And best of all.. no polling! Well, between usenet servers it's mostly a broadcast kind of affair these days..
Has anyone made a rss2nntp bot yet?
Of course, IRC is also a remarkably cool medium for timely distribution of small ASCII messages.. The nick/channel bullshit sucks (though usenet "channel"/group takeovers/spams suck even more), but surely it's not beyond the realm of possibilities to build an IRC server that requires people to log in, with a central (distributed) database of credentials, and no nickserv/chanserv services/bots that just stop working every once in a while..
And hey, what about jabber? And javagroups? And multicast?
That's one big heap of cool technology with killer apps (*cough* pointcast?) waiting to be de-vaporized..
Mobile phones include a dinky webbrowser or e-mail client, now cameras and mp3 players, dvd players will play (s)vcd, playstation 2 will play dvds.. Not necessarily because convergence is an exciting new thing, but because an additional function is what marketeers call "added value". That's why cars have a stereo and a lighter. It's not about integrating your "smoking lounge" with your method of transportation, but easily achieved added value at such a low cost that dis-integrating it isn't worth it to the manufacturer even for low cost models. That's why non-smokers (and non-gagdet using) drivers have lighters in their cars too..
Of course, if you ask people, do you want a device that plays DVDs, picks up terrestrial digital television, plays MP3s, and cooks a turkey, they'll look at you quizzically and say "why would I want that?". But once they're at Joe's TV Emporium and they can buy a device that cooks turkeys as well for only $2 more.. Guess what they'll do?
There are few simple rules on how to make a good presentation: 1) Use a projector - stop using transparencies, 2) avoid text on your slides at all costs 3) use plenty of full colour figures and simple animation but don't overdo it and 4) rehearse your presentation so that you know it by heart - nothing irritates me as much as someone who just reads his slides to the audience.
Add to that; 5) only add major points on your slides, but don't forget to include a full text in the "notes" section, and make sure that if you distribute the presentation electronically it displays notes by default. 6) the presentation is not your report; distribute a separate, full-text, full-detail report. You can refer to this report for answering any intricate questions the audience might have. 7) if you're giving a presentation in a language that is not your, or the audiences, mothertongue (such as; jargonese), make sure that complicated or hard-to-pronounce words appear on the slides, and are referred to in the spoken part of the presentation in multiple ways (i.e. synonyms, explanations). 8) colors should work in black and white as well, for print-outs and crappy projectors. 9) the last slide WILL include your e-mail and web address. 10) the audience is NOT wearing any clothes.
So Tivo MAY want to prevent folks from moron-izing their systems, but not have a problem with folks that don't have a history of doing so.
If you fudge up your system with bad software, you're out of warranty. Buy a new system. Sale! So that's not the motivation..
If you don't have access to software, there's no way to upgrade, say the harddrive, without springing for a newer model. Sale!
So, apparantly it's come to the point that more people are succesfully upgrading their kit than people who're moron-izing their systems.
Or they may be required by licenses with third parties (e.g. patent licenses for MPEG) to go after people who redistribute their software, so as to avoid paying extra costs to those third parties. In that case you'd expect them to send C&Ds, and pretty much let you off the hook once you've gone underground. This seems to be the case so far.
It's probably also the reason the commercial upgrade-kit sellers don't get in trouble; I'd assume they pay their tithe (both to TiVo (hey, why not take a slice of the cake?) and their upstream licensors).
How is this different to somebody hosting Windows ISOs? If there is software that is copyrighted by Tivo inside the images and they haven't given the people distributing them license to do so, then they are well within their rights to stop the distribution.
TiVo software is tied to the hardware anyway, there's no use for it other than on a TiVo. They are legally within their rights (as long as they don't go after people only distributing the GPL'ed bits), but morally it's a shakier situation. In essence they're using their copyrights to go after people who modify their kit; and they have no other legal avenue or compelling interest to go after people modifying their own, fully owned hardware. If you'll remember, people get uppity about such things (e.g. DMCA, modchips) all the time..
And for a windows example; why do you need a separate license to put your IT departments image of windows XP on a Dell that comes with an OEM version of XP? It's the same collection of bits, just from a different source. It's a rip off.
I recently bought a very nice digital camera (Fuji FinePix S304/3800), and though it makes gorgeous snapshots, it's not teaching me much about photography. The S304 (like the 2MP 2800z) has great automatic white balance correction, which means that indoors shots just come out right, unlike a lot of other digital cameras - there's often no need to use the flash. It also has 6x zoom, which is nice.
But the control over aperture, flash, "shutter/exposure" time, etc. is rather limited. It's hard to figure out how much it's adjusting automatically, and what those corrections actually do (without shooting brackets (in asfar as the auto stuff can be turned off), which can be tedious). And figuring out what settings where actually used in the end can usually only be deduced from the EXIF info in JPEG files (note that that's a lossy format btw); if you did have full control, you'd know the settings, and could write them down. Also, manual settings are easier to set on a mechanical SLR (no menus).
