What i'd be interested in seeing is how this impacts of what snort is doing, and has been doing for quite some time now.
If it does, then snort is the prior art.
The more specific requirements are:
using regexpreessions to identify
a packet type.
a sequence of packets.
a signature-related event.
The last two claims entail compiling the ruleset and keeping it in memory. If snort does all of this (I think it does), then the next questions are:
1: was it done before Jan 15, 2002, or was the possibility of doing so done (publicly) before Jan 15, 2002? If that occured, then Snort (or the snort mailing list where the possibility was explored) would be the prior art that eats this patent.
Yes, discussing the possibility counts as prior art. The best example of that was
when the patent for waterbeds was wiped out by Heinlien's description in "Stranger in a Strange Land".
Back in the late '80s John Wheeler was at the University of Alberta. As luck would have it I was the Tech at the student Radio station who got to edit his interview. I remember two things from him. One was the quote he found in a bathroom:
Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once.
The other was his discription of the etymology of "quantum". Essentially it's just German for "unit" or "chunk". He figured that if Plank had been a native English speaker, we'd probably be dealing with "chunk" physics instead of "quantum" physics.
.. Just had to share that.
To me, the bare minimum is that you have to read the paper if you want your name on it. If not, then how to you know what's going out under your own name?
Yeah.. I'd have to say that that makes sense to me. As I tried to say, the "everybody in the group gets their name on it" makes sense as a baseline protocol. There are always modifiers. Any such protocol that doesn't have room for modifiers / special cases is going to result in stupid situations from time to time.
I once represented myself in the BC Court of appeals. The lawyer I was up
against cited some authorities to support her case. I don't think that she
expected me to actually read the authorities because, when I did, I found that
the authorities, taken as a whole supported my position more than they did hers.
This wasn't a hick lawyer either.. She was senior partner in one of the largest
law firms in BC, had a reputation for never losing
a case, and became a judge a year or so later (Judgeship is more of a peer-review process in Canada than it appears to be in the US).
This left me with a feeling that lawyers don't pay as much attention to their
authorities as they could. Probably more so than scientists do with their citations.
When I was a postdoc at Argonne National Lab, my group's policy was that every group member got his name on every paper.
Lazy, but not entirely unreasonable. On many papers (especially experimental ones), there is the person who does most of the writing, but there are also the people who contributed to the process. The reason why you have labs and research groups is the synergy that comes from having a group of people doing work in a similar area of research. People bounce ideas off of each other and lend materials and solutions to a project.
Sometimes things go the other way 'round, where somebody has done 75% of the
work, but only the person who wrote the paper gets his(her) name on it. IMHO, that sort of situation is more unfair than being a bit to general with the hames.
For every control you decide whether you want to download it or not.
Precisely. There is no way for a user to say that "this version is bad. don't even offer to install it". MS can't use a different signature, and the MS EULA may even make it illegal for a user to disect to file to find out if it's realy trustable. MS's signature system was designed by marketing. It didn't take into account the possibility that their own code might have to be marked as bad.
Bad design.. Nothing a user can (legally) do about it
Good is good, bad is bad
Nunbers don't count (people do);
My working comspiracy is: Wednesday releases good, Friday releases bad.
It works like this:
If they figure that a movie is gonna get rave reviews they release it on a Wednesday so that the word of mouth can build and give good first-weekend results.
If they figure that the ads are better than the movie, they'll give it all the PR they can and release it on a Friday. That way, people won't find out just how bad
it is until Monday. This way, they get the best possible first weekend numbers.
Since nemesis was released on a Friday, I suggested that my friends wait for the reviews before going to see it.
The problem isn't just that you can't trust a specicificpiece of bad software. It's that -- because of the rather cockeyed way that microsoft did their DLL 'support' -- there's no way that you can just pull trust for that piece of code, or otherwise prevent it from being downloaded without removing trust for everything made by microsoft.. This leaves users in the rather wierd position of either not being able to download *any* MS active-X control (for fear that it could be the bad one) or leave themselves open to the possibility of somebody trojaning in the bad 'trusted' control and then owning your machine up kazoo..
The problem with this Cobolt 'security' release is one of a flawed implementation. Microsoft's bug was one of tragically bad design. The latter is much harder to work around.
When I started out in stereo equipment in the 1970's, you could go to any dealer and get handouts with product specifications on just about any product sold. Nowadays we shouldn't have to depend on salespeople to know every detail about every product
I agree that they shouldn't, but a consumer should have access to a stats sheet on the quality of the product.
