Couldn't these companies turn around and sue the patent office? After all, if the patent office had no liability whatsoever, why would they bother checking against any patents or prior art at all?
The government has now scrapped tempest and optical time-domain eavesdropping techniques. They report the technilogies as being "no longer required [now that those fools broadcast everything]".
True story: I was working in a corner of a cafe late at night when I guy came in, sat beside me, stuck a knife to my side and said "put the laptop in the bag".
My laptop was locked to the table, but I gladly unlocked it in return for my safety.
Anyway, insurance covered the loss.
Also, I had a removable hard drive with all my work on it, and I pleaded with the thief to let me keep it, and he let me!
So ultimately, I ended up with a newer machine, and a spare drive, and the thief ended up with a password protected laptop. Just goes to show, crime doesn't pay.
...except inconsistencies, found between the lines of legal documents. They are the ONLY thing that matters in today's Business world - and since money is the only thing that talks these days - the only things that matter period.
It seems the only way to get "heard" nowadays is with money. American public = 300,000,000 * 50% on net = 150,000,000 * 75% used mp3 = 112,500,000
Assume that once in their lives each of these people will save $15 dollars, buy listening to an mp3 and realizing they don't want the album.
These people have saved almost 1.7 billion dollars. If we used only 5% of those savings to "donate" to campains, that would be 84 million dollars worth of "speach" that would be heard.
So in conclusion, send this money to me, and I'll get right to work.
For the user's conveniece, the MS Scripting Host is entropy controlled. Any change in the system automatically disengage all security precautions, and enable scripting in all applications.
In case some of you/.ers are trying to figure out how to shut this feature off, it was only a joke.
You're right. Google rates pages according to how many references they get from similar pages. The only thing that this "revolutinary" engine does is show the references. Note that this may not even be usefull. I can link to a good site, but that doesn't make my site atomatically good.
Know the iterating function and the last result to the precision it is stored in the iterating function- know the next number in the sequence.
This can be very hard to determine. Here is a random number generator with period 2^19937-1. Presumably it could be modified to support a larger period.
If your on a 100Mb/s network, the spy is out of luck. Maybe not. There is quite a bit of redundancy in most network protocols (predictable headers, checksums, etc) as well as in most languages. It might be possible for the spy to squeeze more data out of the signal.
Many LEDs have a response time of around 8 nano seconds, which means they can blink roughly 12.5 million times a second. Enough to transmit 12.5 Mb/s of data. If your on a 10Mb network then that's plenty good for the spy. If your on a 100Mb/s network, the spy is out of luck.
The ONLY reason why any form of exchange/barter/loan/transaction works, is because both parties end up in the plus. I want CD abc more than I want $20. The label want's $20 more than that copy of the CD. We go through the transaction and we're both better off. Hence these exchanges, when executed properly, are not a zero sum game.
Many industries have taken the perspective that exchanges should be zero sum. i.e. Screw your customer for your own good. When that doesn't work, screw them more. Now even cockroaches learn quickly from negative re-enforcement. How does the record industry expect us to behave?
Re:We need more disciplines like this
on
Security Engineering
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Software development, on the whole, is not practiced as an engineering discipline. It needs to be. Your blanket statement is incorrect. Anything on this earth could be designed better. Bridges, watches, popsicle sticks, etc. Common sense tells us that we have to make tradeoffs. Higher levels of security, redundancy and certainty require more time and money. I do agree that some software engineers should be certified and depending on the software, some companies should be accountable. But not all. Does it take a certified engineer to "ok" a doormat? Would you pay $1000 for a "certified" doormat?
And Linux isn't designed to run in a virtual machine; implementation decisions that make sense on PC hardware don't fit well in a virtual machine(4). This is Linux. It's designed for Intel. It's not tuned for the mainframe hardware in which it's running.
Contradiction: If it's running on the VM, why should it be tuned for the hardware??? Shouldn't the VM worry about hardware tuning?
Does he know that the low level stuff in linux/arch was written at IBM, not some open source hacker?
Does he know that Linus' point in making the kernel more modular is so that it's NOT designed for intel???
Really the problem is with article B. "limited commercial significance" could mean anything. Fashion, as a concept, is very commercially significant. The retail clothing industry is huge, and it's driven by the demand to be up to date with "fashion". So if you take a t-shirt with a decss algorithm on it, what do you have? In reality, more people than not will have a fashion related reaction to it ("cool" or "lame") as opposed to having a reaction that causes them to go and descramble a DVD.
The problem is that high priced lawyers can always "massage" these gray areas into something that works for them.
First. If you are going to say something, please say it. Rhetorical questions are not a response, and they require more effort to reply to. But since you asked:
They never went after the language... Why exactly did they make J++? To go after the language.
Why did they 'embrace and extend' the platform with COM specific stuff?
Why are they so keen on providing Java support for.NET? To go after the platform.
And how's YOUR compatibility with 1.4 now?? Off topic.
If you didn't understand my point, I will make it clear. Microsoft, like most commercial entities, is self serving. Their "security" efforts are ultimately for their own good not ours.
what took them so long
why are they caring about security now, etc.
Hey who cares why or how
Microsoft cares about security becouse Microsoft cares about profit. When lack of security and stability meant lower profits, Microsoft cared.
Recall when Microsoft went after Java (the language, not the platform). Didn't work. And how's their VM compatability with 1.4 now? If "security" doesn't work out for them, what makes you think they won't switch gears and worry more about drop shadows?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but Coke/Pepsi won't penalize these people for giving you a glass of water.
