Because, technically, the outline is supposed to cover what is covered by the Patent grant. The body is supposed to merely be the defense of the WHY the Patent grant should be given.
The Yopy is due out soon (Realize that the Sharp PDA available now isn't much different than the developer release of the Yopy- it's still not a "real" PDA in the same sense as the Agenda...) and the Agenda is already out.
You're supposed to use Fltk to develop apps for either of those, even though they use completely differing GUI engines (Yopy- W, Agenda- MicroWindows)- which means that one app written for the Yopy is liable to work decently enough without major changes on the Agenda (memory permitting...) or an iPaq running Familiar, Similar, Pixil, or some other MicroWindows or X based PDA distribution. The same cannot be said for a Qt/E based PDA. You have either the Sharp PDA or an iPaq in which someone has installed Qt/E on it.
Linux PDAs aren't vapor like you contend- just not pervasive like Windows CE devices or Palm devices.
Really, they didn't pay for DHTMLlab stuff?
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 2
Do you HONESTLY think that the SS is going to chase down someone ripping people off for a couple of hundred dollars here or there?
Besides, with the numbers, all they'll do is purchase a handfull of things using a card that has some bogus name on the card that matches up with the bogus ID they have. Gasoline would be included with this because at that point because they just wouldn't be caring about it (If the Secret Service were all that special (I'm not saying that they don't do their jobs- it's just that there's not all that many of them...) there wouldn't BE much credit fraud- which isn't true at all.).
Think for a moment that you might not catch a bogus $20 gas purchase- especially if it was done in your normal area of operation. They could concievably fill up 5 or 10 times if they're lucky enough.
As for "everybody" running the addresses through the AVS- that might be your experience, but not mine. 1) If they had, this purchase that this joker made on my new account # wouldn't have went in the first place (wouldn't have made it through- no ID, etc.), and 2) I have yet to be accosted for drivers license, card, etc. for purchases not going to my house.
I've not done computer equipment purchases via mail/online lately, so I don't know about that- but I DO know about other stuff and it doesn't seem to be as you claim.
All you need to do is monitor the ethernet frames or whatever else is coming in on the RF modem. All using a goofball protocol does is ensure that script kiddies don't get in on first base of hacking the net.
It's got vulnerabilities, just like WEP does- just not as exploitable. For a small subnet (and this constitutes that...) SSL's only moderately secure- because an attacker will know up-front that there's financial stuff predominately on this WLAN. If you're in on WEP, then you can then snoop for SSL weaknesses without them knowing, etc. If they're relying on most of the encryption techniques out there, it'll keep most of the script kiddies from pulling something off- but nobody else.
I could see a "Disney" card where you can charge it up w/Cash value and use it like a credit card- with the ability to get a cash refund/credit for anything not used when you leave the park. Otherwise, it's no different than those gift cards Wal-Mart, Target, etc. are selling.
Tell that to the joker that bought $2300 of stuff.
on
Disney World Goes 802.11b
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Recently, I had lost my CC and had a new one issued- the only individual that I'd given the new number to was a Hell Desk employee at my ISP to get my autobilling straightened out. 3 days later someone bought some $2300 on the card from a car parts place in Houston (performance parts for some GM car...). I've gotten it straightened out- but they successfully used it.
Almost nobody checks billing addresses over the phone or online.
Nobody asks for a signature for mailorder or online purchases- how would they DO that.
Nobody that I've dealt with in recent times asked for the validation code from the back of the card- in general, I don't believe they do.
Nobody attempts to change the account- they just try to purchase with it. In many cases they succeed.
All it would take for someone to take you for several hundred dollars is to make a duplicate card (Easy with a magstripe writer) and use it at those pay at the pump gas pumps. No validation, no checking, no PIN.
With the electronic transactions that we have nowadays, you're going to see less and less of that sort of thing being possible. They're going to resort to snooping WLANs like Disney is setting up if they can. Sad thing is, they claim it's 128 bit encrypted- is that WEP or IPSec? If it's WEP, they might as well be broadcasting in the clear.
How long will it be before they get nailed anyway?
on
Disney World Goes 802.11b
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Unless they're using IPSec or something like it, they're vulnerable. WEP doesn't secure worth spit even with 128 bits because they implemented the whole protocol as an insecure system. Also of note is the fact that there is pretty much no commercial IDS software that would effectively catch someone doing something bogus in time to find them in a wireless context.
It's pure bravado that bases their claims of security- unless they have a security staff sweeping the entire park with DF gear, they're NOT going to catch anyone doing something illegitimate on their WLAN.