Note that the ISO ratings on many, many digital cameras (including well known brand ones) can be quite misleading. And cheap-ass Dell cameras claiming to be 400 ISO are nothing of the sort.
And another thing, the viewfinders on digital cameras can be rather dinky, unless you go for the expensive stuff. The S304 I mentioned has an electronic viewfinder, so if you put the camera to your eye you see the same thing as you'd see on the LCD screen (which is pretty darn nice compared to most digital cameras with their optical viewfinders or hard-to-look-at-while-shooting LCDs) - still, it's not quite like the end result. In the case of the S304 you often see a picture that seems underexposed, but when you've taken it, it's not quite as dark as you'd expected. (Not that SLRs are perfect, but they're better than even an electronic viewfinder)
So, I've got a great digital camera.. But I find myself looking for a mechanical all-manual SLR to learn to be a better photographer, though the snapshots come out nice almost all of the time.
So what you're saying is that you've never used a piece of software (widget) that interferes with another piece of software (widget).
Check the bottom of your keyboard. Next to the sticky notes with passwords, you'll find a blurb like " This device complies with FCC Rules Part 15. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: This device may not cause harmful interference. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may causeundesired operation. This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to Part 15 of the FCC Rules."
Note that, yes, it may cause interference, as long as it's not harmful. Of course, in an Intensive Care Unit in a hospital, or in a precision laboratory, interference is more likely to be harmful than in the desert. So they've specified the environment in which this should be the case; the blurb on my keyboard specifically says "office equipment", which is what Class B digital devices in Part 15 of the FCC Rules are all about..
Of course, though equipment is tested extensively, this does not mean that there is zero chance of it ever generating interference. So, in the real world, we know this, and there are certain thresholds of interference under which (all, and thus, also the surrounding) office equipment must accept interference as well. Yes, an EMP weapon will fudge up your keyboard, but a cell phone shorting out next to it won't.
Random testing is a software testing technique which is appropriate to this kind of probablistic approach to understanding failures.
Re:Not the source, really
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
(1) no better system than passwords has yet been devised
Except those nifty token+PIN systems. My bank has even given me a "calculator" type thingy in which I put my ATM card, and using my normal PIN, the chip on that card will calculate the response to a challenge when I log into online banking. Pretty nifty, pretty secure. The chip will stop working after 3 attempts at a wrong PIN, and if the card is stolen, I'd report it straight away anyway. This closes the window of opportunity considerably.
Token based security systems can integrate really well into computer systems, so you end up with Single Sign On solutions, and the challenge-response protocol can run over a simple USB link, so all you have to enter is your PIN (into hardware which you carry with me, and isn't susceptible to having keyboard sniffers installed).
There are lots of vendors who sell this hardware, iButton, rsa.com, etc. etc. Pick up a random computer industry mag and they're right there in the less-than-a-page-big ads.
Note that SSH uses a similar idea for single sign on; you type in your password/phrase into an agent which decrypts your private key on your workstation, and challenge/response is used when logging in; your password is only exposed to your local workstation, not to the remote system, nor is it sent over the line in any way. You can even change keys without changing the password/phrase (and vice versa).
I saw another post here mention diceware, which is pretty nifty too; passphrases generated using dice.
Physical security is also often overlooked, on the premise that you're fucked anyway when people bring in laptops, or plug a wifi access point into your network. But physical security is the only kind of security where biometrics make any sense at all (as in; "hey, I haven't seen you here before" or; "that's not your photo on this id here.."). So if you're going for 3-out-of-3 authentication (something you know/have/are) you need physical security as well.
No security is perfect, but it doesn't have to be quite as bothersome to users. Let's say no one can log into remotely to the work LAN. That's not that inconvenient to most people, and if some one complains, sure, let them at it, and log what they're doing. The window of opporunity may be widened by a creak because a few accounts do get remote access, but no form of security is perfect anyway.
I find attack trees a useful way to present weaknesses in security; it emphasises the weakest chain in the link, but also the prerequisites to get there, and the alternatives. (For example, the CEO might well have a yellow sticky tape with his password on his monitor at home, but breaking into the CEO's home is quite hard because that house has pretty good physical security, him being the rich bastard that he is.. Whereas bribing cleaning people who come in at night to place a keyghost is cheap and effective.
There should NEVER be an api to mess with the phone numbers and dialing.
So, no third party addressbooks/PIMs, no handy apps that prepend special *# network codes for roaming purposes (as used in some SIM toolkit applications for international roaming w/ prepaid phones), no apps that encrypt your phone conversation end-to-end using normal (not VOIP) connections so you don't need to use a data stream, etc..
Actually, that's exactly what the networks want! No third-party messing with calls, complete network services lock-in! So no worries there, then.
