it is not possible to POST [login details] to HTTPS via Javascript due to the same origin policy in browsers
Huh? I haven't tried this, but I'm pretty sure it's possible: put a form in an iframe (either hidden or visible, at your choice) with the submission URL set to your secure site. Submit the form via javascript. Have the secure page update a server-side session with your new credentials (if login was successful) and then redirect back to a non-secure page which calls a function in 'parent' to notify it of the result of the submission. What's so hard about that?
Maybe when getting a server cert is free/easy people will do it defacto
Only if we've switched to IPv6 as well. Fact of the matter is, the average hosting provider has about 20 domains per IP address. If all of those sites switched to HTTPS, each would need a separate IP address, resulting in instant demand for around 150 million extra IP addresses. AIUI, this is approximately the size of the current unallocated pool, so we'd be out of addresses instantaneously.
I don't want work to be this endless soul crushing grind. I don't want my own experience to be considered worthless because the guy next door has the 4 str 4 stam belt. I don't want to be packed into a department of soulless adolescents who can't even talk normally. I don't want to push 90 hour weeks to hit my next milestone. I don't want my supervisor shrieking at me to get on vent for 21st century cutting edge micromanagement.
This is why 2D+depth codings would be better, they would require the display to properly render depth for that particular display, regardless of whether it was a glasses-based stereoscopic display or a multiview non-glasses-based display.
How would you handle displaying objects that are occluded in the source 2D frame but would be visible in the reconstructed frame for the other eye?
The porn that I've researched seems to have been made on a sub-$1,000 budget, how are they spending so much money!?
They're talking mainstream stuff with well known stars who can demand much higher rates because of their name recognition. Given the high cost of equipment for doing this kind of stuff right now, only the studios who are going to sell 20,000+ copies of a $25+ DVD are going to be interested in this, and you only get those kinds of sales if you have people buying because they're fans of one of your stars.
Box office mojo and other site's don't break it down by version of the film but both UP and Avater totally dominate that at $293M and $440M and there are 9 total 3D movies with revenues over $100M.
Yes, but what about in terms of ratio of takings to cost of production, i.e. profit margin, which is a generally more useful way of looking at the profitability of a particular business area.
Embarassing to explain at the dry cleaners, perhaps -- you know, when they take them out and ask you what kind of stains there are on there so they can use the right stain removers...
Did you just type "obscure game" into the USPTO's web site?
If I type each of the companies that developed and published the game into the "Assignee Name" field and nothing on the list is relevant, is that enough?
No. The patent might be held by an individual author rather than company involved. The company may have licensed a preexisting patent that the game would have infringed upon otherwise.
OTOH, relatively few games are actually covered by patents, so this is irrelevant.
As for trademarks, and as I've pointed out elsewhere, the fact that none are registered is irrelevant, you can still be sued.
Agreed. Submitter states that the original author has no trademark, but this is absolute nonsense. Everybody who sells anything using a specific trading name has a trademark; they might not have registered it but unregistered trademarks are also legally protected in most jurisdictions.
Yes you can. This is what limited liability corporations were designed for: worst case, you get sued and a court rules against you. You walk away, the original rights holders get your profits (minus whatever salary you've already paid to yourself) and the rights to your work.
I would like to take issue with something the submitter states though:
The original game has no trademark
Yes, it does. That trademark might not be _registered_, but as soon as you sell something with a specified name, that's a trademark. It's harder (or, in some jurisdictions, impossible) to claim compensation for infringement of an unregistered trademark, but you could end up with a fair chunk of legal hassle over trying to use something close to it. Do yourself a favour, come up with a new name.
IANAL, but I don't think the submitter really needs one here.
Really. Hmmm... $1.92 million verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset
And Jammie Thomas-Rasset is quite welcome to file for bankruptcy, at which point Capitol Records will be able to claim all of her current assets, but will have no claim on her future income. There are potential issues (e.g. if a court decides her actions were 'malicious' the verdict will not be part of any bankruptcy arrangement), but in principle this is how it works. Except in unusual circumstances, you can't really end up owing more than you own or can realistically acquire in a short time period, and if you do end up in such a situation there are always ways out of it.
As others have hinted at, this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members, the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.
Whether Nokia follow their agreement with GSMA or not is a matter between Nokia and GSMA. Apple have no grounds to complain, because they aren't a party to that agreement.
That's certainly Apple's argument yes, but whether it has any validity is really down to the GSM Association and the courts to decide
It's really just down to the GSMA. Nokia's agreement to licence on RAND terms is with the GSMA; nobody else can enforce that agreement (due to a legal concept called privity of contract) so unless GSMA decide Nokia are in violation, nothing will come of it. I've heard nothing that suggests the GSMA are unhappy with Nokia.
Estate tax is only for people too poor to find a shelter like holding companies.
A Panamanian foundation will cost you about $500 US per annum to run, and can hold properties in a structure such that no estate tax will ever be payable. You don't have to be super rich for that to be worth doing.
The letter of the law may allow someone with access to expensive lawyers to avoid paying taxes, but it is not in the spirit of the law?