...that we would have a "terrorist backlash" no matter what we did. This whole mess has been building for decades- even if we did nothing they'd keep at it because they think we are the great evil in the world and disapprove of our way of life in the strongest way.
...it's a damn shame that he's largely unknown by the public, not unlike Tesla.
He'd invented numerous devices, 165 of them in fact, many revolving around television. RCA screwed him out of their value- Sarnoff, the CEO of RCA at that time, did everything he could to destroy Farnsworth in the courts.
Because of this, devices like the Fusor, perhaps the smallest working hot fusion device ever devised, went by the wayside until recently.
They should be teaching computer use and literacy- there's a big difference there. Windows isn't everywhere, like many would hope that it is. There's mainframes, unix servers and workstations, etc. They DON'T work like Windows- and they're not getting displaced anytime soon.
The argument of "teaching" Windows because that's what is out there is bogus because there's much, much more than Windows out there in the world. There's much more than MS Office out there.
Doesn't mean I should accept what they're doing to us because it's not as bad as what China's doing to their people. Wrong is wrong, no matter the extent thereof.
With Sistina, you have that sneakiness involved. People don't like feeling like they've been had- and what Sistina pulled tends to make people feel like they've been had. This feeling tends to make people take the GPL version and transcend the closed version- if this happens, there's little reason for buying the closed one (Certification? Anyone can go through and audit the code and run bounds checkers over it, if they've got time and money- then sell the certified copy plus consulting services, etc.).
In the case of Ghostscript, they were up-front about what they were about from the get-go and haven't made people feel like they were had. In the case of Sistina and GFS, we have the reverse and people are peeved about it.
I don't think Sistina's going to last with the current course of actions.
It's nuts- open invitation to insert chaos into a working system. And, I do believe that there IS something in the works for this sort of thing for desktops.
It's all in how you look at things- you're looking at this obviously from the "free market" and "free will" school of thinking. Sorry to say, it's not applicable here.
MS has deals that prohibit most of the machines being sold as complete machines in most retail outlets without their software.
Most people don't care about the software and just use whatever is provided them, so long as it does what they need of it. Really, there's nothing wrong in that.
Because of this, MS has this massive network effect that is difficult to break out of- which makes it more "reasonable" to use their software than other software for many.
At which point is abuses (key word there...) of this situation the fault of the companies bundling or the people using the stuff since they are either bound up (like the OEMs) or know no better?
If you're a device driver or kernel developer, making web pages is nothing more than working at McDonalds to most of those kind of recruiters- why are you doing web coding instead of what you're applying for?
Let's face it, recruiters in boom times are a benefit- in the shallow times, they're not as useful to worse than useless (I'm getting interview opportunities for positions that people like Hall-Kinion are listing online and elsewhere but they apparently won't submit me because they're looking at the explicit request details and insisting on it (Recruiters are really bad about that in times like these...) even though it's a minor detail and non-critical to the actual work involved with the position- in order to get the interviews I've been doing a little research and applying for the positions directly. Times like these, if you're unemployed or getting screwed, you need to use the recruiters, but if you're not getting places, you need to use your OWN initiative.
That includes continuing to code to keep sharp and not sitting on your duff, expecting that a recruiter will place you.
It's Philips that developed the CD format and owns the trademark. Anything non-compliant with the specs they've handed down can't be labeled as a CD or a CD-DA disc.
Why would they need the high-level OpenGL code (Besides, here's a clue for you- they probably DO happen to have the same high-level code, licensed from SGI...) when it's the innards of the driver, working with the low-level pieces that makes the card fast or slow? Since the low-level pieces are not going to be the same (nor, would they likely ever be so) the low-level stuff would be of little help for either company.
And it is unlikely to be used in every situation- there's on-board, ethernet, and RS-485 multidrop based Opto-22. This doesn't even get into the varying embedded solutions from other suppliers that drive the passive module backplane for an Opto-22.
And, that's just Opto-22 stuff, there's all this other lovely stuff that needs driving. In most cases, they have a C or C++ API that snaps right in. For Perl, you had to build the module from that source- and you'd have to pretty much do that for every device you're trying to drive. For me and C++, I had to do very little (pretty much add it to my.so's project) to make a driver for the RS-485 multidrop B2 interface driver that we were using.
And, not to question your choices, but Perl for a systems program (which is what you're describing) on a Naval vessel safety system? Man, you're more confident in Perl and your abilities in it than I would be.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, technically, the outline is supposed to cover what is covered by the Patent grant. The body is supposed to merely be the defense of the WHY the Patent grant should be given.
