Wiley Publishing, Inc. ("Wiley"), formerly Hungry Minds, Inc., publisher of the well-known and well-regarded "? FOR DUMMIES" series of reference books and products has recently become aware of your use of the "? FOR DUMMIES" trademark and trade dress on your webpage www.slackersguild.com in the form of Slacking For Dummies. As you may know, Wiley has over 100 trademark registrations and applications in the United States, Canada, and other jurisdictions for the trademark "FOR DUMMIES", many "DUMMIES" formatives and the FOR DUMMIES trade dress. The FOR DUMMIES trademark appears not only on our books, but also on CD-ROMs, trade and consumer advertising, in catalogues, point of sale displays, Wiley's websites, and other promotional and licensed material distributed worldwide. This series has been in existence since 1991 and has enjoyed tremendous success.
Since the FOR DUMMIES trademark is a federally registered mark, United States trademark law requires that Wiley take all reasonable steps to prevent others from using its marks, or confusingly similar marks, in such a way so as to "dilute" its distinctiveness as an exclusive designator of Wiley's goods and services. If the mark is used by too many different sources, it becomes a "generic" term, and Wiley may lose its exclusive right to use it. Thus, it is Wiley's responsibility to police for the use of "?. For Dummies" in any manner, and stop all unauthorized use of its trademark. Accordingly, in order to fully protect its valuable trademark, Wiley cannot permit such unauthorized use in connection with your website. Although you may present the defense that your use of the marks is a parody, a parody may still be considered infringing if it results in an increased likelihood of confusion, tarnishment or is disparaging to our reputation. A parody is a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. However, unless the trademark is at least in part of the parody, then your work does not qualify as a parody in the legal sense.
In order to resolve this matter quickly and amicably, we request that you:
1. Remove all materials from your website which bear the infringing material; and
2. Provide written confirmation to me by no later than October 3, 2002, that the above steps have been taken and you will refrain from using the "? For Dummies" mark, or any other mark that is confusingly similar to any Wiley mark, in the future.
While we prefer to resolve this matter informally, Wiley will use all legal remedies available to protect its trademark rights. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Ward Skeel Manager, Contracts and Intellectual Property Wiley Publishing, Inc. (317) 572-3304 Email: kskeel@wiley.com
For the lazy, the comparison between the Prism (real 16-bit) and m130 can be found here.
However, by inspecting this picture, i think that Palm may actually be trying to cover up the fact that there are only 58000-some colors using the dithering technique and that in real life there are actually only 4096 colors.
If this is decided to be legal, does that mean that you can take the Linux kernel source, reject the GPL (the GPL says that you can reject it and regular copyright law applies), change it, compile it, then sell the binary exclusively, as long as you destroy the originals? After that, could you download another copy of the kernel source and do the same modifications, then sell it?
I'm the sole (by far) contributor to a Mac OS X project that people use probably only because there is no PGP for Macintosh. Does this mean it's time to abandon it? I know that I'd lose a lot of my userbase to PGP, even if the PGP client for the email client my app works with wouldn't support PGP/MIME (my app has decrypt/verify-only capabilities).
It's possible that by IPSec they mean only a client, and not a server. This would make it pretty difficult. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if they made an IPSec server available only in Mac OS X Server. Hopefully, this won't be the case. It would be a non-issue at my home (I do have a Linux server), but probably would severely hamper adoption by a regular joe without $1000 to blow.
Anyway, Apple really could do some work on LEAP authentication. A password in the style of is not quite user-friendly (plus if you mess up on the username, it's a pain to fix it.)
It would be sort of interesting if Apple added IPsec support to the AirPort base station (or at least the software base station.) It was shown a while ago that WEP was insecure, and IPsec seems like a much better way to secure a network, as long as the speed hit isn't too big. I've wondered why no other hardware vendors (with the exception of Cisco, with LEAP) have tried to make a more secure version of 802.11b...Perhaps Apple could lead the way here?
It's not the same sort of exploit as most IIS exploits. A IIS exploit gives someone access over an entire server. This exploit gives access to a shell which could read Apache-readable files and execute programs. It might even be able to write to/tmp. But no important files can be deleted or written to.
Now some breast implants are made out of saline, which is a more expensive term for salt-water. So keep the computer away from beach bimbos who say they have nothing to fear from silicone. If one of those things burst, there goes your only source of entertainment.
Perhaps in the server market, but not many people buy IBMs now. Apple used to be selling more computers than any other company (a few months after the iMac intro), but I have the feeling they may have slipped by now.
Anyone Know His Dorm Number?
on
Animated Encryption
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This kid could really use a copy of "RSA Laboratories' Frequently Asked Questions About Today's Cryptography" or "Applied Cryptography" or even "PGP DH vs. RSA FAQ". At the University of Dayton page on this discovery (https://alumni.udayton.edu/np_story.asp?storyID=7 84), he says that Triple-DES could be easily broken.
That is complete B.S.
