And as I kept saying, it's a copyright for the article. Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between a copyright, a patent and a trademark then you really have no ability to have a discussion on this, now do you?
And copyright only protects the textual entity of the specification, not the implementation of XML as code. It is used to avoid plagiarism.
It's the equivalent of a New York Times Article being used by someone else who takes credit. That is what copyright protects against. The specification in a technical sense is not nor can it be copyrighted. An article ABOUT the specification CAN be copyrighted.
Seriosuly dude, don't quit your day job to become a patent attorney.
And before you even try to point it out, Yes I know the above case about McDonalds is more of a trademark than a copyright. Still, it was an example of verbage not an actual case.
Also just for the record, XML would require a PATENT not a copyright. A copyright is for printed works and works of art. Which is the most likely answer to why their isn't a copyright and I was waiting to see how far you would go to hang yourself if given enough rope.
In this case, XML would require a patent (for the working idea) or a trademark (to secure it's name). Now a patent being issued is more than likely true... but NOT a copyright.
It is impossible to copyright XML, you patent it.
Let that be your final lesson in patent,trademark and copyright law. For more information, visit the library of congress, you dolt.
You can find it in every ad on TV and every newspaper ad and ant article about a copyrighted item (Mcdonalds is a copyright of McDonalds inc(c)1994,1995,1996, etc)
Standards corporate procedure. You should know this being a director in a corporation.
And again, you have yet to show where I am wrong and continue to agree with me. Should I assume that you concede the point?
Well then you should know that unl;ess that copyright is displayed next to the item that is copyrighted, that you are either:
a) showing the copyright improperly or b) the item is NOT copyrightted
And as I keep saying, they fail to specify anywhere in there that XML is a copyright with language such as "XML is a copyright of..." or "XML(c)2000".
The copyright they display is for the information provided on the page (notice it's at the bottom of just about every single page of the W3C in exactly the same way? Unless all their copyrights were received at the exact same time, then I am correct.
Seriously, as a CTO, you really should be more familiar with copyright, patent and trademark law.
The notice is not required but any copyright lawyer will tell you that in order to show an infringement took place in a court, it helps to show that it was plain to see that the media type was copyrighted to the individual who infringed. To show to individuals that your media type is copyrighted, you use the designated copyright symbol followed by year of copyright.
Without these things clearly displayed, it is hard to show that the person willfully infringed. This is why it is used.
I do not say this out of ignorance, I say this out of experience as I went through a copyright battle last year with an infringer and had to use the Internet Archive to show the individuals infringing took place on said date.
That's copyright for the info on the page, dumbass. If XML was copyrighted, it would require them to put "XML(c)2000" or something similar on the page which they didn't.
I understand not knowing what a copyright is (or how they work), but trying to sound like you do only makes you look more stupid.:)
I'm sorry about getting UML and SGML mixed up but you are wrong about it being a markup language... it's what ML stands for. It is an open standard as the W3C is a body for the maintenance of web standards and since they also handle XML, they maintain the standard; since it isn't closed it is therefore an 'open standard'. And it is NOT copyrighted (according to the W3C).
Geez. I may have made one mistake but you seem to go on and on and on. I suggest stopping while you're ahead next time to make yourself sound a bit less foolish.
What is XML? XML is an open standard developed from UML. It is a markup language much like HTML meant to replace EDI and other technologies that allow data to easily be shared between applications and environments.
Being an open stadard, it cannot be copyrighted. However, tools built with XML can. Copyrighting just the XML in a tool has yet to be shown as an enforceable copyright but that doesn't stop them from attempting to say it is enforceable.
You can write anything on paper but it still doesn't make it true.
The statement would stand if Linux did not take a 'secure by default' perspective to installs. And some of this is end user's faut yet again because default installs of distros often need several packages updated. You do not blame the distro or the underlying OS because the user failed to update those apps.
In comparison, one can say the same thing about Microsoft's product but because they do not have a 'secure by default' mentallity (until ever so recently) and still have bad practices like applications running as root and the browser render engine being integrated into the OS which they refuse to correct, the fault again lies with them.
In the Open Source arena, security comes first. You cannot say this about Microsoft.
Which is why I precluded my statement with the same; technologically it is a step backwards but for all functional purposes, it is a step forward.
Hell, while I thought about this, I envisioned local market ISPs selling cheap thin clients and then setting up a services side to stream applications to the clients through a small cluster.
In alot of senses, web services will thrive once we kill the PC. And thus, it is also a step forward as well.