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
(US Appeals Court Justice the Honourable Learned Hand)
>>That's global smartphone market share. Show a graph with global market share of ALL wireless handsets, not just smartphones.
>Okay, from TFA, here's a graph entitled Top 10 Mobile Phones in Use.
Actually, it's entitled "Top 10 Mobile Phones in Use (U.S.)". Now reread what the parent asked for, particularly where it says "global market share". Since when is US global?
I haven't found full figures for global share (except a suggestion they're contained in a market research report with a price tag of $2000 US). However, I do see a suggestion that they have a 2.5% global share, compared to the 4% US share that you quote. I also understand that Nokia phones have a 38% global share, although I'm uncertain how this divides between their different ranges, but this seems very suggestive that they have a single platform that is a lot more popular than the iPhone, as I believe they only produce phones with either 3 or 4 different OS variants.
Most of my smaller clients ISPs do publish SPF, notable clients are running their own outbound.
Maybe now. When I was doing this in 2007, it was nearly impossible.
SPF is working as expected in that scenario. RFC821 FROM should be list@listdomain.tld, broken mail list software that joe-jobs sender@senderdomain.tld is a problem for the list operator.
It doesn't matter if it's working as expected. The expectation that I'm able to get a mailing list operator to change the behaviour of their list software is broken.
I don't know how much you weigh, but I am certainly FAR closer to 65kg than to 130kg.
I suspect the average geek is closer to 130. FWIW, I'm 83kg, but only because I've been on a prolonged diet. This time last year I was approaching 100, i.e. closer to 130.
I tried to implement SPF for our clients not long after the spec was released, but found two problems with it:
* Most of our clients send e-mail through their ISP's MXs. Most of the ISPs wouldn't provide an SPF record with a list of all their outbound MXs that I could refer to. * Even when I was able to set it up because the ISP was cooperative, the client often ended up complaining that messages they sent to mailing lists were being rejected.
Because of these two problems I wrote the system off as useless. The first is an administrative hassle that I cold do without, but the second produces false positive swhich is an absolute fail, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
it is not possible to POST [login details] to HTTPS via Javascript due to the same origin policy in browsers
Huh? I haven't tried this, but I'm pretty sure it's possible: put a form in an iframe (either hidden or visible, at your choice) with the submission URL set to your secure site. Submit the form via javascript. Have the secure page update a server-side session with your new credentials (if login was successful) and then redirect back to a non-secure page which calls a function in 'parent' to notify it of the result of the submission. What's so hard about that?
Maybe when getting a server cert is free/easy people will do it defacto
Only if we've switched to IPv6 as well. Fact of the matter is, the average hosting provider has about 20 domains per IP address. If all of those sites switched to HTTPS, each would need a separate IP address, resulting in instant demand for around 150 million extra IP addresses. AIUI, this is approximately the size of the current unallocated pool, so we'd be out of addresses instantaneously.
I don't want work to be this endless soul crushing grind. I don't want my own experience to be considered worthless because the guy next door has the 4 str 4 stam belt. I don't want to be packed into a department of soulless adolescents who can't even talk normally. I don't want to push 90 hour weeks to hit my next milestone. I don't want my supervisor shrieking at me to get on vent for 21st century cutting edge micromanagement.
I take it you've decided not to work in IT then?
This is why 2D+depth codings would be better, they would require the display to properly render depth for that particular display, regardless of whether it was a glasses-based stereoscopic display or a multiview non-glasses-based display.
How would you handle displaying objects that are occluded in the source 2D frame but would be visible in the reconstructed frame for the other eye?
The porn that I've researched seems to have been made on a sub-$1,000 budget, how are they spending so much money!?
They're talking mainstream stuff with well known stars who can demand much higher rates because of their name recognition. Given the high cost of equipment for doing this kind of stuff right now, only the studios who are going to sell 20,000+ copies of a $25+ DVD are going to be interested in this, and you only get those kinds of sales if you have people buying because they're fans of one of your stars.
Who in their right mind would actually buy a 3D tv that required you to wear glasses while viewing. That's absurd.
Yes. Clearly we should all be rushing out and getting ones that don't require you to wear glasses.
Box office mojo and other site's don't break it down by version of the film but both UP and Avater totally dominate that at $293M and $440M and there are 9 total 3D movies with revenues over $100M.
Yes, but what about in terms of ratio of takings to cost of production, i.e. profit margin, which is a generally more useful way of looking at the profitability of a particular business area.
Fuck the curtains!
Wouldn't that be a little difficult to clean up?
Embarassing to explain at the dry cleaners, perhaps -- you know, when they take them out and ask you what kind of stains there are on there so they can use the right stain removers...
Did you just type "obscure game" into the USPTO's web site?
If I type each of the companies that developed and published the game into the "Assignee Name" field and nothing on the list is relevant, is that enough?
No. The patent might be held by an individual author rather than company involved. The company may have licensed a preexisting patent that the game would have infringed upon otherwise.
OTOH, relatively few games are actually covered by patents, so this is irrelevant.
As for trademarks, and as I've pointed out elsewhere, the fact that none are registered is irrelevant, you can still be sued.