That having, been said, that was when you were paying $200-400 (1980 dollars) for a cheap component amp. If you go into a store where they charge you $400-$800 for a component amp (plus another $200-300 for the tuner), then I'd expect that they'd be happy to give you a full stats sheet.
Back when you were paying $700 for a CD player, they were happy to make them bullet
proof, because they knew that, if they broke, you would bring them back for warranty repair and complain to everybody on the net (all 7000 of them) that the company was making garbage.
For my part, I still have my 14" Sony Color TV that I bought in 1986 as a computer monitor (for a Dragon 65 (COCO clone)). I paid $120 in 1999 to get the tuner fixed and it's still working just fine, thank you. The VCR got stolen in '93. Dunno what the lifespan for today's TVs are.
I've gone through 4 PS1s and 2 PS2s so far, all of them with the exact same problem.
And you're still buying the things? That explains why they keep makng them to fail after a little while. If you keep getting more of them, then they know that the scam is working. Personally, I figure you're better off to buy a $500 PC and play it into the ground for the next couple of years.
At least, then, you're not rewarding Sony for making defective equipment.
Grr... I did this for Hemos's wedding too.... It's silly that they can't do this themselves.
BTW: This isn't a job for GIMP... mogrify does a really nice job of bulk translation...
Once you've saved the (massive) jpeg files, you can do the following:
mogrify -resize 14.6666% *.jpg
mkdir smaller
for i in *.mgk ; do mv $i smaller/${i%mgk}jpg ; done
cd smaller
ls | sed '%s_.*_<a href="http://spiderling.blockstackers.com/\~hemos/ wedding/&"><IMG src="&">&</a><BR>_' > index.html
in the sed script, I'm using _ instead of / for obvious reasons (there are slashes all over the edit string).
The result should be your own index with smaller pictures (you might want to change the 14.6666% to 33.333 or 50%......
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to rotate the thinker image right side up (gotta get to work).
Feel free to make your own mirrors (not like it's my copyright...). I have no idea as to if/when Telus (my ISP) will cut off the page for bandwidth usage.. Hemos... PLEASE feel free to put a copy on your site.
And they're
prosecuting Johansen
for trying to make it possible for Linux users to play legitimate CDS? Guh!
On the bright side, this does prove that you don't need DECSS to pirate movies. On the dark side, I'm not much into the idea of pirating a movie even before it's publicly available.
Imagine if you will the day someone hacks this mail server.
You don't even have to hack directly into the server... Just hack one of the routers leading into them..... redirect a copy of the flow and pick your data out of that (carnivore style).
(and I'm betting that the data isn't encrypted...)
do they emit beta radiation when in the plastic bag? or only when lit?
Chemical reactions deal with the atoms circling a nucleus. Atomic reactions deal with the nucleus itself.
Radiation emission is an atomic reaction, not a chemical reaction. Unless you have tenperatures and preussures like those in a fusion reactor (trying to recreate conditions at the heart of a star) heat and pressure have almost no direct effect on nuclear reactions.
The reason why overheating a nuclear reactor is considered a bad thing is that it can melt the mechanical devices that are used to moderate the reaction. This can result in unwanted changes to the geometry of the nuclear fuel and the moderating materials.. It's this uncontrolled change in geometry that can result in either
a critical reorientation of the fuel (nuclear explosion), or
a mechanical [steam] explosion that releases radioactive debris into the open environment.
I figure that Apple would get at least half of the pie. If MS dropped off the ends of the earth, Apple would immediately release their Intel version of OS-X. That right there would give them a good chunk of the Microsoft Orphanage. At that point you'd have a knock-down drag-out fight between Linux and Mac. A fight that would (I'd expect) be to the benefit of the consumers.
Now that I think of it, getting rid of MS might do absolute wonders to the level of innovation and quality in the software market.
P.S. A lot of people know, trust and lust after the Apple name in the computer market. About the only think keeping a lot of people from moving back to Mac is the stranglehold that MS seems to have on the market. Removing the betrothed supplier (MS) from the equation would leave a lot of people free to move to their 'real love'.
I'd disagree. Slashdot readers are definitely part of the target audience -- someone who is secure enough in their computer knowledge that they don't think they need MS's hand-holding (or shackeling, depending on your point of view).
Another target user would be the low-budget buyer who isn't willing to put out the extra $100 for an MS license and sees that the boxes do what (s)he wants.
The third would probably be someone with enough money that 'blowing' $200 to find out about Linux seems entirely worth it.
