My fave, from when ATMs were just beginning to appear in convenience stores and gas bars.
Some theives stole and entire ATM from a gas bar. The ATM was (of course) secured, and the ATM guys were proud of their anti-theft bolts.. it would take an experienced welder 20-30 minutes to free the ATM, which would (of course) give the police lots of time to respond to the alarm.
The theives didn't have a welder.
They backed a cargo van through the side of the store, drove a forklift out of it, ripped the ATM out of the wall with the forklift, and carried it into the van.
Total time: under 90 seconds.
The moral of the story: never underestimate the brute force approach.:o)
Of course, one has to wonder about why theives who could afford a forklift and cargo van would want to steal a few thousand dollars from an ATM... (nobody ever mentioned a stoled forklift or van.)
its like Lord of the Rings: 99% of the people who actually watch it (try the DVD's and watch it in order) they love it. But for some reason, the tiny minority who does not like it aren't satisfied with simply accepting that tastes differ, but they have to vocally try and put it down every chance they get.
Huh?
I didn't care for LOTR (couldn't make it through the books, watched the movies, but didn't like them) but I don't go off putting it down *any* chance I get. (If you want to hear why, I'll tell you - but if you don't want to hear it, I'm not gonna go off like a nut.)
"We're satisfied that DaimlerChrysler did finally certify their compliance with the software agreement, but we are still interested in gaining some information on why they didn't certify within the allotted time," Stowell said. The case "is not completely over yet, because the judge still held out the possibility that we could pursue trying to find out information from DaimlerChrysler on why they took so long to certify."
Uhh, yeah - if that's *really* all you were looking for, why the lawsuit? Why didn't you pick up the damn phone and *call them*.
I did, and it wasn't immediately obvious that you did realize it (and upon a second reading, it still isn't.)
My only point was to correct the parent poster about his first two assertions, which (as I read them) said that if something isn't patented, then it's free game.
Well, if it's not patented, then it *is* free game - anyone is free to create their own implementation, and there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter if you hold a copyright on another implementation, or even on the document describing the format itself - if you didn't patent it, there's nothing you can do to stop me making my own implementation.
just because something isn't patented doesn't mean it has no protection under copyright
Umm, what? Copyrights and patents are orthogonal. They cover two completely different things.
According to the USPTO, if something (like software) can be copyrighted, then it *cannot* be patented - although aspects of it (like an algorithm) might qualify for a patent, the code itself would not. The general rule is that patents protect ideas, copyright protects expressions or implementations.
This is essentially what SCO is claiming with their copyright arguments, as I understand it.
In order to determine what SCO is claiming, one must ask which day of the week it is.
which is not to say those formats cannot be patented, just that it's not what is going on here
Nobody is claiming that - they're claiming that the format *is not* patented, and that (by definition) you *cannot* copyright a format, so therefore SCO's claims are baseless.
Unless they can show that the kernel's ELF loader contains code copyrighted by them, they have no case.
Remember the last time they "showed the code"? Even though there was no infringement, it got removed, *within hours*.
I bet Sontag and McBride said to themselves.. "hey, let's see if we can get 'em to remove ELF! We'll just tell them that it's ours, and they'll just remove it out of principle!"
They're daring us to switch from ELF to something else!
Anyone remember some little company named Rambus sitting in on industry standard-setting and then running down to the patent office?
Yeah, they're the same, except that the 'little company' didn't exist when the standard was written, don't have clear title to the format, waited *NINE YEARS* to bring it up, and doesn't have a patent, and thinks that this is a *copyright* issue.
But yeah, except for all those differences, it's totally the same.
The flaw exists in Windows, therefore it's a Windows flaw.
If it was a Mozilla flaw, it would only exist in Mozilla. The fact that it affects IE, MS Office, and who knows what else means that it's not a flaw in Mozilla (by definition.)
This could mean that all code that was written outside of the USofA and implemented in OSS projects, like Linux, is not under the GPL but under copyright.
If something is under the GPL, by definition it is also under copyright. If it's not under copyright, it's in the public domain, it's not covered by the GPL (because someone can legally use the code for whatever they want, without being bound by the GPL.)
