Tip. I have researched it. I am well aware of the facts. I was using it in the same vein as the OP. If you can't understand the tone of my comment then that's fine, it was quite obviously not aimed at someone of your dizzying intellect.
You can sue anyone for anything BUT you shouldn't be able to sue (and win) against e.g. MacDonalds for huring yourself with hot coffee. I mean for pitys sake, you knew it was hot when you bought it. It's bloody coffee. What do you expect?
People should NOT win lawsuits where the main arguement was that they were stupid and it's someone else's fault. It'd be like suing Ford because you hurt yourself in a crash whilst not wearing seatbelts and it's their fault for not warning you enough. OR a drill company for not explicitely warning you that drilling holes in your head with a 10mm drill would cause damage. Or maybe suing God because there's no warning on the sun that it could blind you. Or suing the owner of a tall building for not telling you falling out of their windows would kill you.
Wait, I think there's a slight logical flaw in that last example. Hmm.
Now, at the time, I was a young nooblet and probably should have let it slide but instead I snuck into her office and opened up her Macintosh's word editing software with the intent of some lil' bastardry.
You gained physical access to a computer. That has nothing whatsoever to do with network security. All modern computers, PCs, macs, unixes, linux etc can and should be password protected when you aren't there and they are in a place where they could be physically accessed if you don't want people playing with them. We are discussing stuff that arrives remotely, via email, malware, security holes etc.
We can all break into a house and physically steal the data if it's not secured and that has nothing to do with the architecture of the computer.
Then again, some of us have simply been ignored for YEARS and YEARS. I mean, I have submitted dozens (well ok, a couple) of stories in my time and they have almost all been rejected despite my obvious superiority.
There should (naturally) be a bias towards those of us with lower userids. Especially if their userid is only one digit removed from that of an Slashdot editor.
In-fighting and back-biting should be encouraged. Submitters should fight it out in the ring.
Now, back to reality:
Yes, it's frustrating when you submit a story and it doesn't get published, only to arrive 2 days later, submitted by someone else. Me? I got over it. I reckon there are enough people out there who feel the need to be "famous" for a while by submitting stuff, that the good stories will eventually arrive and a discussion can ensue. Yes, by then we have all read it elsewhere - but IMHO, it's the discussions that happen about the story, once you strip out the spam and detritus, that make Slashdot. This is a change from the old days when it was one of the few news sites around but it's a good one I think.
So, let the editors post what they will, let the mass-submitters submit as they like - who actually cares who really posted the story? you make your Slashdot reputation in the quality of your DISCUSSION, not how many posts you have. Maybe getting rid of the whole home URL altogether would do it.
Yup, it's got me scared. I am off to look for a nice up-to-date piece of antispyware (hmm, is English going the way of german?) and antivirus software for my OS X machine.
What do you mean there isn't anything? How will I protect myself? I don't even have a software firewall switched on?
Help, I'm running about like a headless chicken with only bullshit from politicians and stupid "security" companies to read...... I had better rush off and sign the petition to allow the government to run my life for me. It's obvious that I am a danger to myself.
First to file is much better than first to invent. In the case you mention that you invent someting first but someone else files first (both arrived at the same invention independently), your invention would make their invention INVALID as it would be perfectly valid prior art against their invention.
There's a few complications as regards the way certain countries and regions handle situations like this, but they system, isn't designed to punish you for being slow to file.
Here in Europe we have situations like this quite frequently where someone will oppose a granted patent using as evidence their own (or other) internal documents (or even product brochures). If it can be shown they genuinely have a point, then the patent could be invalidated or, in rare cases they could get to share the patent.
First to invent requires HUGE amounts of perfect paperwork at all times and is open to all sorts of fraud.
Plus, the US is the only major country that doesn't have first-to-file as a basic concept. In fact, that plus opposition boards etc - they are simply copying the European patent office.
Erk, I must get my brain fixed. I read "weird tent sex" and was strangely interested. I mean, what constitutes weird tent sex exactly, is sex in tents intrinsicaly weird or is it only weird when the tents themselvs are participating? Do I need to smoke more weed to understand, or less?
Maybe I just need more sleep. In a bed not a tent. Gah, I have tents on the brain now. It's an intents feeling.
Yes, my whole pointless ramble was designed to get you to read that inane pun.
Exactly, "wet" photography has a significantly greater dynamic range than digital. However it is easier to make a photo with a very large dynamic range using digital cameras and Photoshop. Needs a tripod.