Eventually the former 'consumer' hardware will not even be considerd 'COMPUTERS' , being so crippled and controlled as not to function as general purpose computing devices (as Turing would have it).
Eventually the former class of devices will die out as society changes from a mindless consumer mentality to an active population (or dies out itself, as a matter of deductive logic eitherway the consumer technolgy dies)
Just like the fact that everybody's a fully licensed HAM and nobody uses receiver-only radios these days.. Wait a second..
Yes, that's exactly what it is, and Mozilla is also an unauthorized derivative of Internet Explorer, being that it's a web browser...
Actually, the folks at netscape first made a browser called NCSA Mosaic. They used their skills and knowledge, acquired during the work on NCSA Mosaic, to write netscape, from which mozilla was later born (though they did start from scratch at some point). Mosaic was later sold to spyglass technologies, from which Microsoft acquired a license, and to this day the Internet Explorer about screen lists spyglass. So they are not entirely unrelated (though not by a clear line of copying code).
By SCO's reasoning, mozilla DOES infringe on Microsoft's copyrights, just like a filesystem which was conceived/invented in general terms, and first implemented for UNIX, and later for linux, infringes their IP...
Re:They're not talking about used ads.
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 1
Photographers are actually notorious for this. I recall one time my company hired a photographer to take some photos for one of our clients (an IP law firm...!) and when we had paid for them the photos came back with a list of restrictions on use that was kind of hard to believe! Of course, there were no such terms mentioned in any contract, so good luck to him trying to enforce those terms of use!:-)
I can only speak accurately for my jurisdiction, which is the Netherlands; here, most photographers are a member of an organization belonging to the photographers' federation, and they subscribe to their 'general conditions' - so you'll find a blurb along the lines of "the photographers' federations general conditions apply".
Even without such a blurb (and the general conditions being deposited in some public place, traditionally the courthouse), those terms can be said to generally apply in the industry, since almost everyone adheres to them, and the photographer would have operated under the assumption that these terms were implied. Just like you can't wriggle your way out of an auctioneer's fee (usually 10%) when you buy something at an auction because you didn't sign anything to that effect.
Anyway, I'm curious how this sort of stuff is done in the UK and US (it seems EULAs at least are not enforceable), so if any one would weigh in?
Re:They're not talking about used ads.
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 1
I was wondering, how do they go about with the copyright implications. When my company hires a design company (we're a web site implementation company, we regularly contract design work to others), we get copyright on _all_ of the designs that are produced, whether we use them or not, because they are, effectively, works for hire (as in we are paying somebody to produce designs for us, it doesn't matter what we do with them).
Actually, I'd check your contracts if I were you. The "works for hire" doctrine applies mainly to private individuals making stuff for their employer with no contract there to explicity take care of copyright issues. Even photographers will charge you an arm and a leg for reproducing a picture taken for you just one time more often than previously agreed upon - the notable exception being stock photos. I'd highly doubt ad companies would give you ALL the rights to their stuff, they'd be rather interested in residuals..
Re:They're not talking about used ads.
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad I'm not the only one that read the story that way. It's not so much recycling as it is retasking -- the ads were never used a first time. And I see no indication that they'll revive the same ad for multiple clients either.
They are, says so in the article - but only in different local or regional markets, so you'd only see it twice if you saw some ad on TV visiting your parents half way round the country for thanksgiving..
I mean that right now my Sprint phone wouldn't work if I go to AT&Ts network or Cingular's network or someone else. They all use different systems. It's mentioned at the end of the article that that just isn't the case in Hong Kong (and I believe in Japan and Europe and other places where they have number protability). The having to get a new phone part is still going to be a little bit of a wrench in this plan,
I regularly (i.e. each year) switch to another provider expressly to get a new phone. Handset subsidies are huge and you pay for them in your monthly rate anyway, so might as well. All the providers use GSM though, so my old equipment still works on any of the networks (providing it hasn't broken down, which happens more often than you'd like, especially with Nokia gear).
The BBC program Time Commander shows people taking up virtual arms against ancient armies (e.g. Romans etc.) The actual contestants give out orders in the manner of generals commanding an army, the clicking and stuff is done by hidden geeks. Very nice show, all about strategy, and nice CG (the horses' tails move about and such)..
Re:it still isnt gonna go mainstream
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and yes. I know... IHBT.
Exceed is not free. Multiple desktops on XP are free though, it's a powertoy thingamajig, and nvidia cards come with their own, slightly better working multi-desktop utility as well.
Bob opens it, non-destructively, then sends it back with new contents marked "return to sender, address unknown". Alice receives info that the letter was returned. She goes to the post office and to get her letter back, she must pay cost of sending it from Bob to Alice.
Besides, she would have to send it as registered letter. Only registered letters can be returned to sender in that manner. Normal misadressed leters get discarded.
A scheme I worked out, but never used, would be along the lines of; Say Alice in New York wants to exchange mail regularly with Bob in Kansas.