I've generally been of the opinion that one of the biggest barriers to general Linux acceptance is the difficulty in finding a box with anything other than MS pre-loaded. Although I find Linux installs easier than Windows installs, it's still a pain in the butt. Most users aren't willing to buy a bare bones system w/ a separate OS and then waste their time on an install while risking being blocked by some odd incompatibility (e.g. not being able to differentiate hardware failure from installer error).
These Wall Mart boxes are pretty much the first mass-market over-the-counter Linux boxes for the masses. I may have misgivings about Lindows' software practices, but it's definitely nice to see Linux bozes in the aisles this Christmas.
I think it's better to give them an overview of the system and how it works first. After a day, or two, then show them how to do an install. That way they'll have a better understanding of what they're doing when they do an install.
Teaching people how to install before they understand the system seems to me like teaching people to run before they walk. There are only two reasons that I can think of to not teach them installation at the end of the course:
They might try to do an installation without any instruction whatsoever
Having a working system at home might help those who have the spare hardware (/disk space) available to them.
I don't understand the claim that scientists thought that life originated in the open air... It seems obvious to me that it would have formed in the water (althiugh probably in the upper reaches, not the lower).
I don't understand why they think it would have been deep-water hydrothermal vents rather than shallow-water. It seems to me that shallow water would have made it easier to access organic molecules from the atmosphere -- synergy with the chemistry from the geothermal water would have (IMHO) increased the probability of life starting there.
Among other things,
I'm wondering if/why they figure that the two sources of live are mutually exclusive.
The first picture (transparent.jpeg) was in walleyed format -- which I find very hard to do (my mother, an optometrist, claimed that it was next to impossible without mechanical assistance).
I've reformatted it to
crosseyed format. (cross your eyes until parts of the two images match, then refocus). Works MUCH better (IMHO).
Interestingly, working in a molecular moddeling lab is where I learned to do walleyed (and got crosseyed down to a science). I have a stereo image that I created of pepsinogen (a pre-activated version of pepsin) that I created back then. (no -- I don't remember which colors correspond to which atoms).
Umm... maybe my upbringing was a little sheltered, but there's such a thing as 3D porn? Care to provide some links in imdb [imdb.com]?
Simply put: There must be. I mean, what would be better than having those breasts and, uhm, other body parts in glorious 3D? It's not a question of does it exist. It's a question of where is it, and how would we play it?
3D still photography is actually pretty easy. Nikon even made a stereo adapter for their SLR cameras back in the '80s. For the Apollo missions, they taught the astronauts how to do 3D moonscape shots. It turned out to be pretty easy:
"Shift your weight to the left leg, take a picture. Shift to the right leg, take another picture. Back on earth, the two images are put into a 3D viewer, and VOILA!. (why waste weight on stereo photo equipment when you don't have to?)
Many years ago, I owned a 3D camera.. Got lots of wonderful pictures (sorry -- no porn shots). My camera disappeared more than a decade ago, but I still sometimes do the apollo trick for things that I think would look good in 3D (and that don't move very fast). I then use a cross-eyed trick that I learned to view the results.
and how many universities not only fail to prepare students for the game industry, but still don't take it seriously.
I haven't been there for a while, but the University of British Columbia Computing Science department head in the early '90s (Maria Klawe) was interested in using
computer games in education. Last I heard she was the University's Vice-President of Research (but she was still doing her own research too).
Just a wild guess, but I'd be inclined to bet that UBC takes computer games relatively seriously. Being in the home town of EA doesn't hurt much either.
(actually, EA is based in Burnaby -- a siamese suburb of Vancouver, and UBC is essentially it's own town at the other end of Vancouver, but that's picking nits).
Slashdot Mirror
If it does, then snort is the prior art. The more specific requirements are: using regexpreessions to identify
- a packet type.
- a sequence of packets.
- a signature-related event.
The last two claims entail compiling the ruleset and keeping it in memory. If snort does all of this (I think it does), then the next questions are:1: was it done before Jan 15, 2002, or was the possibility of doing so done (publicly) before Jan 15, 2002? If that occured, then Snort (or the snort mailing list where the possibility was explored) would be the prior art that eats this patent.
Yes, discussing the possibility counts as prior art. The best example of that was when the patent for waterbeds was wiped out by Heinlien's description in "Stranger in a Strange Land".
.. Just had to share that.
Makes sense -- given that we're talking about the uncertainty principle....
hehe.
It took me a while to figure out that this universe would be parallel to itself... (which makes parallel an equivalence relationship).
