The reversal problem isn't reversal, and it isn't "caused" by the mirror.
If you point the projector towards your toes, the image on the ceiling will appear upside-down. The top of the image will hit the top of the mirror and be sent toe-ward from the bottom of the image.
If you point the projector towards your headboard, the top and bottom of the image will appear to be in the right places, but now the normal right-side of the image will be on your left. This reversal is caused because you turned the machine around wrt your eyes. It's here where you'll need to switch to the "rear-projection" mode.
Mirrors don't reverse images; that's why they appear backwards.
It was solicited in some way or you wouldn't be receiving prerelease copies of movies.
And I don't doubt it's marked clearly "NOT FOR RESALE". Just like all those records the local radio deejays dump in the cutout bins at the secondhand music store. Illegally.
It has to do with who is licensed to do what, and by not protecting the material from theft (by shutting down the sharing while it is on your system, e.g.) then you are violating the law by allowing it to be pirated with or without your consent.
Wal-Mart has a corporate policy of beating suppliers until they relent on pricing.
Since digital music costs fractions of a penny to duplicate, the marginal cost is less than one cent, which is where the RIAA's revenue will go once they've been strong-armed by the Wal-Mart business process.
The only way Wal-Mart will not do this is if they buy the RIAA outright and use their ownership to make up "cost" numbers.
Note that this will be "passed on to the consumer" in the form of a 1% reduction in retail prices.
How hard would it be to hack up a cash register to work as a voting machine, complete with e-reporting to the vote counting center and printing of a hardcopy receipt in duplicate, one for the backup ballot box and one for the customer?
You could revel in your contribution to democracy with the sound of the cha-ching!.
-- "Every time a bell rings, a founding father gets his wings."
If you were given the DVD as part of the movie's marketing, you have a license to watch the movie to further your part of marketing it, and to show it to others for the same purpose. You don't have a license to leave it on your system so your buddies can watch it for free, and you (probably) don't have the right to rent or sell the actual disc.
Now climb out of your basement and get back to work. The black helicopters are not for you.
Therefore, I will inspect anything that is put on that machine, and I will consider unidentified functionalities in software billed as having limited features to be breaches of that security, and I will take action against the purveyors of that insecure software.
And your license can't legally stop me, because shrink-wrap licenses doesn't abrogate my rights, it only protects yours.
Here's why: the interpage links don't work; the text is stultifyingly redundant and verbose (a problem with all C++ documentation, sadly); the explanations are contradictory; and there is no explanation beyond handwaving for the arcanities introduced in the final example.
You're overestimating the involvement of software development management in software design.
They get a software architect (a mid-level techie) to write a software spec, and if it weighs enough and they're burning cash, they approve it.
There's no way to do exhaustive security testing on a word doc with eight dozen TBDs in it.
You're right if you think management was too busy shilling for options to prioritize security considerations in the minds of the architects, but you're wrong if you think they were proactive in the decision to leave the macro holes open. That would assume they're proactive in anything but driving products to market.
The Lilo&Stitch v. Dinosaur comparison is an invalid weak correlation.
The valid difference between those films was that L&S was a strong story with strong feelings and psychological complexity, while Dinosaur was a predictable, tired story with pat characters.
Until L&S, I thought Disney would have to rely on Pixar for all of its quality storytelling (and it's not the CGI at Pixar that makes their films great, it's Stanton and Lasseter, who are absolute masters at creating stories and the characters that are perfect for them).
Disney proper still has the magic, and needs to get past the economic silliness of paint vs. paint-box. CG is far faster, cheaper, and more versatile.
I just wish they'd thrown some proficient story magicians at Treasure Planet, because the visuals were great and could have been better if they'd been better incorporated with a resilient plot and engaged characters.
As there are none in either case except those outlined in the contract between the person editing the code and the person hiring (or not hiring) him to edit the code, they wouldn't be any different.
Here's the result:
It's not against the law to put a backdoor in any software.
It may be against the law to use that backdoor depending on exactly how you use it, but that is a quite different question.
It is against the law to cut off the balls of someone who hasn't been sentenced by a court of law to have his balls cut off.
Installing a backdoor, or telling someone the means of entering through that backdoor, is not in itself prohibited by that law, especially not by the clause you quoted.
None of which punish the mere act of installing the backdoor, nor even accessing the files to install it. It does punish certain abuses of the backdoor (and not because it's a backdoor), but only in certain situations for certain additional reasons.
Read that law carefully. It isn't nearly as broad as you think.
It's front page worthy because/. readers, submitters, and editors are legal-illiterates, so any misunderstanding becomes the fuel for distrust and conflict, and distrust and conflict are the stuff that expose's are made of.
Slashdot Mirror
Average?
.001 percentile is hardly "average".
Hardly.
They send out spam to 180 million people, and get maybe a few hundred suckers.
Being in the
The reversal problem isn't reversal, and it isn't "caused" by the mirror.
If you point the projector towards your toes, the image on the ceiling will appear upside-down. The top of the image will hit the top of the mirror and be sent toe-ward from the bottom of the image.
If you point the projector towards your headboard, the top and bottom of the image will appear to be in the right places, but now the normal right-side of the image will be on your left. This reversal is caused because you turned the machine around wrt your eyes. It's here where you'll need to switch to the "rear-projection" mode.
Mirrors don't reverse images; that's why they appear backwards.
We're not hitch-hiking anymore.
We're riding.