First off, Alice sends a letter to Bob's address, but marked "Mike". Bob opens it, non-destructively, then sends it back with new contents marked "return to sender, address unknown".
Then Bob sends Alice a stamped but "mis-addressed" envelope to Alice. Alice uses this to send stuff back to Bob "return to sender", but includes the "return to sender" envelope for sending stuff back to Alice..
I guess your friendly neighborhood postman would catch on to it sooner or later, but you could just fake being really pigheaded and even get mad at the postman; "I *KNOW* Mike lives there, why do I keep getting my letters back, goddamn hippies!"
Was this scheme ever tried by the swappers? Did it fail?
Schemes not unlike this still exist, most notably among purveyors of losslessly compressed audio. Sending CDs (and presumably DVDs Real Soon Now) through the mail is still a viable alternative to endless downloading. The premise of this scheme is not illegality, but spreading the cost. You get a CD, you burn one (or, better, two) and send them on.
So far our security record has been 100% according to our internal auditing firm.
So, you pay your cleaners more than minimum wage?
It's amazing what people can do with the passwords written on yellow sticky tape stuck to the bottom of your keyboard.. Or a keyghost for that matter.. Or even just having their kid hook up a wireless AP to your secure LAN hidden under a desk on bring-your-kid-to-work-day..
My favorite part is when they proclaim that something will occur (probability 0.72). As if they've done extensive Monte Carlo simulations to determine such a precise number instead of pulling decimal places out of their butts.
Actually, there's research where they asked people to give an indication of how sure they were of a prediction (e.g. weather, diagnosis of a disease etc.)
Turns out metereologists are pretty good at it, their probabilities of something happening (i.e. 72% probability of rain, 60% probability of sun) correlate strongly (0.9) with post facto observations.
Everybody else SUCKS at it (0.5) - one possible explanation is that when metereologists get it dead wrong they are hit by small elderly women needlessly carrying heavy umbrellas on their persons.
So when Gartner says there's a 0.72 probability, either it is, or it isn't (0.5)!
You're confused. The original poster was saying you can claim ownership of a trademark, if it is a made-up word, and he's right.
You cannot, and I quote "claim domain over all uses of it." "Actually you can."
You can't make a trademark out of a generic/descriptive term (MouseTrap(R)! It traps mice!), but even if you succeeded in registring it, you still have no claim to all uses of it - there is a host of "exceptions" (or rather, non-infringing uses that cannot be prohibited - rights they don't have); not in the least non-commercial or non-confusing uses and free speech. And no, when you register a trademark you can't just register it in all categories.
For example, see the Ford Modeling Agency. No legal battles there, because FoMoCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in demanding that they stop using the name "Ford."
Actually, even though Ford is a common surname, Ford qualifies as a "famous mark", so yes, had FoMoCo acted in time, they could have stopped this "dilution" from happening. Disney is also "just a name", but the Disney Golfcart Co. would have a hard time fighting off ABC lawyers, even if it's owner is called Disney.
you can't TM a word and claim domain over all uses of it.
Actually you can, if it's a made-up word. Now that Phillip-Morris is "Altria" or whatever, I can't go and start "Altria Lumber Concern" even though lumber isn't related to their cancer creation service.
No you can't. Even if it is a "well known mark" (which only really applies if you've got a lot of money to bribe, erm, employ the legal profession with), which gets some additional protection (e.g. you can't start selling "coca-cola" massage oil, even though they have no intention to enter that particular market) there are still ample exemptions.
For example, it's perfectly alright for me, under trademark law to say "SCO are smoking crack", since I'm referring to the company that is the registrant of the SCO mark. There is no likelihood of confusion, and there's a free speech angle. Non-commercial uses are also exempt; Ford can't come after the church of concordia on the basis that they say "Fnord" a lot. Trademark law's basic tenet is that it is about protecting consumers; if you buy a FooBar sprocket, you'd expect it to be made by FooBar Inc., and you'd accept no substitute. But, you might be interested what other people have to say about FooBar sprockets, while on the other hand not being too concerned with 5 year olds selling FooBar lemonade by the side of the road.
If some company decided to call its telephony software suite "Nero Burning ROM", Ahead could still stop them even though telephony and CD recording are ostensibly different fields.
They're still both software though (the USPTO has a finite number of different fields they recognize). "Nero Burning ROM" woodburners would be another matter though - would you go shopping for CD-R burning software at woodburners.com ?
The bad news is that nobody will do this, or the phone won't support it (article didn't say how key exchange happens)
So when Joe calls and it says "incoming encrypted call" are you going to answer it because you know and like Joe, even though you've never exchanged keys with him?
The key exchange is done using Diffie-Hellman. You read out checksums to each other to verify that there is no MITM. Assuming you know Joe's voice it works OK, but it seems a bit tedious in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
RSS feed = newsgroup
Aggregator = news reader
Bittorrent = RAR+PAR binaries
And best of all.. no polling! Well, between usenet servers it's mostly a broadcast kind of affair these days..