Simply set up camera and tripod (this is excellend for landscapes). Expose for the sky, take image (foreground vastly underexposed). Expose for foreground, take image (sky blown out). Take a few more at other exposures, maybe to get the exposure of a flower or the sea or something. Important bit is that the tripod doesn't move:) (mirror lock up blah blah blah)
Put them all into PS and use the combine function whose name escapes me and it will stitch them together using the whole range of exposures. For example, the average decent digital SLR can expose around 6 levels of exposure (8 for generic film). Doing this you can easily get a photo with 10+ exposure levels which means everything in the photo is properly exposed.
To do the same with film requires various gradient filters and eitehr blind luck (me) or lots of knowledge (photo pro)
So I wasn't the only one who thought that the Californians would react in exactly the opposite way to everyone else to a tsunami warning.
Everywhere else people would run away and get to high ground etc. On teh Californian coast, thousands of people would flock to the beaches clutching surfboards, yelling "dude" and "like totally rad, man" and maybe I'll catch my first tube today". Except the ones mumbling about 50 year storms of course. They'd be booking flights to Australia.
Very true, it's been around for a long long time and usenet usually has mentions of such things that predate the more web-based disclosures but there are a lot of people out there (and probably even here on Slashdot) who aren't really familiar with usenet, never having experienced the world before deja-news and Google Groups. Or those that think there's nothing outside of alt.binaries.*
*smirk*
I was simply picking the easiest place for someone to find references to it:)
Hmm, Did I just do the smug old git (In my day this was all just ASCII text and we were lucky if our modems did kbps etc etc) routine there?
It's these grey hairs I tell you, they are the old things not me. I mean I'm not actually grey or anything, mumble mumble dribble where's me tea.
Slashdot Mirror
But you still need a DeLorean.
I think it's broken. All I can see are grey swirly things.
T.
It's all simply paving the way for the new "Cor(e) Blimey, Gov" chip aimed squarely at the olde worlde Lahndahn market. :)
:(
T.
PS My wife says I have a technically devoid fluff piece.
woohoo my first Troll moderation ever :)
Tip. I have researched it. I am well aware of the facts. I was using it in the same vein as the OP. If you can't understand the tone of my comment then that's fine, it was quite obviously not aimed at someone of your dizzying intellect.
T.
You can sue anyone for anything BUT you shouldn't be able to sue (and win) against e.g. MacDonalds for huring yourself with hot coffee. I mean for pitys sake, you knew it was hot when you bought it. It's bloody coffee. What do you expect?
People should NOT win lawsuits where the main arguement was that they were stupid and it's someone else's fault. It'd be like suing Ford because you hurt yourself in a crash whilst not wearing seatbelts and it's their fault for not warning you enough. OR a drill company for not explicitely warning you that drilling holes in your head with a 10mm drill would cause damage. Or maybe suing God because there's no warning on the sun that it could blind you. Or suing the owner of a tall building for not telling you falling out of their windows would kill you.
Wait, I think there's a slight logical flaw in that last example. Hmm.
T.
I suspect the important thing here is to also turn off the water when you're not shaving and brushing your teeth.
Troc.
Yep, took me less than 50 milliseconds to work that out :)
T.
No Disassemble iMac (5)
or something
T.
You gained physical access to a computer. That has nothing whatsoever to do with network security. All modern computers, PCs, macs, unixes, linux etc can and should be password protected when you aren't there and they are in a place where they could be physically accessed if you don't want people playing with them. We are discussing stuff that arrives remotely, via email, malware, security holes etc.
We can all break into a house and physically steal the data if it's not secured and that has nothing to do with the architecture of the computer.
Then again, some of us have simply been ignored for YEARS and YEARS. I mean, I have submitted dozens (well ok, a couple) of stories in my time and they have almost all been rejected despite my obvious superiority.
There should (naturally) be a bias towards those of us with lower userids. Especially if their userid is only one digit removed from that of an Slashdot editor.
In-fighting and back-biting should be encouraged. Submitters should fight it out in the ring.
Now, back to reality:
Yes, it's frustrating when you submit a story and it doesn't get published, only to arrive 2 days later, submitted by someone else. Me? I got over it. I reckon there are enough people out there who feel the need to be "famous" for a while by submitting stuff, that the good stories will eventually arrive and a discussion can ensue. Yes, by then we have all read it elsewhere - but IMHO, it's the discussions that happen about the story, once you strip out the spam and detritus, that make Slashdot. This is a change from the old days when it was one of the few news sites around but it's a good one I think.