Here I sit with the finest computing gear $2K can buy and I can't FF or REW a video presentation?
What a load of dingoes kidneys this is.
This is no way to show a show.
It was solicited in some way or you wouldn't be receiving prerelease copies of movies.
And I don't doubt it's marked clearly "NOT FOR RESALE". Just like all those records the local radio deejays dump in the cutout bins at the secondhand music store. Illegally.
It has to do with who is licensed to do what, and by not protecting the material from theft (by shutting down the sharing while it is on your system, e.g.) then you are violating the law by allowing it to be pirated with or without your consent.
Wal-Mart has a corporate policy of beating suppliers until they relent on pricing.
Since digital music costs fractions of a penny to duplicate, the marginal cost is less than one cent, which is where the RIAA's revenue will go once they've been strong-armed by the Wal-Mart business process.
The only way Wal-Mart will not do this is if they buy the RIAA outright and use their ownership to make up "cost" numbers.
Note that this will be "passed on to the consumer" in the form of a 1% reduction in retail prices.
How hard would it be to hack up a cash register to work as a voting machine, complete with e-reporting to the vote counting center and printing of a hardcopy receipt in duplicate, one for the backup ballot box and one for the customer?
.
You could revel in your contribution to democracy with the sound of the cha-ching!
--
"Every time a bell rings, a founding father gets his wings."
Thank god you're not my lawyer.
If you were given the DVD as part of the movie's marketing, you have a license to watch the movie to further your part of marketing it, and to show it to others for the same purpose. You don't have a license to leave it on your system so your buddies can watch it for free, and you (probably) don't have the right to rent or sell the actual disc.
Now climb out of your basement and get back to work. The black helicopters are not for you.
And then what exactly is a "good whitehat" going todo to stop a DDoS?
Change the network specs to use traceable packets.
(There was a time when one good whitehat who thought of this could have done it.)
Turn it around. /. should offer to block access from a company network.
The productivity gains would be enormous.
I'm responsible for the security of my machine.
Therefore, I will inspect anything that is put on that machine, and I will consider unidentified functionalities in software billed as having limited features to be breaches of that security, and I will take action against the purveyors of that insecure software.
And your license can't legally stop me, because shrink-wrap licenses doesn't abrogate my rights, it only protects yours.
When I call it as
excellent<crap>("specialization")
It instantiates that two-part article.
Here's why: the interpage links don't work; the text is stultifyingly redundant and verbose (a problem with all C++ documentation, sadly); the explanations are contradictory; and there is no explanation beyond handwaving for the arcanities introduced in the final example.
You're overestimating the involvement of software development management in software design.
They get a software architect (a mid-level techie) to write a software spec, and if it weighs enough and they're burning cash, they approve it.
There's no way to do exhaustive security testing on a word doc with eight dozen TBDs in it.
You're right if you think management was too busy shilling for options to prioritize security considerations in the minds of the architects, but you're wrong if you think they were proactive in the decision to leave the macro holes open. That would assume they're proactive in anything but driving products to market.
The Lilo&Stitch v. Dinosaur comparison is an invalid weak correlation.
The valid difference between those films was that L&S was a strong story with strong feelings and psychological complexity, while Dinosaur was a predictable, tired story with pat characters.
Until L&S, I thought Disney would have to rely on Pixar for all of its quality storytelling (and it's not the CGI at Pixar that makes their films great, it's Stanton and Lasseter, who are absolute masters at creating stories and the characters that are perfect for them).
Disney proper still has the magic, and needs to get past the economic silliness of paint vs. paint-box. CG is far faster, cheaper, and more versatile.
I just wish they'd thrown some proficient story magicians at Treasure Planet, because the visuals were great and could have been better if they'd been better incorporated with a resilient plot and engaged characters.
What a maroon.
Still trying to push fads on the public and claim visionary status.
I wonder how much this scam makes him after taxes.
In the time it took to read that submission, Rubik's Cube came and went. Again.
You can't push a fad, you know.
Groovy.
I apologizé. I havé no Frénch on my kéyboard.
As there are none in either case except those outlined in the contract between the person editing the code and the person hiring (or not hiring) him to edit the code, they wouldn't be any different.
Here's the result:
It's not against the law to put a backdoor in any software.
It may be against the law to use that backdoor depending on exactly how you use it, but that is a quite different question.
It is against the law to cut off the balls of someone who hasn't been sentenced by a court of law to have his balls cut off.
So who's really thet morally suspect ones here?
"...with intent to defraud..."
Installing a backdoor, or telling someone the means of entering through that backdoor, is not in itself prohibited by that law, especially not by the clause you quoted.
None of which punish the mere act of installing the backdoor, nor even accessing the files to install it. It does punish certain abuses of the backdoor (and not because it's a backdoor), but only in certain situations for certain additional reasons.
Read that law carefully. It isn't nearly as broad as you think.
It's front page worthy because /. readers, submitters, and editors are legal-illiterates, so any misunderstanding becomes the fuel for distrust and conflict, and distrust and conflict are the stuff that expose's are made of.
Those of you not as well versed in the lore as the rest of you would do well to read the legend of Ken Thompson's backdoor login compiler compiler.
Why?
What's the penalty under the law for putting a backdoor in an open-sourced software project?
None.
That's it. That's the list.
It was only detected because software found a discrepancy.
This would happen at any closed-source shop that had the same software.
No human eyes discovered the problem, and if someone hadn't installed the checks, it might not have been discovered for months or years or ever.