The Yopy is due out soon (Realize that the Sharp PDA available now isn't much different than the developer release of the Yopy- it's still not a "real" PDA in the same sense as the Agenda...) and the Agenda is already out.
You're supposed to use Fltk to develop apps for either of those, even though they use completely differing GUI engines (Yopy- W, Agenda- MicroWindows)- which means that one app written for the Yopy is liable to work decently enough without major changes on the Agenda (memory permitting...) or an iPaq running Familiar, Similar, Pixil, or some other MicroWindows or X based PDA distribution. The same cannot be said for a Qt/E based PDA. You have either the Sharp PDA or an iPaq in which someone has installed Qt/E on it.
Linux PDAs aren't vapor like you contend- just not pervasive like Windows CE devices or Palm devices.
Somehow I am not surprised.
The anti-semitism isn't becoming.
Do you HONESTLY think that the SS is going to chase down someone ripping people off for a couple of hundred dollars here or there?
Besides, with the numbers, all they'll do is purchase a handfull of things using a card that has some bogus name on the card that matches up with the bogus ID they have. Gasoline would be included with this because at that point because they just wouldn't be caring about it (If the Secret Service were all that special (I'm not saying that they don't do their jobs- it's just that there's not all that many of them...) there wouldn't BE much credit fraud- which isn't true at all.).
Think for a moment that you might not catch a bogus $20 gas purchase- especially if it was done in your normal area of operation. They could concievably fill up 5 or 10 times if they're lucky enough.
As for "everybody" running the addresses through the AVS- that might be your experience, but not mine. 1) If they had, this purchase that this joker made on my new account # wouldn't have went in the first place (wouldn't have made it through- no ID, etc.), and 2) I have yet to be accosted for drivers license, card, etc. for purchases not going to my house.
I've not done computer equipment purchases via mail/online lately, so I don't know about that- but I DO know about other stuff and it doesn't seem to be as you claim.
All you need to do is monitor the ethernet frames or whatever else is coming in on the RF modem. All using a goofball protocol does is ensure that script kiddies don't get in on first base of hacking the net.
It's got vulnerabilities, just like WEP does- just not as exploitable. For a small subnet (and this constitutes that...) SSL's only moderately secure- because an attacker will know up-front that there's financial stuff predominately on this WLAN. If you're in on WEP, then you can then snoop for SSL weaknesses without them knowing, etc. If they're relying on most of the encryption techniques out there, it'll keep most of the script kiddies from pulling something off- but nobody else.
I could see a "Disney" card where you can charge it up w/Cash value and use it like a credit card- with the ability to get a cash refund/credit for anything not used when you leave the park. Otherwise, it's no different than those gift cards Wal-Mart, Target, etc. are selling.
Recently, I had lost my CC and had a new one issued- the only individual that I'd given the new number to was a Hell Desk employee at my ISP to get my autobilling straightened out. 3 days later someone bought some $2300 on the card from a car parts place in Houston (performance parts for some GM car...). I've gotten it straightened out- but they successfully used it.
Almost nobody checks billing addresses over the phone or online.
Nobody asks for a signature for mailorder or online purchases- how would they DO that.
Nobody that I've dealt with in recent times asked for the validation code from the back of the card- in general, I don't believe they do.
Nobody attempts to change the account- they just try to purchase with it. In many cases they succeed.
All it would take for someone to take you for several hundred dollars is to make a duplicate card (Easy with a magstripe writer) and use it at those pay at the pump gas pumps. No validation, no checking, no PIN.
With the electronic transactions that we have nowadays, you're going to see less and less of that sort of thing being possible. They're going to resort to snooping WLANs like Disney is setting up if they can. Sad thing is, they claim it's 128 bit encrypted- is that WEP or IPSec? If it's WEP, they might as well be broadcasting in the clear.
Unless they're using IPSec or something like it, they're vulnerable. WEP doesn't secure worth spit even with 128 bits because they implemented the whole protocol as an insecure system. Also of note is the fact that there is pretty much no commercial IDS software that would effectively catch someone doing something bogus in time to find them in a wireless context.
It's pure bravado that bases their claims of security- unless they have a security staff sweeping the entire park with DF gear, they're NOT going to catch anyone doing something illegitimate on their WLAN.
...that we would have a "terrorist backlash" no matter what we did. This whole mess has been building for decades- even if we did nothing they'd keep at it because they think we are the great evil in the world and disapprove of our way of life in the strongest way.
...it's a damn shame that he's largely unknown by the public, not unlike Tesla.