That could mean that somebody who is a kernel developer sells his copyright to, say, SCO.
First of all, this may come as a shock to you, but SCO already has copyrighted code in the kernel. Most of the stuff written by Chris Helwig(sp?) was done while he was at Caldera (now SCO), with their full blessing.
Secondly, even if SCO didn't have any code in the kernel, there is nothing stopping a kernel author from selling (or otherwise transferring) the copyright to their code to SCO (or to anyone else, for that matter.) They can do it right now if they could find a buyer, and it wouldn't change anything.
I surely hope that my reasoning is completely false.
you have to love these suggestions
* Do not install ActiveX controls using a pop-up window or HTML dialog.
* Do not suggest to users they should lower their security settings to install an ActiveX control.
* Do create an instance of the ActiveX control on a standalone page describing the purpose and end-user impact of the control.
I had to read that twice to be sure that it was true...
They're saying they're making IE more secure by asking website authors not to exploit it?!?!?!?
I think that it would be a tie between "THX-1138" and "Desparate Living!" If you do not know what "Desparate Living" is, consider yourself lucky.
OK, I haven't seen "Desparate Living", but I have seen THX-1138.. and I gotta say, if you think that was the worst movie you've seen, then you've never seen "Santa Claus vs. the Martians" or "Tammy and the T-Rex"
These are two HUGE stinkers... seriously, I didn't think it was possible to make movies that bad.
I don't know if it's true or not, but it's at least plausible... if you want to try to track it down some more, just Google for "thx-1138 phone number".
It shows up in a few other places, such as American Graffiti (the car driven by Harrison Ford has the plate number THX 138), and the film "Dark Star" by John Carpenter (one of Lucas's classmates), one of the toilet tanks is labeled "THX 1138" (make what you will of that - Carpenter ain't talking.)
Rumor has it that it shows up (in one form or another) in every movie that Lucas has directed.
Imagine if everyone used encryption. Would spam not then be a relatively small problem?
No, it would continue unabated, and destroy most of email's ubiquity.
If Bob spams Alice
The problem isn't that Bob is going to spam Alice. The problem is that Bob is going to spam several thousand (or million) people.
he gets his key revoked when Alice forwards it to his certificate authority. Now his key can be blacklisted by email clients
So Bob then just buys a new key, and discards the old one. Or are you suggesting that everybody who wants to send email has to go through a background check first?
a small charge for a signed certificate should be enough to prevent Bob from generating an endless numbers of keys
Wrong. A small charge wouldn't stop a spammer from buying a new key every few days (the length of time it will take for the CA to investigate the complaint, revoke the cert and add it to the CRL.)
But it will be enough to prevent Fred, the innocent person who is living paycheck-to-paycheck, from using email at all.
And after Bob and all the other spammers have done this a few thousand times, the CRLs get so big as to become unmanageable, and the whole system crumbles under the load.
The war against spam will be won by a new mail protocol.
Please explain this.
How is a mail protocol supposed to know the intention of the sender?
Any protocol you can come up with, anyone with half a brain will be able to use to spam. I dare you to post an idea for a protocol here that will work, and still be half as useful as email is currently.
Spam is a social problem, and will require a social solution.
by presenting documentation of locations of former weapons
Err, so... telling people where the thing that you don't have anymore used to be?
documentation or other proof of destruction of said weapons
Ahh, so a piece of paper stating that you don't have them anymore?
unfettered inspection of any site in the country
Which they had.
Things that saddam never allowed nor provided.
Bullshit. He provided everything in your list.
if he HAD done this, the bastard would still be in power
The funny thing is that he did, and he's not in power, but morons like you seem to think he was lying.
As someone said: If you had a means to stop someone from invading your country, wouldn't you use them?
So, either Saddam was willing to give up his power and risk his life to play martyr, or he didn't have the weapons the US said he did. Considering the point is that he didn't want to give up his power at all is the whole damn point of the US invasion, there is only one answer to the questions of "did he have weapons of mass destruction."
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, and am a supporter of PBS ("Friend of 7".)
(no commercial advertisements) like PBS
Bwahahahah... Have you ever watched PBS? It's filled with commercial advertisements.. Let me provide an example: "This program is brought to you by a grant from the Chubb Group".