Just as with code, sometimes to have to rewrite the underlying base to improve fnctionallity.
How is this a step backwards? Maybe only because thin clients came BEFORE the PC. But in all other senses, it's a step forward. IT depts now realize that end-users don't care about security; their passwords suck, they download cursurs and other spyware loaded apps and they wil actually answer that phishing email!
Anything that relies upon the end-user for security is a potential threat to the network. But by giving them thin clients with limited apps that they can access from a server (or cluster), you are giving them the same functionallity that they need to do their jobs with none of the added risk.
At Amazon from 95-97, we all ran thin clients with web apps and we never had a problem... in the offices.:)
It's only a step back for the end-user; it's a step forward for the IT dept that has to support the PC of the end-user.
Just One More Vulnerability
on
The PC Is Not Dead
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Every PC used by a computer illiterate (or at least average office employee), is just another excuse to get viruses, trojans, worms, spyware, etc.
These people couldn't give a shit about your responsibility to maintain security; they want the latest mouse cursors and to answer that email from Zimbabwe.
Remove there ability to affect the rest of the network. Remove their PC and give them a thin clien/dumb terminal.
Dumb Terminals For Everyone
on
The PC Is Not Dead
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Quite honstly, most users could work perfectly fine with a dumb terminal. All most office workers need is printer access, a web browser and basic office apps. Why do I need to set each of them up with a PC for that?
And now with Flash memory sticks, you can run entire environments separate from the OS entirely!
No... that's the homoerotic porn version where his costume is made of latex and he spends most of his time tying up flaming homosexuals and forcing them to talk while managed to deflect spurting projectiles with his bracelets which double as a cock ring.
Slashdot Mirror
And as I kept saying, it's a copyright for the article. Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between a copyright, a patent and a trademark then you really have no ability to have a discussion on this, now do you?
And copyright only protects the textual entity of the specification, not the implementation of XML as code. It is used to avoid plagiarism.
It's the equivalent of a New York Times Article being used by someone else who takes credit. That is what copyright protects against. The specification in a technical sense is not nor can it be copyrighted. An article ABOUT the specification CAN be copyrighted.
Seriosuly dude, don't quit your day job to become a patent attorney.
And before you even try to point it out, Yes I know the above case about McDonalds is more of a trademark than a copyright. Still, it was an example of verbage not an actual case.
Also just for the record, XML would require a PATENT not a copyright. A copyright is for printed works and works of art. Which is the most likely answer to why their isn't a copyright and I was waiting to see how far you would go to hang yourself if given enough rope.
In this case, XML would require a patent (for the working idea) or a trademark (to secure it's name). Now a patent being issued is more than likely true... but NOT a copyright.
It is impossible to copyright XML, you patent it.
Let that be your final lesson in patent,trademark and copyright law. For more information, visit the library of congress, you dolt.
You can find it in every ad on TV and every newspaper ad and ant article about a copyrighted item (Mcdonalds is a copyright of McDonalds inc(c)1994,1995,1996, etc)
Standards corporate procedure. You should know this being a director in a corporation.
And again, you have yet to show where I am wrong and continue to agree with me. Should I assume that you concede the point?
Well then you should know that unl;ess that copyright is displayed next to the item that is copyrighted, that you are either:
a) showing the copyright improperly or
b) the item is NOT copyrightted
And as I keep saying, they fail to specify anywhere in there that XML is a copyright with language such as "XML is a copyright of..." or "XML(c)2000".
The copyright they display is for the information provided on the page (notice it's at the bottom of just about every single page of the W3C in exactly the same way? Unless all their copyrights were received at the exact same time, then I am correct.
Seriously, as a CTO, you really should be more familiar with copyright, patent and trademark law.
The notice is not required but any copyright lawyer will tell you that in order to show an infringement took place in a court, it helps to show that it was plain to see that the media type was copyrighted to the individual who infringed. To show to individuals that your media type is copyrighted, you use the designated copyright symbol followed by year of copyright.
Without these things clearly displayed, it is hard to show that the person willfully infringed. This is why it is used.
I do not say this out of ignorance, I say this out of experience as I went through a copyright battle last year with an infringer and had to use the Internet Archive to show the individuals infringing took place on said date.
That's copyright for the info on the page, dumbass. If XML was copyrighted, it would require them to put "XML(c)2000" or something similar on the page which they didn't.
:)
I understand not knowing what a copyright is (or how they work), but trying to sound like you do only makes you look more stupid.