Yeah.. I'd have to say that that makes sense to me. As I tried to say, the "everybody in the group gets their name on it" makes sense as a baseline protocol. There are always modifiers. Any such protocol that doesn't have room for modifiers / special cases is going to result in stupid situations from time to time.
This wasn't a hick lawyer either.. She was senior partner in one of the largest law firms in BC, had a reputation for never losing a case, and became a judge a year or so later (Judgeship is more of a peer-review process in Canada than it appears to be in the US).
This left me with a feeling that lawyers don't pay as much attention to their authorities as they could. Probably more so than scientists do with their citations.
Lazy, but not entirely unreasonable. On many papers (especially experimental ones), there is the person who does most of the writing, but there are also the people who contributed to the process. The reason why you have labs and research groups is the synergy that comes from having a group of people doing work in a similar area of research. People bounce ideas off of each other and lend materials and solutions to a project.
Sometimes things go the other way 'round, where somebody has done 75% of the work, but only the person who wrote the paper gets his(her) name on it. IMHO, that sort of situation is more unfair than being a bit to general with the hames.
No process is perfect.
Precisely. There is no way for a user to say that "this version is bad. don't even offer to install it". MS can't use a different signature, and the MS EULA may even make it illegal for a user to disect to file to find out if it's realy trustable. MS's signature system was designed by marketing. It didn't take into account the possibility that their own code might have to be marked as bad.
Bad design.. Nothing a user can (legally) do about it
Good is good, bad is bad
Nunbers don't count (people do);
My working comspiracy is: Wednesday releases good, Friday releases bad.
It works like this:
If they figure that a movie is gonna get rave reviews they release it on a Wednesday so that the word of mouth can build and give good first-weekend results.
If they figure that the ads are better than the movie, they'll give it all the PR they can and release it on a Friday. That way, people won't find out just how bad it is until Monday. This way, they get the best possible first weekend numbers.
Since nemesis was released on a Friday, I suggested that my friends wait for the reviews before going to see it.
The problem with this Cobolt 'security' release is one of a flawed implementation. Microsoft's bug was one of tragically bad design. The latter is much harder to work around.
Nowadays we shouldn't have to depend on salespeople to know every detail about every product I agree that they shouldn't, but a consumer should have access to a stats sheet on the quality of the product.
That having, been said, that was when you were paying $200-400 (1980 dollars) for a cheap component amp. If you go into a store where they charge you $400-$800 for a component amp (plus another $200-300 for the tuner), then I'd expect that they'd be happy to give you a full stats sheet.
Back when you were paying $700 for a CD player, they were happy to make them bullet proof, because they knew that, if they broke, you would bring them back for warranty repair and complain to everybody on the net (all 7000 of them) that the company was making garbage.
For my part, I still have my 14" Sony Color TV that I bought in 1986 as a computer monitor (for a Dragon 65 (COCO clone)). I paid $120 in 1999 to get the tuner fixed and it's still working just fine, thank you. The VCR got stolen in '93. Dunno what the lifespan for today's TVs are.
And you're still buying the things? That explains why they keep makng them to fail after a little while. If you keep getting more of them, then they know that the scam is working. Personally, I figure you're better off to buy a $500 PC and play it into the ground for the next couple of years.
At least, then, you're not rewarding Sony for making defective equipment.
I thought 16.66666% Oh well... With that much reduction, you shouldn't notice any real signal degradation. from a non-standard fractional size.
Hopefully people could figure out enough from my script to figure out their own preferred scaling.(50% 25% 12.5% 33.333% etc)
For whatever reason, slashdot is putting space between 'hemos/' and 'wedding' in the sed string. You'll have to remove it manually.
BTW: This isn't a job for GIMP... mogrify does a really nice job of bulk translation...
Once you've saved the (massive) jpeg files, you can do the following: mogrify -resize 14.6666% *.jpg/ wedding/&"><IMG src="&">&</a><BR>_' > index.html
mkdir smaller
for i in *.mgk ; do mv $i smaller/${i%mgk}jpg ; done
cd smaller
ls | sed '%s_.*_<a href="http://spiderling.blockstackers.com/\~hemos
in the sed script, I'm using _ instead of / for obvious reasons (there are slashes all over the edit string). The result should be your own index with smaller pictures (you might want to change the 14.6666% to 33.333 or 50%......
I put the result on my ISPs personal web service
Larger versions (33%) of the pics are there too. Mogrify also seems to do a pretty good job of JPEG compression overall....