What is this, other than a commercial advertisement? Because they're not 30-second clips interrupting the program doesn't mean they're not commercial, or advertisements.
Exactly. It's not 'realistic' for Peter to invent web shooters, but it is realistic for one or two guys at Oscorp to invent a battlesuit, personal harrier jet the size of a skateboard, and a super-soldier potion?
Peter went from genius to normal high-school boy.
This is the biggest problem that I have with the movies..
Peter being a genius, and actually inventing the webbing, spider-bugs, etc. are a critical not only to his character, but to the stories themselves.
Most of Spiderman's foes are either scientists, or people modified by scientists for evil purposes.
It's important for Peter Parker to be a scientist, because it balances the perception of science. In the comics, science is a neutral force that can be harnessed for good or evil.
The movies change that, so that science is a tool that is only used for evil purposes - and it's up to the 'pure' non-scientist to defeat it.
I think Raimi tried to address this in the first movie (Peter is 'good' at science, and is offered a job at Oscorp), but this failed miserably, as you still never know if he was offered the job just because he was the best friend of the president's son, and "you like science, here's a science job" just isn't the same as actually inventing and creating the tools.
Raimi's excuse is just that, an excuse. And it's a pretty poor one at that.
Please list ten of the usability ideas that his site violates. If you're not trolling, you shouldn't have any problem listing ten items out of 'a ton'.
Slashdot Mirror
My fave, from when ATMs were just beginning to appear in convenience stores and gas bars.
:o)
Some theives stole and entire ATM from a gas bar. The ATM was (of course) secured, and the ATM guys were proud of their anti-theft bolts.. it would take an experienced welder 20-30 minutes to free the ATM, which would (of course) give the police lots of time to respond to the alarm.
The theives didn't have a welder.
They backed a cargo van through the side of the store, drove a forklift out of it, ripped the ATM out of the wall with the forklift, and carried it into the van.
Total time: under 90 seconds.
The moral of the story: never underestimate the brute force approach.
Of course, one has to wonder about why theives who could afford a forklift and cargo van would want to steal a few thousand dollars from an ATM... (nobody ever mentioned a stoled forklift or van.)
its like Lord of the Rings: 99% of the people who actually watch it (try the DVD's and watch it in order) they love it. But for some reason, the tiny minority who does not like it aren't satisfied with simply accepting that tastes differ, but they have to vocally try and put it down every chance they get.
:o)
Huh?
I didn't care for LOTR (couldn't make it through the books, watched the movies, but didn't like them) but I don't go off putting it down *any* chance I get. (If you want to hear why, I'll tell you - but if you don't want to hear it, I'm not gonna go off like a nut.)
Oh yeah - I loved Firefly.
"We're satisfied that DaimlerChrysler did finally certify their compliance with the software agreement, but we are still interested in gaining some information on why they didn't certify within the allotted time," Stowell said. The case "is not completely over yet, because the judge still held out the possibility that we could pursue trying to find out information from DaimlerChrysler on why they took so long to certify."
Uhh, yeah - if that's *really* all you were looking for, why the lawsuit? Why didn't you pick up the damn phone and *call them*.
tricycle - unicycle
tripod - unipod?
Read what I said
I did, and it wasn't immediately obvious that you did realize it (and upon a second reading, it still isn't.)
My only point was to correct the parent poster about his first two assertions, which (as I read them) said that if something isn't patented, then it's free game.
Well, if it's not patented, then it *is* free game - anyone is free to create their own implementation, and there is nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter if you hold a copyright on another implementation, or even on the document describing the format itself - if you didn't patent it, there's nothing you can do to stop me making my own implementation.
just because something isn't patented doesn't mean it has no protection under copyright
Umm, what? Copyrights and patents are orthogonal. They cover two completely different things.
According to the USPTO, if something (like software) can be copyrighted, then it *cannot* be patented - although aspects of it (like an algorithm) might qualify for a patent, the code itself would not. The general rule is that patents protect ideas, copyright protects expressions or implementations.
This is essentially what SCO is claiming with their copyright arguments, as I understand it.