Has anyone made a rss2nntp bot yet?
Of course, IRC is also a remarkably cool medium for timely distribution of small ASCII messages.. The nick/channel bullshit sucks (though usenet "channel"/group takeovers/spams suck even more), but surely it's not beyond the realm of possibilities to build an IRC server that requires people to log in, with a central (distributed) database of credentials, and no nickserv/chanserv services/bots that just stop working every once in a while..
And hey, what about jabber? And javagroups? And multicast?
That's one big heap of cool technology with killer apps (*cough* pointcast?) waiting to be de-vaporized..
Mobile phones include a dinky webbrowser or e-mail client, now cameras and mp3 players, dvd players will play (s)vcd, playstation 2 will play dvds.. Not necessarily because convergence is an exciting new thing, but because an additional function is what marketeers call "added value". That's why cars have a stereo and a lighter. It's not about integrating your "smoking lounge" with your method of transportation, but easily achieved added value at such a low cost that dis-integrating it isn't worth it to the manufacturer even for low cost models. That's why non-smokers (and non-gagdet using) drivers have lighters in their cars too..
Of course, if you ask people, do you want a device that plays DVDs, picks up terrestrial digital television, plays MP3s, and cooks a turkey, they'll look at you quizzically and say "why would I want that?". But once they're at Joe's TV Emporium and they can buy a device that cooks turkeys as well for only $2 more.. Guess what they'll do?
There are few simple rules on how to make a good presentation: 1) Use a projector - stop using transparencies, 2) avoid text on your slides at all costs 3) use plenty of full colour figures and simple animation but don't overdo it and 4) rehearse your presentation so that you know it by heart - nothing irritates me as much as someone who just reads his slides to the audience.
Add to that;
5) only add major points on your slides, but don't forget to include a full text in the "notes" section, and make sure that if you distribute the presentation electronically it displays notes by default.
6) the presentation is not your report; distribute a separate, full-text, full-detail report. You can refer to this report for answering any intricate questions the audience might have.
7) if you're giving a presentation in a language that is not your, or the audiences, mothertongue (such as; jargonese), make sure that complicated or hard-to-pronounce words appear on the slides, and are referred to in the spoken part of the presentation in multiple ways (i.e. synonyms, explanations).
8) colors should work in black and white as well, for print-outs and crappy projectors.
9) the last slide WILL include your e-mail and web address.
10) the audience is NOT wearing any clothes.
that's all I can think of right now..
So Tivo MAY want to prevent folks from moron-izing their systems, but not have a problem with folks that don't have a history of doing so.
If you fudge up your system with bad software, you're out of warranty. Buy a new system. Sale! So that's not the motivation..
If you don't have access to software, there's no way to upgrade, say the harddrive, without springing for a newer model. Sale!
So, apparantly it's come to the point that more people are succesfully upgrading their kit than people who're moron-izing their systems.
Or they may be required by licenses with third parties (e.g. patent licenses for MPEG) to go after people who redistribute their software, so as to avoid paying extra costs to those third parties. In that case you'd expect them to send C&Ds, and pretty much let you off the hook once you've gone underground. This seems to be the case so far.
It's probably also the reason the commercial upgrade-kit sellers don't get in trouble; I'd assume they pay their tithe (both to TiVo (hey, why not take a slice of the cake?) and their upstream licensors).
How is this different to somebody hosting Windows ISOs? If there is software that is copyrighted by Tivo inside the images and they haven't given the people distributing them license to do so, then they are well within their rights to stop the distribution.
TiVo software is tied to the hardware anyway, there's no use for it other than on a TiVo. They are legally within their rights (as long as they don't go after people only distributing the GPL'ed bits), but morally it's a shakier situation. In essence they're using their copyrights to go after people who modify their kit; and they have no other legal avenue or compelling interest to go after people modifying their own, fully owned hardware. If you'll remember, people get uppity about such things (e.g. DMCA, modchips) all the time..
And for a windows example; why do you need a separate license to put your IT departments image of windows XP on a Dell that comes with an OEM version of XP? It's the same collection of bits, just from a different source. It's a rip off.
I recently bought a very nice digital camera (Fuji FinePix S304/3800), and though it makes gorgeous snapshots, it's not teaching me much about photography. The S304 (like the 2MP 2800z) has great automatic white balance correction, which means that indoors shots just come out right, unlike a lot of other digital cameras - there's often no need to use the flash. It also has 6x zoom, which is nice.
But the control over aperture, flash, "shutter/exposure" time, etc. is rather limited. It's hard to figure out how much it's adjusting automatically, and what those corrections actually do (without shooting brackets (in asfar as the auto stuff can be turned off), which can be tedious). And figuring out what settings where actually used in the end can usually only be deduced from the EXIF info in JPEG files (note that that's a lossy format btw); if you did have full control, you'd know the settings, and could write them down. Also, manual settings are easier to set on a mechanical SLR (no menus).
