There recently was a news story released about NBC showing the movie.
Y2kmart, a Dexter, Maine-based purveyor of gas masks, dehydrated food and other millennium supplies, said its sales tripled in the days after NBC began broadcasting promotional spots for the movie.
It seems that the most interesting aspect of Y2K will be to see how people react to it. (let's hope that's all that will be interesting)
True story: dropping oversize condoms onto enemy troops to demoralize them. The US actually did this during vietnam.
Do you have any links on the internet to back this up? (hey, if two people say it on the internet, it must be true!) I searched quite a bit, couldn't find anything.
user interface means for entering user defined order data corresponding to a product to be manufactured, wherein the user defined order data includes initial sequence data that defines an initial production sequence, wherein the user interface means includes reorder means for selectively reordering the initial sequence data, in response to user defined reorder text data, to generate reordered sequence data corresponding to a desired production sequence, and wherein the reorder means includes means for entering the reorder text data, means for storing the initial sequence data in a first array, and means for generating a second array including the reordered sequence data in response to the reorder text data;
Is it just me, or does it seem that companies word the patents in such a way as to confuse the patent office? So companies can patent anything (even things that have already been patented) as long as they word it in a new and confusing way?
Privacy and security will *never* be guarenteed on the net, get used to it.
Nor will they *ever* be guaranteed in real life. Someone could tap your phone... or use a tempest device to read your monitor. As far as security goes, a nuclear bomb could drop on you at any time (no physical security could prevent this (unless you own an EKV? But that won't stop hundreds of nukes that are coming for you...)).
There are certain inherent risks in everything that you do. Using a long enough key can lower those risks, it's up to you to decide if it's worth it compared to what you gain.
It uses public and private keys (like PGP does)...
You encrypt a one-way hash of the confirmation message with your private key. The one-way hash results in a number that's a couple bytes long that represents the message you're sending. If you put your name and date in the confirmation message, someone can't just copy the letter and put their name in (or just alter the date) because that'd make the message result in a different hash. They can't correct the hash because it's encrypted with your private key, which (hopefully) nobody but you knows. Everyone can read the message by decrypting it with your public key, which proves again that you signed it.
On the other hand, electronic fine print lends itself more to greping.
Which could lead to tricky wording on their part such as "The rent charged for borrowed money will be doubling in 15 days."
But really, I don't think any large well-known companies would try to pull something like this. It's the same way with credit cards on the 'net: Don't deal with small untrustworthy companies.
"The fact that the university had not actively enforced these policies up to this point caught a lot of students off guard."
There are a LOT of students sharing MP3's at my university, but the university hasn't done anything about it unless the RIIA tells them about a specific student.
The message I've gotten was that they didn't care if we traded MP3's amongst ourselves as long as we weren't part of a big pirating ring. If my school suddenly changed its stance, I'd be surprised (pissed) too.
multiprocessing, GUIs, networking, segmented memory (to keep processes from romping all over the kernel), encryption, digital signatures, compression, etc... But most of these are more academic.
From a more real-world implementation sort of view, things like C++, Java, TCP/IP, HTML, WYSIWYG, RAD, ERP, and MP3 come to mind. I don't know which side wins out... probably HTML and MP3's came from more of an open-source mindset, but I don't know about the others (TCP?). It certainly seems that any TLA (three letter acronym) does better these days if it's not specificaly controlled by a company.
There are probly other important innovations that I missed...
I quote: Loki Entertainment Software has announced a contest where an elite group of hackers (in C++, that is) will be chosen to improve their port of Civilization: Call to Power. The winner will get a dual-processor Linux box as a prize.
If it's a per minute rate, that's insane - we're not making long distance calls in the "true" sense.
Most telephone traffic used to be carried over T1 lines (26 channels at 56k, I believe). So if you make a long distance call across the US, you pay a certain rate for use of that network.
If you dial in to an ISP locally, you're still using a 56k connection through the telco's network that spans the continent. Shouldn't the charges be similar?
It looks like they didn't even require a unique IP address!
AFAIK, requiring a unique IP will hinder progress more than it will prevent cheating. For instance, those who use a dial-in ISP will have a different IP every time they dial in and could vote multiple times easily. It could also prevent other (ligitimate) voters from voting until they log off and log back in.
There are several other other places that would cause problems too. In general, it's probably not a good idea to require unique IPs. There are probably better ways to prevent/minimize cheating... via cookies or something similar?
I really think they would have gotten a lot farther if they had kept a low profile, and subtly started adding things such as Java, without the "We're gonna squash Microsoft like the bug that they are!" fanfare. Instead of sneaking past the sleeping giant, they woke him up...
A very similar thing could be said about linux. Linux is a technically superior OS with or without the "Let's kill Microsoft!" mentality.
On the other hand, a technically superior product doesn't always win. (eg. OS2, Beta, etc...)