In order to determine what SCO is claiming, one must ask which day of the week it is.
which is not to say those formats cannot be patented, just that it's not what is going on here
Nobody is claiming that - they're claiming that the format *is not* patented, and that (by definition) you *cannot* copyright a format, so therefore SCO's claims are baseless.
Unless they can show that the kernel's ELF loader contains code copyrighted by them, they have no case.
Come on, this is a dare.
Remember the last time they "showed the code"? Even though there was no infringement, it got removed, *within hours*.
I bet Sontag and McBride said to themselves.. "hey, let's see if we can get 'em to remove ELF! We'll just tell them that it's ours, and they'll just remove it out of principle!"
They're daring us to switch from ELF to something else!
Anyone remember some little company named Rambus sitting in on industry standard-setting and then running down to the patent office?
Yeah, they're the same, except that the 'little company' didn't exist when the standard was written, don't have clear title to the format, waited *NINE YEARS* to bring it up, and doesn't have a patent, and thinks that this is a *copyright* issue.
But yeah, except for all those differences, it's totally the same.
I keep my entire home directory in a Subversion repository.
:o)
Funny, when I first read that, I thought it said Rebversion...
And I thought "Yikes! So that's what happened to the Goatse guy."
heh.. I always like using "Nunya Bidnes" for stuff like that. :o)
What about Bombardment of Bible Questions? :o)
No, it was a Windows flaw.
The flaw exists in Windows, therefore it's a Windows flaw.
If it was a Mozilla flaw, it would only exist in Mozilla. The fact that it affects IE, MS Office, and who knows what else means that it's not a flaw in Mozilla (by definition.)
I think you misunderstand a great deal.
This could mean that all code that was written outside of the USofA and implemented in OSS projects, like Linux, is not under the GPL but under copyright.
If something is under the GPL, by definition it is also under copyright. If it's not under copyright, it's in the public domain, it's not covered by the GPL (because someone can legally use the code for whatever they want, without being bound by the GPL.)
That could mean that somebody who is a kernel developer sells his copyright to, say, SCO.
First of all, this may come as a shock to you, but SCO already has copyrighted code in the kernel. Most of the stuff written by Chris Helwig(sp?) was done while he was at Caldera (now SCO), with their full blessing.
Secondly, even if SCO didn't have any code in the kernel, there is nothing stopping a kernel author from selling (or otherwise transferring) the copyright to their code to SCO (or to anyone else, for that matter.) They can do it right now if they could find a buyer, and it wouldn't change anything.
I surely hope that my reasoning is completely false.
Don't worry, it is.
you have to love these suggestions
* Do not install ActiveX controls using a pop-up window or HTML dialog.
* Do not suggest to users they should lower their security settings to install an ActiveX control.
* Do create an instance of the ActiveX control on a standalone page describing the purpose and end-user impact of the control.
I had to read that twice to be sure that it was true...
They're saying they're making IE more secure by asking website authors not to exploit it?!?!?!?
OK, you can shoot me now. I've seen everything.
I think that it would be a tie between "THX-1138" and "Desparate Living!" If you do not know what "Desparate Living" is, consider yourself lucky.
OK, I haven't seen "Desparate Living", but I have seen THX-1138.. and I gotta say, if you think that was the worst movie you've seen, then you've never seen "Santa Claus vs. the Martians" or "Tammy and the T-Rex"
These are two HUGE stinkers... seriously, I didn't think it was possible to make movies that bad.
According to internet legend, THX-1138 was Lucas's phone number when he was in college.
References Here and
here
I don't know if it's true or not, but it's at least plausible... if you want to try to track it down some more, just Google for "thx-1138 phone number".
It shows up in a few other places, such as American Graffiti (the car driven by Harrison Ford has the plate number THX 138), and the film "Dark Star" by John Carpenter (one of Lucas's classmates), one of the toilet tanks is labeled "THX 1138" (make what you will of that - Carpenter ain't talking.)
Rumor has it that it shows up (in one form or another) in every movie that Lucas has directed.
how do you suppose the attacker was able to retrieve her actual private key in order to sign the message?
keysniffer, from the email app's memory, look-alike key entry dialog-box, buffer overflow in the email program.. do you want more?
