A lot of sites are infected by bots who probe domains for tell-tale signs of security holes. Take a look at the logs for any website. You'll see regular GET requests from thousands of ip addresses looking for pages of well known applications (like phpmyadmin).
The site was probably running some package with a hole in it.
I run a url-shortner. Links to such compromised sites are always being further obfuscated through the shortner. It's a never ending process.
Try reading that article. It's full of smart sounding long-winded sentences, which all basically translate to: "Dude, you're overthinking it".
Then, the article ronically ends with: "We spin eloquent stories, but these stories miss the point. The more we attempt to know ourselves, the less we actually understand."
"Simply giving your mother an ebook"... Ok. The patent is absurd. In fact, it's absurd enough that we don't have to add this sensationalist FUD.
This sounds like the average Joe is involved in patent infringement, when in fact it's the company's website that violates a patent. Additionally, there's no need to add "your mother" to the mix. It makes it more dramatic and sinister for sure, but please, drop the hyperbole.
On one hand, you have these companies using patents, an abstract barrier, to make money. On the other hand, they are sniffing out violations by means of reverse engineering. This is an act that, if many big companies had their way, would also be forbidden. Another abstract barrier. Something doesn't add up, but I can't flesh it out. I figured I'd drop this incomplete thought in case someone wanted to pick it up and run with it.
"and therefore threatening the future of our entire species."
Even if this WERE true, you might argue that this trait in humans would evolve away as there are some humans who are not as influenced by porn and video games. They will go on to reproduce...
It fails because he is saying: no one was was convicted on charge A, so person X should not be punished for B.
So, his argument is like this one: "Since nobody was hanged for the "Jack the Ripper" murders, my drunken uncle should not have to undergo a breathalyzer".
What about EMCAScript, which is, essentially the standard that javascript implements (but possibly extends)? Is a standard the same as an API?
I see a lot of crossover between "core language" and "api" in these discussions. Java, of course, is probably useless without certain APIs. But these points really show how messy issues like this become when you involve copyright. To me, it really does highlight the absurdity of the notion of intellectual property. It's such a vague concept.
It will be interesting to see not only the results of this analysis, but also how they came any conclusions that they do.
Many cookies are used only to store a unique identifier. They data about a user many websites actually store is housed and maintained on their server, keyed by the unique id. This could include "pages visited", "duration of visit", "browser/system specs/settings" along with any derived demographic data.
It would be hard (though not necessarily impossible) to determine this from a cookie analysis.
My first reaction was: It's a Dangerous path, once "facts" can become copyrighted. Then I (gasp) RTFA.
There are two claims made by the article:
1) Canada Post argues that it is the exclusive copyright holder of all Canadian postal codes If the issue is #1, then this is truly asinine, in my opinion. I am no scholar of copyright law, especially how it is applied in Canada. This claim may or may not be true. However, I could find no evidence the the Canada Post made such a claim. I may not have searched through the links provided with enough thoroughness. But, could it be that the author of the article either assumed it, or simply made it up? Does anyone have support for this claim, which to me seems absurd?
2) Canada Post says GeoCoder appropriated the database and made unauthorized reproductions. If the issue is #2 They claim that there were "unauthorized reproductions" of their database made. This could be a legitimate copyright infringement. Again. I see no evidence that Canada Post makes this claim either.
In fact, I see no mention of "copyright" other than in the article. There is just this post: http://geocoder.ca/?sued=1... which states that Canada Post is suing for lost revenue.
Now, these claims may in fact be true, and I don't necessarily doubt them. I would however like to see solid links to sources, for instance the text of the lawsuit. It's difficult to figure out what is fact and what is speculation.
I did read it. The "market area" case was just an example of the type of thing that would appear in a contract with advertisers. There are certainly many other terms and factors in the deals they make, and disruptive Technology like this affects those deals.
So, again. To the networks; this is a legitimate concern. I didn't pretend to defend or promote the reasons for this concern. My aim was to simply answer a question brought up with the parent post. No need to be righteous with your snitty comment. Noting that the service is available in New York only, sufficiently adds to the conversation.