Note that the ISO ratings on many, many digital cameras (including well known brand ones) can be quite misleading. And cheap-ass Dell cameras claiming to be 400 ISO are nothing of the sort.
And another thing, the viewfinders on digital cameras can be rather dinky, unless you go for the expensive stuff. The S304 I mentioned has an electronic viewfinder, so if you put the camera to your eye you see the same thing as you'd see on the LCD screen (which is pretty darn nice compared to most digital cameras with their optical viewfinders or hard-to-look-at-while-shooting LCDs) - still, it's not quite like the end result.
In the case of the S304 you often see a picture that seems underexposed, but when you've taken it, it's not quite as dark as you'd expected. (Not that SLRs are perfect, but they're better than even an electronic viewfinder)
So, I've got a great digital camera.. But I find myself looking for a mechanical all-manual SLR to learn to be a better photographer, though the snapshots come out nice almost all of the time.
So what you're saying is that you've never used a piece of software (widget) that interferes with another piece of software (widget).
Check the bottom of your keyboard. Next to the sticky notes with passwords, you'll find a blurb like " This device complies with FCC Rules Part 15. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
This device may not cause harmful interference.
This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may causeundesired operation.
This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to Part 15 of the FCC Rules."
Note that, yes, it may cause interference, as long as it's not harmful. Of course, in an Intensive Care Unit in a hospital, or in a precision laboratory, interference is more likely to be harmful than in the desert. So they've specified the environment in which this should be the case; the blurb on my keyboard specifically says "office equipment", which is what Class B digital devices in Part 15 of the FCC Rules are all about..
Of course, though equipment is tested extensively, this does not mean that there is zero chance of it ever generating interference. So, in the real world, we know this, and there are certain thresholds of interference under which (all, and thus, also the surrounding) office equipment must accept interference as well. Yes, an EMP weapon will fudge up your keyboard, but a cell phone shorting out next to it won't.
Random testing is a software testing technique which is appropriate to this kind of probablistic approach to understanding failures.
(1) no better system than passwords has yet been devised
Except those nifty token+PIN systems. My bank has even given me a "calculator" type thingy in which I put my ATM card, and using my normal PIN, the chip on that card will calculate the response to a challenge when I log into online banking. Pretty nifty, pretty secure. The chip will stop working after 3 attempts at a wrong PIN, and if the card is stolen, I'd report it straight away anyway. This closes the window of opportunity considerably.
Token based security systems can integrate really well into computer systems, so you end up with Single Sign On solutions, and the challenge-response protocol can run over a simple USB link, so all you have to enter is your PIN (into hardware which you carry with me, and isn't susceptible to having keyboard sniffers installed).
There are lots of vendors who sell this hardware, iButton, rsa.com, etc. etc. Pick up a random computer industry mag and they're right there in the less-than-a-page-big ads.
Note that SSH uses a similar idea for single sign on; you type in your password/phrase into an agent which decrypts your private key on your workstation, and challenge/response is used when logging in; your password is only exposed to your local workstation, not to the remote system, nor is it sent over the line in any way. You can even change keys without changing the password/phrase (and vice versa).
I saw another post here mention diceware, which is pretty nifty too; passphrases generated using dice.
Physical security is also often overlooked, on the premise that you're fucked anyway when people bring in laptops, or plug a wifi access point into your network. But physical security is the only kind of security where biometrics make any sense at all (as in; "hey, I haven't seen you here before" or; "that's not your photo on this id here.."). So if you're going for 3-out-of-3 authentication (something you know/have/are) you need physical security as well.
No security is perfect, but it doesn't have to be quite as bothersome to users. Let's say no one can log into remotely to the work LAN. That's not that inconvenient to most people, and if some one complains, sure, let them at it, and log what they're doing. The window of opporunity may be widened by a creak because a few accounts do get remote access, but no form of security is perfect anyway.
I find attack trees a useful way to present weaknesses in security; it emphasises the weakest chain in the link, but also the prerequisites to get there, and the alternatives. (For example, the CEO might well have a yellow sticky tape with his password on his monitor at home, but breaking into the CEO's home is quite hard because that house has pretty good physical security, him being the rich bastard that he is.. Whereas bribing cleaning people who come in at night to place a keyghost is cheap and effective.
There should NEVER be an api to mess with the phone numbers and dialing.
So, no third party addressbooks/PIMs, no handy apps that prepend special *# network codes for roaming purposes (as used in some SIM toolkit applications for international roaming w/ prepaid phones), no apps that encrypt your phone conversation end-to-end using normal (not VOIP) connections so you don't need to use a data stream, etc..
Actually, that's exactly what the networks want! No third-party messing with calls, complete network services lock-in! So no worries there, then.