Triple-DES is a 112-bit algorithm, and perhaps even stronger that Rjindael (AES), since it's been subjected to rigorous cryptanalysis for many, many years.
It seems as if the encryption technology might be secure, but without any information on it, I am very skeptical.
According to a reply to a post of his, the AOL Member's Directory had this to say about him...
From AOL's Member Directory
Member Name: Ronnie Location: Slidell Birthdate: 72 Sex: Male Marital Status: Single with pic Hobbies: Computers Movies Smoking Cars Computers: Like U Care Occupation: Network Administrator Personal Quote: A joint A day Keeps the Doctor away
Two things here. First of all, he is "single with pic." Does this mean that he is cheating on his wife? I encourage someone to call him and find out.
Second of all, does sending spam count as administrating a network?
Third of all, perhaps this would make a great "anti-drug" ad. My anti-drug is not wanting to turn into a maniac spammer.
MPEG4 and DivX are not the same thing. The confusion arose (as all confusion does) because of Microsoft. Microsoft decided that they'd call some Windows Media Player format "MPEG-4" because they were confident that, as they had a monopoly on the OS market, their format (not compression scheme; just file format) would be chosen for the MPEG4 standard.
Instead, it turned out, the commitee working on MPEG4 chose the superior QuickTime format. DivX was based on the WiMP format. And now we have all this confusion.
MORAL: Don't count your chickens before they hatch
"RSA was announced in 1978 [RSA78]. The security of the RSA system is based upon the RSA Problem (RSAP). This problem is conjectured (but not proven) to be equivalent to the Integer Factorisation Problem (IFP) [MOV96], [Sti95], [Len96]."
"Breaking RSA may not be equivalent to factoring" [BV98] Implications: Provides evidence that certain instances of RSA cannot be equivalent to the IFP. This is contrary to the belief by some that RSA and IFP are equivalent.
Both from: http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/pgpfaq.html
Slashdot Mirror
FreeSSL offers free SSL certificates. Sure, they don't work in old browsers, but they're free, and great for people strapped for cash (like me).
Dear Nastard:
Wiley Publishing, Inc. ("Wiley"), formerly Hungry Minds, Inc., publisher of the well-known and well-regarded "? FOR DUMMIES" series of reference books and products has recently become aware of your use of the "? FOR DUMMIES" trademark and trade dress on your webpage www.slackersguild.com in the form of Slacking For Dummies.
As you may know, Wiley has over 100 trademark registrations and applications in the United States, Canada, and other jurisdictions for the trademark "FOR DUMMIES", many "DUMMIES" formatives and the FOR DUMMIES trade dress. The FOR DUMMIES trademark appears not only on our books, but also on CD-ROMs, trade and consumer advertising, in catalogues, point of sale displays, Wiley's websites, and other promotional and licensed material distributed worldwide. This series has been in existence since 1991 and has enjoyed tremendous success.
Since the FOR DUMMIES trademark is a federally registered mark, United States trademark law requires that Wiley take all reasonable steps to prevent others from using its marks, or confusingly similar marks, in such a way so as to "dilute" its distinctiveness as an exclusive designator of Wiley's goods and services. If the mark is used by too many different sources, it becomes a "generic" term, and Wiley may lose its exclusive right to use it. Thus, it is Wiley's responsibility to police for the use of "?. For Dummies" in any manner, and stop all unauthorized use of its trademark. Accordingly, in order to fully protect its valuable trademark, Wiley cannot permit such unauthorized use in connection with your website. Although you may present the defense that your use of the marks is a parody, a parody may still be considered infringing if it results in an increased likelihood of confusion, tarnishment or is disparaging to our reputation. A parody is a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. However, unless the trademark is at least in part of the parody, then your work does not qualify as a parody in the legal sense.
In order to resolve this matter quickly and amicably, we request that you:
1. Remove all materials from your website which bear the infringing material; and
2. Provide written confirmation to me by no later than October 3, 2002, that the above steps have been taken and you will refrain from using the "? For Dummies" mark, or any other mark that is confusingly similar to any Wiley mark, in the future.
While we prefer to resolve this matter informally, Wiley will use all legal remedies available to protect its trademark rights. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Ward Skeel
Manager, Contracts and Intellectual Property
Wiley Publishing, Inc.
(317) 572-3304
Email: kskeel@wiley.com
(Sorry, I didn't get the response)
Oops...I should probably post this then before you get the copyright...
I use Go Daddy for registration and MyDomain for hosting. MyDomain's hosting is free, so it costs me $8.95/year.
IIRC, there's an SSH app for Palm. Check http://www.palmgear.com.
Simon
And what did they find!?
***GASP***
ANOTHER DOOR!
Who would've thought.
For the lazy, the comparison between the Prism (real 16-bit) and m130 can be found here.
However, by inspecting this picture, i think that Palm may actually be trying to cover up the fact that there are only 58000-some colors using the dithering technique and that in real life there are actually only 4096 colors.