The Networks make deals based on the assumption that those airwaves are only accessible from in certain areas. Advertisers may or may not pay different fees based on the "market" their commercial would reach. It's a legitimate concern.
A lot of these slow-changing old companies are trying to shoe-horn the world to fit their aging business models. They really should be adapting to the new realities of Technology in the Modern World. The market is shifting, and clinging to old revenue streams is merely going to put them behind.
Lawsuit or no, their real concern should be the viability of their business model in a quickly evolving World.
That's the thing. It didn't seem flat. Flat would be if a single object was 2d, but just sort of on its own plane. But, even on a single object, you could see that that the "closer" parts stood out more than the "further" parts. This is true of the actors' facial features as well as intricate objects (like the metal diving-crate containing a submersible robot).
It's still not my cup of tea, but in the same way I don't like new movies filmed in 3d with two cameras. The classic problems still exist. Eye fatigue, inability to choose your depth of focus, etc.
To their credit, there wasn't really any "hey look at me, I'm 3d". Like I said, it was done right. It just wasn't for me. But, technologically, I was very impressed.
I saw this movie, not out of my own free will. I was impressed with the 3D. It was good, not over done and I could not believe it wasn't filmed that way.
It wasn't just a cheap shoe-horning of objects onto differing planes. I still don't think the 3d added value, but the tech itself was done right.
Maybe being online isn't a problem. But, having multiple computers online, all connecting to battlenet while they really just need to talk to each other might be. Bandwidth may be a bottleneck.
Ha. Yah. I actually made fun of myself for that first, but something about the way slashdot's "preview" looks, makes me think the post went through (despite the bright yellow, "this is a preview" box).
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of sites are infected by bots who probe domains for tell-tale signs of security holes. Take a look at the logs for any website. You'll see regular GET requests from thousands of ip addresses looking for pages of well known applications (like phpmyadmin).
The site was probably running some package with a hole in it.
I run a url-shortner. Links to such compromised sites are always being further obfuscated through the shortner. It's a never ending process.
Ronically, I missed an eye.
Try reading that article. It's full of smart sounding long-winded sentences, which all basically translate to: "Dude, you're overthinking it".
Then, the article ronically ends with: "We spin eloquent stories, but these stories miss the point. The more we attempt to know ourselves, the less we actually understand."
Dude...
"Simply giving your mother an ebook"... Ok. The patent is absurd. In fact, it's absurd enough that we don't have to add this sensationalist FUD.
This sounds like the average Joe is involved in patent infringement, when in fact it's the company's website that violates a patent. Additionally, there's no need to add "your mother" to the mix. It makes it more dramatic and sinister for sure, but please, drop the hyperbole.
... that I'm having trouble articulating.
On one hand, you have these companies using patents, an abstract barrier, to make money. On the other hand, they are sniffing out violations by means of reverse engineering. This is an act that, if many big companies had their way, would also be forbidden. Another abstract barrier. Something doesn't add up, but I can't flesh it out. I figured I'd drop this incomplete thought in case someone wanted to pick it up and run with it.
"and therefore threatening the future of our entire species."
Even if this WERE true, you might argue that this trait in humans would evolve away as there are some humans who are not as influenced by porn and video games. They will go on to reproduce...
No Start button?!?!? Then how on Earth are we supposed to shut down the OS?
It fails because he is saying: no one was was convicted on charge A, so person X should not be punished for B.
So, his argument is like this one: "Since nobody was hanged for the "Jack the Ripper" murders, my drunken uncle should not have to undergo a breathalyzer".
What about EMCAScript, which is, essentially the standard that javascript implements (but possibly extends)? Is a standard the same as an API?
I see a lot of crossover between "core language" and "api" in these discussions. Java, of course, is probably useless without certain APIs. But these points really show how messy issues like this become when you involve copyright. To me, it really does highlight the absurdity of the notion of intellectual property. It's such a vague concept.
"This study is invalid, Causation does not imply Correlation" posts.
Most people? You must be new here.
It will be interesting to see not only the results of this analysis, but also how they came any conclusions that they do.