So, let the editors post what they will, let the mass-submitters submit as they like - who actually cares who really posted the story? you make your Slashdot reputation in the quality of your DISCUSSION, not how many posts you have. Maybe getting rid of the whole home URL altogether would do it.
*shrug*
Troc
Yup, it's got me scared. I am off to look for a nice up-to-date piece of antispyware (hmm, is English going the way of german?) and antivirus software for my OS X machine.
;)
What do you mean there isn't anything? How will I protect myself? I don't even have a software firewall switched on?
Help, I'm running about like a headless chicken with only bullshit from politicians and stupid "security" companies to read...... I had better rush off and sign the petition to allow the government to run my life for me. It's obvious that I am a danger to myself.
Or maybe I am exaggerating
Troc.
Am I the only one who is incapable of reading that (even in the dubious privacy of my own head), without saying it in a "computer" voice?
Troc.
No more rhymes now, I mean it.
Erm. No.
First to file is much better than first to invent. In the case you mention that you invent someting first but someone else files first (both arrived at the same invention independently), your invention would make their invention INVALID as it would be perfectly valid prior art against their invention.
There's a few complications as regards the way certain countries and regions handle situations like this, but they system, isn't designed to punish you for being slow to file.
Here in Europe we have situations like this quite frequently where someone will oppose a granted patent using as evidence their own (or other) internal documents (or even product brochures). If it can be shown they genuinely have a point, then the patent could be invalidated or, in rare cases they could get to share the patent.
First to invent requires HUGE amounts of perfect paperwork at all times and is open to all sorts of fraud.
Plus, the US is the only major country that doesn't have first-to-file as a basic concept. In fact, that plus opposition boards etc - they are simply copying the European patent office.
Maybe I just need more sleep. In a bed not a tent. Gah, I have tents on the brain now. It's an intents feeling.
Yes, my whole pointless ramble was designed to get you to read that inane pun.
*smirk*
Troc.
On Slashdot, Uninformed Speculation wins every time :)
Troc.
It's a ceramic impregnated cloth material of some kind.
I would google for it but I am lazy.
Troc.
How about you go out and improve your Dutch skills?
Troc
PS I don't give a toss how your mates mod me, I'm invincible
It's the KLF (also knows as the JAMMS), furthermore known as the Justified Ancients of Mu Mu that go "Mu" :)
Troc.
Exactly, "wet" photography has a significantly greater dynamic range than digital. However it is easier to make a photo with a very large dynamic range using digital cameras and Photoshop. Needs a tripod.
:) (mirror lock up blah blah blah)
Simply set up camera and tripod (this is excellend for landscapes). Expose for the sky, take image (foreground vastly underexposed). Expose for foreground, take image (sky blown out). Take a few more at other exposures, maybe to get the exposure of a flower or the sea or something. Important bit is that the tripod doesn't move
Put them all into PS and use the combine function whose name escapes me and it will stitch them together using the whole range of exposures. For example, the average decent digital SLR can expose around 6 levels of exposure (8 for generic film). Doing this you can easily get a photo with 10+ exposure levels which means everything in the photo is properly exposed.
To do the same with film requires various gradient filters and eitehr blind luck (me) or lots of knowledge (photo pro)
Hmm
Troc.
So I wasn't the only one who thought that the Californians would react in exactly the opposite way to everyone else to a tsunami warning.
Everywhere else people would run away and get to high ground etc. On teh Californian coast, thousands of people would flock to the beaches clutching surfboards, yelling "dude" and "like totally rad, man" and maybe I'll catch my first tube today". Except the ones mumbling about 50 year storms of course. They'd be booking flights to Australia.
You mean Point Break isn't a documentary?
Troc.
I don't often get referred to as an old-school hard-core geek anymore :(
Troc.
"They threw everything they had at us. I was just in shock."
I guess that includes getting a mention on Slashdot?
Troc
Very true, it's been around for a long long time and usenet usually has mentions of such things that predate the more web-based disclosures but there are a lot of people out there (and probably even here on Slashdot) who aren't really familiar with usenet, never having experienced the world before deja-news and Google Groups. Or those that think there's nothing outside of alt.binaries.*
:)
*smirk*
I was simply picking the easiest place for someone to find references to it
Hmm, Did I just do the smug old git (In my day this was all just ASCII text and we were lucky if our modems did kbps etc etc) routine there?
It's these grey hairs I tell you, they are the old things not me. I mean I'm not actually grey or anything, mumble mumble dribble where's me tea.
Troc.