Eventually the former 'consumer' hardware will not even be considerd 'COMPUTERS' , being so crippled and controlled as not to function as general purpose computing devices (as Turing would have it).
Eventually the former class of devices will die out as society changes from a mindless consumer mentality to an active population (or dies out itself, as a matter of deductive logic eitherway the consumer technolgy dies)
Just like the fact that everybody's a fully licensed HAM and nobody uses receiver-only radios these days.. Wait a second..
Yes, that's exactly what it is, and Mozilla is also an unauthorized derivative of Internet Explorer, being that it's a web browser...
Actually, the folks at netscape first made a browser called NCSA Mosaic. They used their skills and knowledge, acquired during the work on NCSA Mosaic, to write netscape, from which mozilla was later born (though they did start from scratch at some point). Mosaic was later sold to spyglass technologies, from which Microsoft acquired a license, and to this day the Internet Explorer about screen lists spyglass. So they are not entirely unrelated (though not by a clear line of copying code).
By SCO's reasoning, mozilla DOES infringe on Microsoft's copyrights, just like a filesystem which was conceived/invented in general terms, and first implemented for UNIX, and later for linux, infringes their IP...
Photographers are actually notorious for this. I recall one time my company hired a photographer to take some photos for one of our clients (an IP law firm...!) and when we had paid for them the photos came back with a list of restrictions on use that was kind of hard to believe! Of course, there were no such terms mentioned in any contract, so good luck to him trying to enforce those terms of use! :-)
I can only speak accurately for my jurisdiction, which is the Netherlands; here, most photographers are a member of an organization belonging to the photographers' federation, and they subscribe to their 'general conditions' - so you'll find a blurb along the lines of "the photographers' federations general conditions apply".
Even without such a blurb (and the general conditions being deposited in some public place, traditionally the courthouse), those terms can be said to generally apply in the industry, since almost everyone adheres to them, and the photographer would have operated under the assumption that these terms were implied. Just like you can't wriggle your way out of an auctioneer's fee (usually 10%) when you buy something at an auction because you didn't sign anything to that effect.
Anyway, I'm curious how this sort of stuff is done in the UK and US (it seems EULAs at least are not enforceable), so if any one would weigh in?
I was wondering, how do they go about with the copyright implications. When my company hires a design company (we're a web site implementation company, we regularly contract design work to others), we get copyright on _all_ of the designs that are produced, whether we use them or not, because they are, effectively, works for hire (as in we are paying somebody to produce designs for us, it doesn't matter what we do with them).
Actually, I'd check your contracts if I were you. The "works for hire" doctrine applies mainly to private individuals making stuff for their employer with no contract there to explicity take care of copyright issues. Even photographers will charge you an arm and a leg for reproducing a picture taken for you just one time more often than previously agreed upon - the notable exception being stock photos. I'd highly doubt ad companies would give you ALL the rights to their stuff, they'd be rather interested in residuals..
I'm glad I'm not the only one that read the story that way. It's not so much recycling as it is retasking -- the ads were never used a first time. And I see no indication that they'll revive the same ad for multiple clients either.
They are, says so in the article - but only in different local or regional markets, so you'd only see it twice if you saw some ad on TV visiting your parents half way round the country for thanksgiving..
I mean that right now my Sprint phone wouldn't work if I go to AT&Ts network or Cingular's network or someone else. They all use different systems. It's mentioned at the end of the article that that just isn't the case in Hong Kong (and I believe in Japan and Europe and other places where they have number protability). The having to get a new phone part is still going to be a little bit of a wrench in this plan,
I regularly (i.e. each year) switch to another provider expressly to get a new phone. Handset subsidies are huge and you pay for them in your monthly rate anyway, so might as well. All the providers use GSM though, so my old equipment still works on any of the networks (providing it hasn't broken down, which happens more often than you'd like, especially with Nokia gear).
The BBC program Time Commander shows people taking up virtual arms against ancient armies (e.g. Romans etc.) The actual contestants give out orders in the manner of generals commanding an army, the clicking and stuff is done by hidden geeks. Very nice show, all about strategy, and nice CG (the horses' tails move about and such)..
Yes, and yes. I know... IHBT.
Exceed is not free. Multiple desktops on XP are free though, it's a powertoy thingamajig, and nvidia cards come with their own, slightly better working multi-desktop utility as well.
Bob opens it, non-destructively, then sends it back with new contents marked "return to sender, address unknown".
Alice receives info that the letter was returned. She goes to the post office and to get her letter back, she must pay cost of sending it from Bob to Alice.
Besides, she would have to send it as registered letter. Only registered letters can be returned to sender in that manner. Normal misadressed leters get discarded.
At least that's how it works here.
I guess we have it schweet, then..
I often wondered why people were faking stamps..
A scheme I worked out, but never used, would be along the lines of;
Say Alice in New York wants to exchange mail regularly with Bob in Kansas.