This could start a new trend... write articles based completely off responses to an "Ask Slashdot". Hire an editor to put the whole thing together and give part of the profits to the people with the best comments.
Of course, every piece produced would have to have the obligatory yea linux, down with microsoft, anything but open source sucks comments somewhere.
A speaker in Gene Spafford's security seminar suggested that most higher-ups in the US Government do realize that the current crypto policy is silly/restrictive/huriting part of the economy. However, they only know how to protect their interests under the current rules, so they're slowly moving from silly to sane. They need time to figure out new policies, etc...
Of course this idea is vulnerable to the people with the patent on making a patent on patenting obvious ideas
That is, until someone patents "making meta-patents".
Though if someone had already got a meta-patent, that would be prior art, so only the guy who recieved the first meta-patent could do this. But it would end the silliness (and prevent a meta-meta-meta patent?)
There are a few things that could have skewed the data:
Only 3% of the people polled don't use linux, so the people who were polled naturally have a greater need for User manuals than Installation manuals. People who have tried to install linux but gave up during the installation process are probably not represented well.
Do you like the inclusion of payware in the distributions? The only two possible answers were yes or no. If someone wanted to answer don't care, they'd probably be more inclined to answer no due to the anti-commercial feelings that go along with linux.
I think what's needed here is a collaborative effort of some sort.
Someone in the community could set up a mail server similar to hotmail (or forward the email on to each person's private email account). If enough people had their mail sent through the server, a particular advertisement would show up many times, and the source address or server could be flagged as a spammer and then dealt with.
Of course, you wouldn't want to block mailing lists... but most mailing lists don't contain pornographic words or telltale marketing phrases.
I found a reference to it buried under one of the links posted above (they're interesting reading, even if some are pro-patent).
Debunking the Software Patent Myths U.S. Patent 4,555,775: The League [for Programming Freedom] describes AT&T's backup store patent as "Too Obvious to Publish." Yet, in a letter in this issue of CACM, Dennis Richie points out that this technology was published in the ACM[ 35] and was recently called "a seminal paper" whose ideas are seen in X Windows, Macintosh and many other windows systems [ 14]. While AT&T has sent notification letters on this patent, it has put the patent into reexamination and has not threatened suit or sued anyone on this patent.
Is this a case of "hindsight is 20/20" and wasn't obvious at the time of patenting? (just playing devil's advocate)
I know very little about this situation, but I've had one of my own with Ball State that was fairly similar.
I had a linux box on the internet, and someone wanted an account on my computer to set up a talker (a usually open-source piece of software). I gave it too them, and a couple of months later, someone sent sent Ball State a fax saying that the talker on my computer was copyrighted by him and that they would take legal action against Ball State. Before I knew it, I was almost kicked out of school (even though it wasn't even me who had installed the software), and the guy hadn't given any proof, just accusations. Fortunately, Ball State didn't do anything too rash before they got more facts. I just think that when organizations hear the word "lawsuit", they do rash things.
Slashdot Mirror
From m-w.com, disclose's first definition is "to open up", an apt way to describe someone of the open source persuasion.
Weird.... Can anyone post a web reference or otherwise confirm this?
Y2kmart, a Dexter, Maine-based purveyor of gas masks, dehydrated food and other millennium supplies, said its sales tripled in the days after NBC began broadcasting promotional spots for the movie.
It seems that the most interesting aspect of Y2K will be to see how people react to it. (let's hope that's all that will be interesting)
Do you have any links on the internet to back this up? (hey, if two people say it on the internet, it must be true!) I searched quite a bit, couldn't find anything.
Is it just me, or does it seem that companies word the patents in such a way as to confuse the patent office? So companies can patent anything (even things that have already been patented) as long as they word it in a new and confusing way?
Nor will they *ever* be guaranteed in real life. Someone could tap your phone... or use a tempest device to read your monitor. As far as security goes, a nuclear bomb could drop on you at any time (no physical security could prevent this (unless you own an EKV? But that won't stop hundreds of nukes that are coming for you...)).
There are certain inherent risks in everything that you do. Using a long enough key can lower those risks, it's up to you to decide if it's worth it compared to what you gain.
Check out this page about public key stuff.
It uses public and private keys (like PGP does)...
You encrypt a one-way hash of the confirmation message with your private key. The one-way hash results in a number that's a couple bytes long that represents the message you're sending. If you put your name and date in the confirmation message, someone can't just copy the letter and put their name in (or just alter the date) because that'd make the message result in a different hash. They can't correct the hash because it's encrypted with your private key, which (hopefully) nobody but you knows. Everyone can read the message by decrypting it with your public key, which proves again that you signed it.
As easy as doctoring up someone else's digital signature...
I assume the receipts would be signed with the company's private key so you could view it but not change it.
Which could lead to tricky wording on their part such as "The rent charged for borrowed money will be doubling in 15 days."