I'm sorry about getting UML and SGML mixed up but you are wrong about it being a markup language... it's what ML stands for. It is an open standard as the W3C is a body for the maintenance of web standards and since they also handle XML, they maintain the standard; since it isn't closed it is therefore an 'open standard'. And it is NOT copyrighted (according to the W3C).
Geez. I may have made one mistake but you seem to go on and on and on. I suggest stopping while you're ahead next time to make yourself sound a bit less foolish.
My apologies... SGML not UML. Got my ML's mixed up. Thanks to everyone for the correction
What is XML? XML is an open standard developed from UML. It is a markup language much like HTML meant to replace EDI and other technologies that allow data to easily be shared between applications and environments.
Being an open stadard, it cannot be copyrighted. However, tools built with XML can. Copyrighting just the XML in a tool has yet to be shown as an enforceable copyright but that doesn't stop them from attempting to say it is enforceable.
You can write anything on paper but it still doesn't make it true.
The statement would stand if Linux did not take a 'secure by default' perspective to installs. And some of this is end user's faut yet again because default installs of distros often need several packages updated. You do not blame the distro or the underlying OS because the user failed to update those apps.
In comparison, one can say the same thing about Microsoft's product but because they do not have a 'secure by default' mentallity (until ever so recently) and still have bad practices like applications running as root and the browser render engine being integrated into the OS which they refuse to correct, the fault again lies with them.
In the Open Source arena, security comes first. You cannot say this about Microsoft.
To answer your question, can a user in Windows edit the code to take care of a security vulnerability they found? No.
Can they in Linux? Yes.
Hence we blame the user in Linux but blame Microsoft in Windows.
I quote Albert Einstein who ever so eloquently said: "Read The Fucking Manual!"
Well there is KIND of a solution. You can install Open Office, Firefox and Linux on a flash memory stick and run it at any internet Cafe.
Of course, this does no good if there is no internet cafe. Still, that's a good idea. Why isn't there a portable Linux Thin Client??
Which is why I precluded my statement with the same; technologically it is a step backwards but for all functional purposes, it is a step forward.
Hell, while I thought about this, I envisioned local market ISPs selling cheap thin clients and then setting up a services side to stream applications to the clients through a small cluster.
In alot of senses, web services will thrive once we kill the PC. And thus, it is also a step forward as well.
Just as with code, sometimes to have to rewrite the underlying base to improve fnctionallity.
How is this a step backwards? Maybe only because thin clients came BEFORE the PC. But in all other senses, it's a step forward. IT depts now realize that end-users don't care about security; their passwords suck, they download cursurs and other spyware loaded apps and they wil actually answer that phishing email!
... in the offices. :)
Anything that relies upon the end-user for security is a potential threat to the network. But by giving them thin clients with limited apps that they can access from a server (or cluster), you are giving them the same functionallity that they need to do their jobs with none of the added risk.
At Amazon from 95-97, we all ran thin clients with web apps and we never had a problem
It's only a step back for the end-user; it's a step forward for the IT dept that has to support the PC of the end-user.
Every PC used by a computer illiterate (or at least average office employee), is just another excuse to get viruses, trojans, worms, spyware, etc.
These people couldn't give a shit about your responsibility to maintain security; they want the latest mouse cursors and to answer that email from Zimbabwe.
Remove there ability to affect the rest of the network. Remove their PC and give them a thin clien/dumb terminal.
Quite honstly, most users could work perfectly fine with a dumb terminal. All most office workers need is printer access, a web browser and basic office apps. Why do I need to set each of them up with a PC for that?
And now with Flash memory sticks, you can run entire environments separate from the OS entirely!
Boo hoo. We didn't want DRM to begin with.
No no no no no...
You just need to turn to the CEO and CIO and say 'If you don't comply, we will nail your testicles to a board!'
Then they'll just hire someone like Bob Flannigan to head up the company.
European Union Anti-trust measure? HA HA!
Issues?? ISSUES?!!! Dude, I have entire subscriptions!!
I concur... and then I conquer.
No... that's the homoerotic porn version where his costume is made of latex and he spends most of his time tying up flaming homosexuals and forcing them to talk while managed to deflect spurting projectiles with his bracelets which double as a cock ring.
:)
And who says I don't have an imagination?
Oh come on... you know you're having fun, admit it? :)
It's only a good end of line if they kill all versions of BASIC
Hey, it was great back in 1986... but so were parachute pants and dressing like you were on Miami vice.