Read your own website
For I did see this on the
Front page once before
If this is decided to be legal, does that mean that you can take the Linux kernel source, reject the GPL (the GPL says that you can reject it and regular copyright law applies), change it, compile it, then sell the binary exclusively, as long as you destroy the originals? After that, could you download another copy of the kernel source and do the same modifications, then sell it?
Try http://i-m-i-international.com/
I'd probably buy DVD Music if it provided Dolby 5.1 versions of the songs that I could download off a P2P network for free...
I'm the sole (by far) contributor to a Mac OS X project that people use probably only because there is no PGP for Macintosh. Does this mean it's time to abandon it? I know that I'd lose a lot of my userbase to PGP, even if the PGP client for the email client my app works with wouldn't support PGP/MIME (my app has decrypt/verify-only capabilities).
It's possible that by IPSec they mean only a client, and not a server. This would make it pretty difficult. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if they made an IPSec server available only in Mac OS X Server. Hopefully, this won't be the case. It would be a non-issue at my home (I do have a Linux server), but probably would severely hamper adoption by a regular joe without $1000 to blow.
Anyway, Apple really could do some work on LEAP authentication. A password in the style of is not quite user-friendly (plus if you mess up on the username, it's a pain to fix it.)
It would be sort of interesting if Apple added IPsec support to the AirPort base station (or at least the software base station.) It was shown a while ago that WEP was insecure, and IPsec seems like a much better way to secure a network, as long as the speed hit isn't too big. I've wondered why no other hardware vendors (with the exception of Cisco, with LEAP) have tried to make a more secure version of 802.11b...Perhaps Apple could lead the way here?
MySQL Max binaries support InnoDB, which uses row-level locking. It can also be compiled from source with InnoDB.
/. uses InnoDB.
Also, IIRC,
Simon
My trackpad works absolutely fine with my mechanical pencil covered in aluminum foil. The point has to be sort of thick for it to work though.
Or you can get the STABLE version from http://snaps.php.net/ which works with Apache 2.0.39, although I seem to be having a few problems with it.
Simon
It's not the same sort of exploit as most IIS exploits. A IIS exploit gives someone access over an entire server. This exploit gives access to a shell which could read Apache-readable files and execute programs. It might even be able to write to /tmp. But no important files can be deleted or written to.
Now some breast implants are made out of saline, which is a more expensive term for salt-water. So keep the computer away from beach bimbos who say they have nothing to fear from silicone. If one of those things burst, there goes your only source of entertainment.
Except for the beach bimbo...
Perhaps in the server market, but not many people buy IBMs now. Apple used to be selling more computers than any other company (a few months after the iMac intro), but I have the feeling they may have slipped by now.
Don't forget to click here and select "Extreme"!
This kid could really use a copy of "RSA Laboratories' Frequently Asked Questions About Today's Cryptography" or "Applied Cryptography" or even "PGP DH vs. RSA FAQ". At the University of Dayton page on this discovery (https://alumni.udayton.edu/np_story.asp?storyID=7 84), he says that Triple-DES could be easily broken.
That is complete B.S.
Triple-DES is a 112-bit algorithm, and perhaps even stronger that Rjindael (AES), since it's been subjected to rigorous cryptanalysis for many, many years.
It seems as if the encryption technology might be secure, but without any information on it, I am very skeptical.
According to a reply to a post of his, the AOL Member's Directory had this to say about him...
From AOL's Member Directory
Member Name: Ronnie
Location: Slidell
Birthdate: 72
Sex: Male
Marital Status: Single with pic
Hobbies: Computers Movies Smoking Cars
Computers: Like U Care
Occupation: Network Administrator
Personal Quote: A joint A day Keeps the Doctor away
Two things here. First of all, he is "single with pic." Does this mean that he is cheating on his wife? I encourage someone to call him and find out.
Second of all, does sending spam count as administrating a network?
Third of all, perhaps this would make a great "anti-drug" ad. My anti-drug is not wanting to turn into a maniac spammer.
MPEG4 and DivX are not the same thing. The confusion arose (as all confusion does) because of Microsoft. Microsoft decided that they'd call some Windows Media Player format "MPEG-4" because they were confident that, as they had a monopoly on the OS market, their format (not compression scheme; just file format) would be chosen for the MPEG4 standard.
Instead, it turned out, the commitee working on MPEG4 chose the superior QuickTime format. DivX was based on the WiMP format. And now we have all this confusion.
MORAL: Don't count your chickens before they hatch
"RSA was announced in 1978 [RSA78]. The security of the RSA system is based upon the RSA Problem (RSAP). This problem is conjectured (but not proven) to be equivalent to the Integer Factorisation Problem (IFP) [MOV96], [Sti95], [Len96]."
"Breaking RSA may not be equivalent to factoring" [BV98]
Implications: Provides evidence that certain instances of RSA cannot be equivalent to the IFP. This is contrary to the belief by some that RSA and IFP are equivalent.
Both from:
http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/pgpfaq.html
You're wrong on both counts.