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to rotate the thinker image right side up (gotta get to work).
Feel free to make your own mirrors (not like it's my copyright...). I have no idea as to if/when Telus (my ISP) will cut off the page for bandwidth usage.. Hemos... PLEASE feel free to put a copy on your site.
On the bright side, this does prove that you don't need DECSS to pirate movies. On the dark side, I'm not much into the idea of pirating a movie even before it's publicly available.
You don't even have to hack directly into the server... Just hack one of the routers leading into them..... redirect a copy of the flow and pick your data out of that (carnivore style).
(and I'm betting that the data isn't encrypted...)
Chemical reactions deal with the atoms circling a nucleus. Atomic reactions deal with the nucleus itself. Radiation emission is an atomic reaction, not a chemical reaction. Unless you have tenperatures and preussures like those in a fusion reactor (trying to recreate conditions at the heart of a star) heat and pressure have almost no direct effect on nuclear reactions.
The reason why overheating a nuclear reactor is considered a bad thing is that it can melt the mechanical devices that are used to moderate the reaction. This can result in unwanted changes to the geometry of the nuclear fuel and the moderating materials.. It's this uncontrolled change in geometry that can result in either
Now that I think of it, getting rid of MS might do absolute wonders to the level of innovation and quality in the software market.
P.S. A lot of people know, trust and lust after the Apple name in the computer market. About the only think keeping a lot of people from moving back to Mac is the stranglehold that MS seems to have on the market. Removing the betrothed supplier (MS) from the equation would leave a lot of people free to move to their 'real love'.
Another target user would be the low-budget buyer who isn't willing to put out the extra $100 for an MS license and sees that the boxes do what (s)he wants.
The third would probably be someone with enough money that 'blowing' $200 to find out about Linux seems entirely worth it.
I've generally been of the opinion that one of the biggest barriers to general Linux acceptance is the difficulty in finding a box with anything other than MS pre-loaded. Although I find Linux installs easier than Windows installs, it's still a pain in the butt. Most users aren't willing to buy a bare bones system w/ a separate OS and then waste their time on an install while risking being blocked by some odd incompatibility (e.g. not being able to differentiate hardware failure from installer error).
These Wall Mart boxes are pretty much the first mass-market over-the-counter Linux boxes for the masses. I may have misgivings about Lindows' software practices, but it's definitely nice to see Linux bozes in the aisles this Christmas.
Teaching people how to install before they understand the system seems to me like teaching people to run before they walk. There are only two reasons that I can think of to not teach them installation at the end of the course:
I don't understand why they think it would have been deep-water hydrothermal vents rather than shallow-water. It seems to me that shallow water would have made it easier to access organic molecules from the atmosphere -- synergy with the chemistry from the geothermal water would have (IMHO) increased the probability of life starting there.
Among other things, I'm wondering if/why they figure that the two sources of live are mutually exclusive.
Interestingly, working in a molecular moddeling lab is where I learned to do walleyed (and got crosseyed down to a science). I have a stereo image that I created of pepsinogen (a pre-activated version of pepsin) that I created back then. (no -- I don't remember which colors correspond to which atoms).
Simply put: There must be. I mean, what would be better than having those breasts and, uhm, other body parts in glorious 3D? It's not a question of does it exist. It's a question of where is it, and how would we play it?
3D still photography is actually pretty easy. Nikon even made a stereo adapter for their SLR cameras back in the '80s. For the Apollo missions, they taught the astronauts how to do 3D moonscape shots. It turned out to be pretty easy:
"Shift your weight to the left leg, take a picture. Shift to the right leg, take another picture. Back on earth, the two images are put into a 3D viewer, and VOILA!. (why waste weight on stereo photo equipment when you don't have to?)
Many years ago, I owned a 3D camera.. Got lots of wonderful pictures (sorry -- no porn shots). My camera disappeared more than a decade ago, but I still sometimes do the apollo trick for things that I think would look good in 3D (and that don't move very fast). I then use a cross-eyed trick that I learned to view the results.
I haven't been there for a while, but the University of British Columbia Computing Science department head in the early '90s (Maria Klawe) was interested in using computer games in education. Last I heard she was the University's Vice-President of Research (but she was still doing her own research too).
Just a wild guess, but I'd be inclined to bet that UBC takes computer games relatively seriously. Being in the home town of EA doesn't hurt much either.
(actually, EA is based in Burnaby -- a siamese suburb of Vancouver, and UBC is essentially it's own town at the other end of Vancouver, but that's picking nits).