He'd invented numerous devices, 165 of them in fact, many revolving around television. RCA screwed him out of their value- Sarnoff, the CEO of RCA at that time, did everything he could to destroy Farnsworth in the courts.
Because of this, devices like the Fusor, perhaps the smallest working hot fusion device ever devised, went by the wayside until recently.
Fusor Links:
Fusor Patent at the USPTO
A 1999 article in American Scientist about the Fusor
Richard Hull's webpages
That would be stuff in the state of Colorado in the current, soon to be extant, scheme of DNS entries in the .us domain.
They should be teaching computer use and literacy- there's a big difference there. Windows isn't everywhere, like many would hope that it is. There's mainframes, unix servers and workstations, etc. They DON'T work like Windows- and they're not getting displaced anytime soon.
The argument of "teaching" Windows because that's what is out there is bogus because there's much, much more than Windows out there in the world. There's much more than MS Office out there.
Doesn't mean I should accept what they're doing to us because it's not as bad as what China's doing to their people. Wrong is wrong, no matter the extent thereof.
With Sistina, you have that sneakiness involved. People don't like feeling like they've been had- and what Sistina pulled tends to make people feel like they've been had. This feeling tends to make people take the GPL version and transcend the closed version- if this happens, there's little reason for buying the closed one (Certification? Anyone can go through and audit the code and run bounds checkers over it, if they've got time and money- then sell the certified copy plus consulting services, etc.).
In the case of Ghostscript, they were up-front about what they were about from the get-go and haven't made people feel like they were had. In the case of Sistina and GFS, we have the reverse and people are peeved about it.
I don't think Sistina's going to last with the current course of actions.
It's nuts- open invitation to insert chaos into a working system. And, I do believe that there IS something in the works for this sort of thing for desktops.
It's all in how you look at things- you're looking at this obviously from the "free market" and "free will" school of thinking. Sorry to say, it's not applicable here.
MS has deals that prohibit most of the machines being sold as complete machines in most retail outlets without their software.
Most people don't care about the software and just use whatever is provided them, so long as it does what they need of it. Really, there's nothing wrong in that.
Because of this, MS has this massive network effect that is difficult to break out of- which makes it more "reasonable" to use their software than other software for many.
At which point is abuses (key word there...) of this situation the fault of the companies bundling or the people using the stuff since they are either bound up (like the OEMs) or know no better?
Uh, you just invalidated your claims there...
"I know most of the better ones in my area, and they all tell me to take something off my resume if it isn't related to what I do."
Do anything you can to get money in there, just take their advice and don't list it if it's not relevant.
If you're a device driver or kernel developer, making web pages is nothing more than working at McDonalds to most of those kind of recruiters- why are you doing web coding instead of what you're applying for?
Let's face it, recruiters in boom times are a benefit- in the shallow times, they're not as useful to worse than useless (I'm getting interview opportunities for positions that people like Hall-Kinion are listing online and elsewhere but they apparently won't submit me because they're looking at the explicit request details and insisting on it (Recruiters are really bad about that in times like these...) even though it's a minor detail and non-critical to the actual work involved with the position- in order to get the interviews I've been doing a little research and applying for the positions directly. Times like these, if you're unemployed or getting screwed, you need to use the recruiters, but if you're not getting places, you need to use your OWN initiative.
That includes continuing to code to keep sharp and not sitting on your duff, expecting that a recruiter will place you.
It's Philips that developed the CD format and owns the trademark. Anything non-compliant with the specs they've handed down can't be labeled as a CD or a CD-DA disc.
Oh, well...I didn't want to stay up any later anyway...
Why would they need the high-level OpenGL code (Besides, here's a clue for you- they probably DO happen to have the same high-level code, licensed from SGI...) when it's the innards of the driver, working with the low-level pieces that makes the card fast or slow? Since the low-level pieces are not going to be the same (nor, would they likely ever be so) the low-level stuff would be of little help for either company.
And it is unlikely to be used in every situation- there's on-board, ethernet, and RS-485 multidrop based Opto-22. This doesn't even get into the varying embedded solutions from other suppliers that drive the passive module backplane for an Opto-22.
.so's project) to make a driver for the RS-485 multidrop B2 interface driver that we were using.
And, that's just Opto-22 stuff, there's all this other lovely stuff that needs driving. In most cases, they have a C or C++ API that snaps right in. For Perl, you had to build the module from that source- and you'd have to pretty much do that for every device you're trying to drive. For me and C++, I had to do very little (pretty much add it to my
And, not to question your choices, but Perl for a systems program (which is what you're describing) on a Naval vessel safety system? Man, you're more confident in Perl and your abilities in it than I would be.