Couldn't these companies turn around and sue the patent office? After all, if the patent office had no liability whatsoever, why would they bother checking against any patents or prior art at all?
The government has now scrapped tempest and optical time-domain eavesdropping techniques.
They report the technilogies as being "no longer required [now that those fools broadcast everything]".
Wear gloves.
True story:
I was working in a corner of a cafe late at night when I guy came in, sat beside me, stuck a knife to my side and said "put the laptop in the bag".
My laptop was locked to the table, but I gladly unlocked it in return for my safety.
Anyway, insurance covered the loss.
Also, I had a removable hard drive with all my work on it, and I pleaded with the thief to let me keep it, and he let me!
So ultimately, I ended up with a newer machine, and a spare drive, and the thief ended up with a password protected laptop. Just goes to show, crime doesn't pay.
...except inconsistencies, found between the lines of legal documents. They are the ONLY thing that matters in today's Business world - and since money is the only thing that talks these days - the only things that matter period.
great.
Sure beats headphones.
It seems the only way to get "heard" nowadays is with money.
American public = 300,000,000
* 50% on net = 150,000,000
* 75% used mp3 = 112,500,000
Assume that once in their lives each of these people will save $15 dollars, buy listening to an mp3 and realizing they don't want the album.
These people have saved almost 1.7 billion dollars. If we used only 5% of those savings to "donate" to campains, that would be 84 million dollars worth of "speach" that would be heard.
So in conclusion, send this money to me, and I'll get right to work.
For the user's conveniece, the MS Scripting Host is entropy controlled. Any change in the system automatically disengage all security precautions, and enable scripting in all applications.
/.ers are trying to figure out how to shut this feature off, it was only a joke.
In case some of you
Wow. It would be nice, but is there any way it could actually happen? We are talking Microsoft.
The system uses a complex new set of procedures...
A NASA Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Satellite uses complex procedures for guidance. What ever happened to controling a satellite with smoke signals?
You're right. Google rates pages according to how many references they get from similar pages.
The only thing that this "revolutinary" engine does is show the references.
Note that this may not even be usefull. I can link to a good site, but that doesn't make my site atomatically good.
Know the iterating function and the last result to the precision it is stored in the iterating function- know the next number in the sequence.
This can be very hard to determine. Here is a random number generator with period 2^19937-1. Presumably it could be modified to support a larger period.
I just typed "led diode response time" at google. The first link is
here.
If your on a 100Mb/s network, the spy is out of luck.
Maybe not. There is quite a bit of redundancy in most network protocols (predictable headers, checksums, etc) as well as in most languages. It might be possible for the spy to squeeze more data out of the signal.
Many LEDs have a response time of around 8 nano seconds, which means they can blink roughly 12.5 million times a second. Enough to transmit 12.5 Mb/s of data. If your on a 10Mb network then that's plenty good for the spy. If your on a 100Mb/s network, the spy is out of luck.
The ONLY reason why any form of exchange/barter/loan/transaction works, is because both parties end up in the plus. I want CD abc more than I want $20. The label want's $20 more than that copy of the CD. We go through the transaction and we're both better off. Hence these exchanges, when executed properly, are not a zero sum game.
Many industries have taken the perspective that exchanges should be zero sum. i.e. Screw your customer for your own good. When that doesn't work, screw them more. Now even cockroaches learn quickly from negative re-enforcement. How does the record industry expect us to behave?
Software development, on the whole, is not practiced as an engineering discipline. It needs to be.
Your blanket statement is incorrect. Anything on this earth could be designed better. Bridges, watches, popsicle sticks, etc. Common sense tells us that we have to make tradeoffs. Higher levels of security, redundancy and certainty require more time and money. I do agree that some software engineers should be certified and depending on the software, some companies should be accountable. But not all. Does it take a certified engineer to "ok" a doormat? Would you pay $1000 for a "certified" doormat?
This is getting more offtopic but:
you should check out SOS if you're still using VSS.
Canada has just won Gold in men's hockey. (And women's in case you missed it.)
Really the problem is with article B. "limited commercial significance" could mean anything. Fashion, as a concept, is very commercially significant. The retail clothing industry is huge, and it's driven by the demand to be up to date with "fashion". So if you take a t-shirt with a decss algorithm on it, what do you have? In reality, more people than not will have a fashion related reaction to it ("cool" or "lame") as opposed to having a reaction that causes them to go and descramble a DVD.
The problem is that high priced lawyers can always "massage" these gray areas into something that works for them.
If you ever expect a patch, upgrade, new version, new products, enhancements, customer service, etc. then motivations are important.
Otherwise merit will suffice.
First. If you are going to say something, please say it. Rhetorical questions are not a response, and they require more effort to reply to. But since you asked:
.NET?
They never went after the language... Why exactly did they make J++?
To go after the language.
Why did they 'embrace and extend' the platform with COM specific stuff?
Why are they so keen on providing Java support for
To go after the platform.
And how's YOUR compatibility with 1.4 now??
Off topic.
If you didn't understand my point, I will make it clear. Microsoft, like most commercial entities, is self serving. Their "security" efforts are ultimately for their own good not ours.
what took them so long
why are they caring about security now, etc.
Hey who cares why or how
Microsoft cares about security becouse Microsoft cares about profit. When lack of security and stability meant lower profits, Microsoft cared.
Recall when Microsoft went after Java (the language, not the platform). Didn't work. And how's their VM compatability with 1.4 now? If "security" doesn't work out for them, what makes you think they won't switch gears and worry more about drop shadows?