product of the worst kind of government interference, the kind that gives advantages to some corporations at the cost of other corporations and the public.
The modern Telco isn't an example of the failing of the free market, it's an example of what happens when you unduly restrain the free market for the benefit of corporations.
Exactly!
The only problem that needs solving is the last mile. It's the only place where a natural monopoly can exist. Net neutrality attempts to address some hypothetical problem with the backbones (that will never materialize), and doesn't address the last mile very much.
I'm a libertarian and even I advocate municipal ownership of the last mile. It should be licensed to carriers on a non-descriminatory basis.
There's no problem on the backbones. If Verizon or one of these companies tried funny business there, they would be dropped like a hot potato. It's not very useful to have an internet infrastructure if every other company refuses to carry your traffic. It would be suicide.
Did you even read the article? Your blind zealotry is showing.
Read it. He says what I've said all along. Net neutrality is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Because you still have posession of virtual assets. An inventory, a file system of sorts, on the server.
To your streaming point, I did hear a judge recently ruled that merely passing copyright infringing traffic through a router was a type of infringement. I forget what country that was in. Wasn't the USA.
You can't draw a straight parallel between this and commerce.
Look at the TV show "Fear Factor"... they go to great pains to ensure that the contestant are in no real danger. They still fuck up sometimes, but most of the time there's no real risk of injury.
Now, many of their stunts are of the sort like "walk across this beam 500 feet in the air". The people are wearing safety harnesses, of course.
If the Fear Factor staff forgot to tie the other end of the safety harness to something, and the person fell to their death, you bet your ass they would be liable. The person made a sober decision to walk out on the ledge, but they were under the impression that the people challenging them to do so had taken their safety into account.
The key in tort law was that there was a negligent omission or action that a prudent person could easily forsee causing injury. It's not about thoughtless irresponsibility. It's about someone implicitly or explicitly taking responsibiilty for your protection, and then failing to provide the protection you trusted them to provide.
I'm not really sure what part of this you have a problem with. Was it because it was an omission instead of an action? Do you think negligent omission shouldn't be a legal cause of action? If your doctor sews up a surgical towel inside of you, that's a negligent omission. Should that not be actionable as well?
If you have to rely on closed products to make that point, I think you proved my point about the superiority of the GPL in protecting the openness of code.
There's a dozen different ways to look at this, if you looked at unique lines of code in distribution, GPL would probably win by a wide margin.
If you go on straight lines of code in distribution (counting the same thing multiple times), you'd probably have a few billion copies of zlib, libpng, TCP sockets and a few other common BSD-style licensed libraries that would take up the majority of the statistic.
Regarding the kid, to be honest, spyware and adware probably didn't put that porn on his computer. Most likely he did.
On the other hand, I think it raises enough of a reasonable doubt to make a conviction wrong.
I also think it's kinda wrong that kids can be charged with those sorts of crimes. Why should it be a crime to want to see porn of your own age group? It'd be a different matter if he was producing the stuff, but simply downloading it...
Reminds me of the kid charged with kiddy porn because she uploaded her own picture. The system is kinda fucked up when it comes to this stuff.
I don't know if you were joking or not, but that solves nothing.
Second Life is very much like that world you describe. Everything is on the server, even the objects I create. My computer is merely a viewer.
One can still infringe on copyright, possess kiddy porn, have illegal self-replicating grid attacking objects, and various other illegal things in Second Life.
A judge isn't going to give one whit whether the data is stored on some server somewhere or if it's on a hard disk in your living room. If it's in your account, it's still possession, it's still under your control and at your disposal.
I know this is irrelevant in terms of tort law, but look at the standards for criminal entrapment.
There has to be an enticement to do a crime the person wasn't predisposed to do otherwise. This is a high standard to meet, and very few accusations entrapment are ruled in favor of.
It does reflect something about the morality of law, that people should not be held as strictly responsible for actions that they were enticed into doing for one reason or another, that they were not predisposed to do otherwise.
I can only assume that Ms. Strange was not someone that would regularly drink gallons of water in a short period of time.
I fully believe in taking responsibility for your actions, but in this case the station put Ms. Strange in harm's way. A prudent man (an important concept in tort law) would have researched the possible dangers of excessive water consumption, limited the intake accordingly, had medical staff on hand, and monitored the contestants for a period afterward. The station did not act with this prudence.
She was injured in a way that was caused by their negligence. It's a pretty clear cut case.