But really, I don't think any large well-known companies would try to pull something like this. It's the same way with credit cards on the 'net: Don't deal with small untrustworthy companies.
There are a LOT of students sharing MP3's at my university, but the university hasn't done anything about it unless the RIIA tells them about a specific student.
The message I've gotten was that they didn't care if we traded MP3's amongst ourselves as long as we weren't part of a big pirating ring. If my school suddenly changed its stance, I'd be surprised (pissed) too.
Does anyone know of any cases where MP3's protected with username=mp3, password=mp3 were officially not considered private?
multiprocessing, GUIs, networking, segmented memory (to keep processes from romping all over the kernel), encryption, digital signatures, compression, etc... But most of these are more academic.
From a more real-world implementation sort of view, things like C++, Java, TCP/IP, HTML, WYSIWYG, RAD, ERP, and MP3 come to mind. I don't know which side wins out... probably HTML and MP3's came from more of an open-source mindset, but I don't know about the others (TCP?). It certainly seems that any TLA (three letter acronym) does better these days if it's not specificaly controlled by a company.
There are probly other important innovations that I missed...
I quote: Loki Entertainment Software has announced a contest where an elite group of hackers (in C++, that is) will be chosen to improve their port of Civilization: Call to Power. The winner will get a dual-processor Linux box as a prize.
Most telephone traffic used to be carried over T1 lines (26 channels at 56k, I believe). So if you make a long distance call across the US, you pay a certain rate for use of that network.
If you dial in to an ISP locally, you're still using a 56k connection through the telco's network that spans the continent. Shouldn't the charges be similar?
AFAIK, requiring a unique IP will hinder progress more than it will prevent cheating. For instance, those who use a dial-in ISP will have a different IP every time they dial in and could vote multiple times easily. It could also prevent other (ligitimate) voters from voting until they log off and log back in.
There are several other other places that would cause problems too. In general, it's probably not a good idea to require unique IPs. There are probably better ways to prevent/minimize cheating... via cookies or something similar?
A very similar thing could be said about linux. Linux is a technically superior OS with or without the "Let's kill Microsoft!" mentality.
On the other hand, a technically superior product doesn't always win. (eg. OS2, Beta, etc...)
Of course, every piece produced would have to have the obligatory yea linux, down with microsoft, anything but open source sucks comments somewhere.
A speaker in Gene Spafford's security seminar suggested that most higher-ups in the US Government do realize that the current crypto policy is silly/restrictive/huriting part of the economy. However, they only know how to protect their interests under the current rules, so they're slowly moving from silly to sane. They need time to figure out new policies, etc...
Sounds logical to me...
Remember, an original costs more!
Part No: 00-0011
1 - $50,000,000.00
2 - $1,000.00
5 - $1,000.00
10 - $1,000.00
25 - $500.00
That is, until someone patents "making meta-patents".
Though if someone had already got a meta-patent, that would be prior art, so only the guy who recieved the first meta-patent could do this. But it would end the silliness (and prevent a meta-meta-meta patent?)
Or are they finding ways to teach programming without pointers (!)?
Java, perhaps? No pointers there, right? *smirk*
I guess they only have to explain how two different references can really be the same object. But some students even get hung up on that.
I think what's needed here is a collaborative effort of some sort.
Someone in the community could set up a mail server similar to hotmail (or forward the email on to each person's private email account). If enough people had their mail sent through the server, a particular advertisement would show up many times, and the source address or server could be flagged as a spammer and then dealt with.
Of course, you wouldn't want to block mailing lists... but most mailing lists don't contain pornographic words or telltale marketing phrases.
Debunking the Software Patent Myths
U.S. Patent 4,555,775: The League [for Programming Freedom] describes AT&T's backup store patent as "Too Obvious to Publish." Yet, in a letter in this issue of CACM, Dennis Richie points out that this technology was published in the ACM[ 35] and was recently called "a seminal paper" whose ideas are seen in X Windows, Macintosh and many other windows systems [ 14]. While AT&T has sent notification letters on this patent, it has put the patent into reexamination and has not threatened suit or sued anyone on this patent.
Is this a case of "hindsight is 20/20" and wasn't obvious at the time of patenting? (just playing devil's advocate)
I know very little about this situation, but I've had one of my own with Ball State that was fairly similar.
I had a linux box on the internet, and someone wanted an account on my computer to set up a talker (a usually open-source piece of software). I gave it too them, and a couple of months later, someone sent sent Ball State a fax saying that the talker on my computer was copyrighted by him and that they would take legal action against Ball State. Before I knew it, I was almost kicked out of school (even though it wasn't even me who had installed the software), and the guy hadn't given any proof, just accusations. Fortunately, Ball State didn't do anything too rash before they got more facts. I just think that when organizations hear the word "lawsuit", they do rash things.