Get your own name
Agreed. Submitter states that the original author has no trademark, but this is absolute nonsense. Everybody who sells anything using a specific trading name has a trademark; they might not have registered it but unregistered trademarks are also legally protected in most jurisdictions.
You can't.
Yes you can. This is what limited liability corporations were designed for: worst case, you get sued and a court rules against you. You walk away, the original rights holders get your profits (minus whatever salary you've already paid to yourself) and the rights to your work.
I would like to take issue with something the submitter states though:
The original game has no trademark
Yes, it does. That trademark might not be _registered_, but as soon as you sell something with a specified name, that's a trademark. It's harder (or, in some jurisdictions, impossible) to claim compensation for infringement of an unregistered trademark, but you could end up with a fair chunk of legal hassle over trying to use something close to it. Do yourself a favour, come up with a new name.
IANAL, but I don't think the submitter really needs one here.
| They can only sue you for money that you have
Really. Hmmm... $1.92 million verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset
And Jammie Thomas-Rasset is quite welcome to file for bankruptcy, at which point Capitol Records will be able to claim all of her current assets, but will have no claim on her future income. There are potential issues (e.g. if a court decides her actions were 'malicious' the verdict will not be part of any bankruptcy arrangement), but in principle this is how it works. Except in unusual circumstances, you can't really end up owing more than you own or can realistically acquire in a short time period, and if you do end up in such a situation there are always ways out of it.
You don't understand quantum mechanics. For QM the world is fundamentally stochastic, not just pseudo random.
This theory states that it is deterministic, it is just that it is impossible to know enough detail to make the predictions.
As others have hinted at, this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members, the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.
Whether Nokia follow their agreement with GSMA or not is a matter between Nokia and GSMA. Apple have no grounds to complain, because they aren't a party to that agreement.
That's certainly Apple's argument yes, but whether it has any validity is really down to the GSM Association and the courts to decide
It's really just down to the GSMA. Nokia's agreement to licence on RAND terms is with the GSMA; nobody else can enforce that agreement (due to a legal concept called privity of contract) so unless GSMA decide Nokia are in violation, nothing will come of it. I've heard nothing that suggests the GSMA are unhappy with Nokia.
Estate tax is only for people too poor to find a shelter like holding companies.
A Panamanian foundation will cost you about $500 US per annum to run, and can hold properties in a structure such that no estate tax will ever be payable. You don't have to be super rich for that to be worth doing.
The letter of the law may allow someone with access to expensive lawyers to avoid paying taxes, but it is not in the spirit of the law?
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
(US Appeals Court Justice the Honourable Learned Hand)
>>That's global smartphone market share. Show a graph with global market share of ALL wireless handsets, not just smartphones.
>Okay, from TFA, here's a graph entitled Top 10 Mobile Phones in Use.
Actually, it's entitled "Top 10 Mobile Phones in Use (U.S.)". Now reread what the parent asked for, particularly where it says "global market share". Since when is US global?
I haven't found full figures for global share (except a suggestion they're contained in a market research report with a price tag of $2000 US). However, I do see a suggestion that they have a 2.5% global share, compared to the 4% US share that you quote. I also understand that Nokia phones have a 38% global share, although I'm uncertain how this divides between their different ranges, but this seems very suggestive that they have a single platform that is a lot more popular than the iPhone, as I believe they only produce phones with either 3 or 4 different OS variants.
Wasn't he also responsible for the special effects in Dark Star and parts of Star Wars?
Yes. AIUI, he did all the effects for Dark Star, and designed the computer graphic sequences for Star Wars.
Most of my smaller clients ISPs do publish SPF, notable clients are running their own outbound.
Maybe now. When I was doing this in 2007, it was nearly impossible.
SPF is working as expected in that scenario. RFC821 FROM should be list@listdomain.tld, broken mail list software that joe-jobs sender@senderdomain.tld is a problem for the list operator.
It doesn't matter if it's working as expected. The expectation that I'm able to get a mailing list operator to change the behaviour of their list software is broken.
"approaching 100", so you mean like, 97ish? 97 is closer to 65...
98. Which is closer to 130. :)
there's a reasonable explanation of what it is on the home page.
To the submitter, please include a link that explains what you're talking about next time.
I don't know how much you weigh, but I am certainly FAR closer to 65kg than to 130kg.
I suspect the average geek is closer to 130. FWIW, I'm 83kg, but only because I've been on a prolonged diet. This time last year I was approaching 100, i.e. closer to 130.
Um, aren't they British?
Duration: 22 m.41 s
Duration: 15 m.55 s
Duration: 15 m.31 s. Frenzy Index: 9 (thrash metal).
Duration: 22 m.05 s.
Guess not.
I tried to implement SPF for our clients not long after the spec was released, but found two problems with it:
* Most of our clients send e-mail through their ISP's MXs. Most of the ISPs wouldn't provide an SPF record with a list of all their outbound MXs that I could refer to.
* Even when I was able to set it up because the ISP was cooperative, the client often ended up complaining that messages they sent to mailing lists were being rejected.
Because of these two problems I wrote the system off as useless. The first is an administrative hassle that I cold do without, but the second produces false positive swhich is an absolute fail, IMO.