If her machine has been compromised, then there is probably a dozen ways to retreive her private key.
Imagine if everyone used encryption. Would spam not then be a relatively small problem?
No, it would continue unabated, and destroy most of email's ubiquity.
If Bob spams Alice
The problem isn't that Bob is going to spam Alice. The problem is that Bob is going to spam several thousand (or million) people.
he gets his key revoked when Alice forwards it to his certificate authority. Now his key can be blacklisted by email clients
So Bob then just buys a new key, and discards the old one. Or are you suggesting that everybody who wants to send email has to go through a background check first?
a small charge for a signed certificate should be enough to prevent Bob from generating an endless numbers of keys
Wrong. A small charge wouldn't stop a spammer from buying a new key every few days (the length of time it will take for the CA to investigate the complaint, revoke the cert and add it to the CRL.)
But it will be enough to prevent Fred, the innocent person who is living paycheck-to-paycheck, from using email at all.
And after Bob and all the other spammers have done this a few thousand times, the CRLs get so big as to become unmanageable, and the whole system crumbles under the load.
The war against spam will be won by a new mail protocol.
Please explain this.
How is a mail protocol supposed to know the intention of the sender?
Any protocol you can come up with, anyone with half a brain will be able to use to spam. I dare you to post an idea for a protocol here that will work, and still be half as useful as email is currently.
Spam is a social problem, and will require a social solution.
by presenting documentation of locations of former weapons
Err, so... telling people where the thing that you don't have anymore used to be?
documentation or other proof of destruction of said weapons
Ahh, so a piece of paper stating that you don't have them anymore?
unfettered inspection of any site in the country
Which they had.
Things that saddam never allowed nor provided.
Bullshit. He provided everything in your list.
if he HAD done this, the bastard would still be in power
The funny thing is that he did, and he's not in power, but morons like you seem to think he was lying.
As someone said: If you had a means to stop someone from invading your country, wouldn't you use them?
So, either Saddam was willing to give up his power and risk his life to play martyr, or he didn't have the weapons the US said he did. Considering the point is that he didn't want to give up his power at all is the whole damn point of the US invasion, there is only one answer to the questions of "did he have weapons of mass destruction."
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, and am a supporter of PBS ("Friend of 7".)
(no commercial advertisements) like PBS
Bwahahahah... Have you ever watched PBS? It's filled with commercial advertisements.. Let me provide an example: "This program is brought to you by a grant from the Chubb Group".
What is this, other than a commercial advertisement? Because they're not 30-second clips interrupting the program doesn't mean they're not commercial, or advertisements.
The story was updated "for the times" to have it make more sense. Radiation -> Genetic Engineering, etc.
So today, science is evil, and will only be used by people who are insane?
Its called "dumbing it down" Sam, fess up.
Exactly. It's not 'realistic' for Peter to invent web shooters, but it is realistic for one or two guys at Oscorp to invent a battlesuit, personal harrier jet the size of a skateboard, and a super-soldier potion?
Peter went from genius to normal high-school boy.
This is the biggest problem that I have with the movies..
Peter being a genius, and actually inventing the webbing, spider-bugs, etc. are a critical not only to his character, but to the stories themselves.
Most of Spiderman's foes are either scientists, or people modified by scientists for evil purposes.
It's important for Peter Parker to be a scientist, because it balances the perception of science. In the comics, science is a neutral force that can be harnessed for good or evil.
The movies change that, so that science is a tool that is only used for evil purposes - and it's up to the 'pure' non-scientist to defeat it.
I think Raimi tried to address this in the first movie (Peter is 'good' at science, and is offered a job at Oscorp), but this failed miserably, as you still never know if he was offered the job just because he was the best friend of the president's son, and "you like science, here's a science job" just isn't the same as actually inventing and creating the tools.
Raimi's excuse is just that, an excuse. And it's a pretty poor one at that.
His site violates tons of usability ideas
Such as?
Please list ten of the usability ideas that his site violates. If you're not trolling, you shouldn't have any problem listing ten items out of 'a ton'.
I rented Bowling for Columbine from Blockbuster - although I live in Canada; perhaps the boycott only applies to the US stores?