First off, Alice sends a letter to Bob's address, but marked "Mike". Bob opens it, non-destructively, then sends it back with new contents marked "return to sender, address unknown".
Then Bob sends Alice a stamped but "mis-addressed" envelope to Alice. Alice uses this to send stuff back to Bob "return to sender", but includes the "return to sender" envelope for sending stuff back to Alice..
I guess your friendly neighborhood postman would catch on to it sooner or later, but you could just fake being really pigheaded and even get mad at the postman; "I *KNOW* Mike lives there, why do I keep getting my letters back, goddamn hippies!"
Was this scheme ever tried by the swappers? Did it fail?
Schemes not unlike this still exist, most notably among purveyors of losslessly compressed audio. Sending CDs (and presumably DVDs Real Soon Now) through the mail is still a viable alternative to endless downloading. The premise of this scheme is not illegality, but spreading the cost. You get a CD, you burn one (or, better, two) and send them on.
Would you convict this guy? I say not guilty!
So far our security record has been 100% according to our internal auditing firm.
So, you pay your cleaners more than minimum wage?
It's amazing what people can do with the passwords written on yellow sticky tape stuck to the bottom of your keyboard.. Or a keyghost for that matter.. Or even just having their kid hook up a wireless AP to your secure LAN hidden under a desk on bring-your-kid-to-work-day..
My favorite part is when they proclaim that something will occur (probability 0.72). As if they've done extensive Monte Carlo simulations to determine such a precise number instead of pulling decimal places out of their butts.
Actually, there's research where they asked people to give an indication of how sure they were of a prediction (e.g. weather, diagnosis of a disease etc.)
Turns out metereologists are pretty good at it, their probabilities of something happening (i.e. 72% probability of rain, 60% probability of sun) correlate strongly (0.9) with post facto observations.
Everybody else SUCKS at it (0.5) - one possible explanation is that when metereologists get it dead wrong they are hit by small elderly women needlessly carrying heavy umbrellas on their persons.
So when Gartner says there's a 0.72 probability, either it is, or it isn't (0.5)!
You're confused. The original poster was saying you can claim ownership of a trademark, if it is a made-up word, and he's right.
You cannot, and I quote "claim domain over all uses of it." "Actually you can."
You can't make a trademark out of a generic/descriptive term (MouseTrap(R)! It traps mice!), but even if you succeeded in registring it, you still have no claim to all uses of it - there is a host of "exceptions" (or rather, non-infringing uses that cannot be prohibited - rights they don't have); not in the least non-commercial or non-confusing uses and free speech. And no, when you register a trademark you can't just register it in all categories.
For example, see the Ford Modeling Agency. No legal battles there, because FoMoCo doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in demanding that they stop using the name "Ford."
Actually, even though Ford is a common surname, Ford qualifies as a "famous mark", so yes, had FoMoCo acted in time, they could have stopped this "dilution" from happening. Disney is also "just a name", but the Disney Golfcart Co. would have a hard time fighting off ABC lawyers, even if it's owner is called Disney.
you can't TM a word and claim domain over all uses of it.
Actually you can, if it's a made-up word. Now that Phillip-Morris is "Altria" or whatever, I can't go and start "Altria Lumber Concern" even though lumber isn't related to their cancer creation service.
No you can't. Even if it is a "well known mark" (which only really applies if you've got a lot of money to bribe, erm, employ the legal profession with), which gets some additional protection (e.g. you can't start selling "coca-cola" massage oil, even though they have no intention to enter that particular market) there are still ample exemptions.
For example, it's perfectly alright for me, under trademark law to say "SCO are smoking crack", since I'm referring to the company that is the registrant of the SCO mark. There is no likelihood of confusion, and there's a free speech angle. Non-commercial uses are also exempt; Ford can't come after the church of concordia on the basis that they say "Fnord" a lot.
Trademark law's basic tenet is that it is about protecting consumers; if you buy a FooBar sprocket, you'd expect it to be made by FooBar Inc., and you'd accept no substitute. But, you might be interested what other people have to say about FooBar sprockets, while on the other hand not being too concerned with 5 year olds selling FooBar lemonade by the side of the road.
If some company decided to call its telephony software suite "Nero Burning ROM", Ahead could still stop them even though telephony and CD recording are ostensibly different fields.
They're still both software though (the USPTO has a finite number of different fields they recognize). "Nero Burning ROM" woodburners would be another matter though - would you go shopping for CD-R burning software at woodburners.com ?
The bad news is that nobody will do this, or the phone won't support it (article didn't say how key exchange happens)
So when Joe calls and it says "incoming encrypted call" are you going to answer it because you know and like Joe, even though you've never exchanged keys with him?
The key exchange is done using Diffie-Hellman. You read out checksums to each other to verify that there is no MITM. Assuming you know Joe's voice it works OK, but it seems a bit tedious in the long run.