Many cookies are used only to store a unique identifier. They data about a user many websites actually store is housed and maintained on their server, keyed by the unique id. This could include "pages visited", "duration of visit", "browser/system specs/settings" along with any derived demographic data.
It would be hard (though not necessarily impossible) to determine this from a cookie analysis.
As Mathinker comments below, links to the actual legal documents are there on geocoder's website on the footer of the page.
http://geocoder.ca/?sued=nope-not-even-a-little
Wow. I thought maybe I could undermine the lawsuit with hacking. Nope. Didn't work.
My first reaction was: It's a Dangerous path, once "facts" can become copyrighted. Then I (gasp) RTFA.
There are two claims made by the article:
1) Canada Post argues that it is the exclusive copyright holder of all Canadian postal codes
If the issue is #1, then this is truly asinine, in my opinion. I am no scholar of copyright law, especially how it is applied in Canada. This claim may or may not be true. However, I could find no evidence the the Canada Post made such a claim. I may not have searched through the links provided with enough thoroughness. But, could it be that the author of the article either assumed it, or simply made it up? Does anyone have support for this claim, which to me seems absurd?
2) Canada Post says GeoCoder appropriated the database and made unauthorized reproductions.
If the issue is #2 They claim that there were "unauthorized reproductions" of their database made. This could be a legitimate copyright infringement. Again. I see no evidence that Canada Post makes this claim either.
In fact, I see no mention of "copyright" other than in the article. There is just this post: ... which states that Canada Post is suing for lost revenue.
http://geocoder.ca/?sued=1
Now, these claims may in fact be true, and I don't necessarily doubt them. I would however like to see solid links to sources, for instance the text of the lawsuit. It's difficult to figure out what is fact and what is speculation.
I did read it. The "market area" case was just an example of the type of thing that would appear in a contract with advertisers. There are certainly many other terms and factors in the deals they make, and disruptive Technology like this affects those deals.
So, again. To the networks; this is a legitimate concern. I didn't pretend to defend or promote the reasons for this concern. My aim was to simply answer a question brought up with the parent post. No need to be righteous with your snitty comment. Noting that the service is available in New York only, sufficiently adds to the conversation.
The Networks make deals based on the assumption that those airwaves are only accessible from in certain areas. Advertisers may or may not pay different fees based on the "market" their commercial would reach. It's a legitimate concern.
A lot of these slow-changing old companies are trying to shoe-horn the world to fit their aging business models. They really should be adapting to the new realities of Technology in the Modern World. The market is shifting, and clinging to old revenue streams is merely going to put them behind.
Lawsuit or no, their real concern should be the viability of their business model in a quickly evolving World.
That's the thing. It didn't seem flat. Flat would be if a single object was 2d, but just sort of on its own plane. But, even on a single object, you could see that that the "closer" parts stood out more than the "further" parts. This is true of the actors' facial features as well as intricate objects (like the metal diving-crate containing a submersible robot).
It's still not my cup of tea, but in the same way I don't like new movies filmed in 3d with two cameras. The classic problems still exist. Eye fatigue, inability to choose your depth of focus, etc.
To their credit, there wasn't really any "hey look at me, I'm 3d". Like I said, it was done right. It just wasn't for me. But, technologically, I was very impressed.
I saw this movie, not out of my own free will. I was impressed with the 3D. It was good, not over done and I could not believe it wasn't filmed that way.
It wasn't just a cheap shoe-horning of objects onto differing planes. I still don't think the 3d added value, but the tech itself was done right.
Bit-coin fortune, here I come.
No. I was not referring to their bandwidth, but that of 6 people all connection to BNet from the same location.
Maybe being online isn't a problem. But, having multiple computers online, all connecting to battlenet while they really just need to talk to each other might be. Bandwidth may be a bottleneck.
Ha. Yah. I actually made fun of myself for that first, but something about the way slashdot's "preview" looks, makes me think the post went through (despite the bright yellow, "this is a preview" box).
And still, no cure for cancer. ... oh.
... of disability. Pretty soon, having an all-natural, non-augmented body WILL be a disability.