Who said anything about trails? I don't want to fill out registration forms because they're annoying, not because I don't want to give out information. Claiming that you're a 94 year old female hispanic construction-worker in Afghanistan who makes $500,000-$999,999 per year stops being funny after some time.
I couldn't care less if someone sees my google searches. I assume that anything I send out unencrypted and/or to an unauthenticated destination is world-readable anyway.
One of the coolest things about Google, IMO is the amount of customization they can offer storing content locally using cookies without needing any kind of registration. Nothing more annoying than having to fill out a huge form on every other website you visit, especially given that most of them ask for WAY more information than is really needed.
Google groups, where they do need registration has a form that asks for: E-mail Password Password confirmation
No it doesn't. It applies to closed source code only.
Where does it say that? My understanding is that the two situations are ORed not ANDed. You either sell a commercial software for profit or develop software that isn't sold, but advances your "business interests". If the changes I make are never distributed, there's nothing to license.
" Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise."
What does this mean? I can see it applying to a lot more situations than the 0.0000000000001% you claim. If someone pays me to make changes to KDE does that count? How do you know Trolltech won't turn SCOesque if they start getting into financial trouble and start firing off letters to developers?
No thanks, I'll take a no-strings-attached GTK+ license instead.
While a lot better than the Yahoo portal, try looking at the search results... on my 1024x768 screen, the first non-sponsored search result starts in the bottom 20% of the screen... only two of them fit "above the fold", as compared to five on Google when I search for "Linux".
If they do that, then they risk getting their patent overturned in court.
My understanding (IANAL and all that) is that that isn't how patent law works. You're allowed to take your patent and hide, and when you see fit start suing as selectively as you please. On the other hand, you must agressively pursue trademark infringements or risk losing it. This allowed Unisys to lie in waiting while GIF became popular and then come out and ambush the big guys. IBM is known to not pursue violations of their "small" patents till they decide its time to kill someone at which point they can almost always find something out of their huge portfolio of patents that their victim is violating.
Patents can only be overturned if prior-art is shown to exist. And as mentioned in a recent slashdot story only 151 patents have been overturned since 1988.
because it is nearly a rule of computers that desktops are cheaper than portables. Really? Since when? I recently bought a Tungsten T3 for $399. And thats one of the pricier ones. A PDA with a color screen and everything can be had for as little as $150. So you have a secret source where you can buy desktop machines for $99?
Face it, you're just a narrow minded @^#$& who thinks "if its cool, it must be too good for the Indians."
Perhaps the reason you don't get it is because you're just making wild guesses without bothering to try find out any facts? It currently costs Rs.17000 (~$377) and is expected to cost about Rs.9000 ($200) when mass-produced. Even at $377 it costs way less than high-end PDAs
Try guessing a little less, and obtaining a little more information next time.
No it isn't. To comply with the GPL the source should be available from the same source as the binary. This is to prevent someone from, say, putting up the sources on a server and choking the bandwidth to 1b/s or offering to mail a CD for $5million "shipping and handling"
I guess the writer had written the payload in advance and waited for an appropriated vulnerability to show up to use as a vectir. Generating exploits isn't rocket-science... in fact there are automated tools out there that will generate exploits for common holes like buffer/stack overflows.
There is also the chance that the author discovered the bug either himself or through "black hat" groups before the advisory was put out.
Minor nit -- it would be libel, not slander. Slander is spoken.
I stand corrected. But do you know why law makes the distinction between the two? AFAIK the distinction between written and spoken communication isn't usually made (eg. by the First Ammendment)
If they want to configure their server to refuse to serve up pages if the Referrer: header contains something they don't approve of, that's certainly their right to do so. It's their server to do with as they please.
If they'd just blocked pages and put up a harmless message, they would have been within their rights. But their message said
"Unfortunately, we cannot satisfy this particular request because it comes from a source that is not authorized to redistribute our content..."
This is slander, becuase Linux Today never tried to redistribute their content.
Slashdot Mirror
What am I missing here? Isn't DNS by definition hierarchical? What does their patent claim?
Who said anything about trails? I don't want to fill out registration forms because they're annoying, not because I don't want to give out information. Claiming that you're a 94 year old female hispanic construction-worker in Afghanistan who makes $500,000-$999,999 per year stops being funny after some time.
I couldn't care less if someone sees my google searches. I assume that anything I send out unencrypted and/or to an unauthenticated destination is world-readable anyway.
They forgot to register 600613.com!!!! Is some 1337 haxor going to beat them to it?
Where the hell are you going to go?
Where do you want to go today?
They had to unscrew the access panels to look inside, right? I think that counts as circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms. Its DMCA time, baby!
One of the coolest things about Google, IMO is the amount of customization they can offer storing content locally using cookies without needing any kind of registration. Nothing more annoying than having to fill out a huge form on every other website you visit, especially given that most of them ask for WAY more information than is really needed.
Google groups, where they do need registration has a form that asks for:
E-mail
Password
Password confirmation
Google rocks!
No it doesn't. It applies to closed source code only.
Where does it say that? My understanding is that the two situations are ORed not ANDed. You either sell a commercial software for profit or develop software that isn't sold, but advances your "business interests". If the changes I make are never distributed, there's nothing to license.
" Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise."
What does this mean? I can see it applying to a lot more situations than the 0.0000000000001% you claim. If someone pays me to make changes to KDE does that count? How do you know Trolltech won't turn SCOesque if they start getting into financial trouble and start firing off letters to developers?
No thanks, I'll take a no-strings-attached GTK+ license instead.
Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?
Nothing if you aren't using it as a core library for a free desktop system
While a lot better than the Yahoo portal, try looking at the search results... on my 1024x768 screen, the first non-sponsored search result starts in the bottom 20% of the screen... only two of them fit "above the fold", as compared to five on Google when I search for "Linux".
If they do that, then they risk getting their patent overturned in court.
My understanding (IANAL and all that) is that that isn't how patent law works. You're allowed to take your patent and hide, and when you see fit start suing as selectively as you please. On the other hand, you must agressively pursue trademark infringements or risk losing it. This allowed Unisys to lie in waiting while GIF became popular and then come out and ambush the big guys. IBM is known to not pursue violations of their "small" patents till they decide its time to kill someone at which point they can almost always find something out of their huge portfolio of patents that their victim is violating.
Patents can only be overturned if prior-art is shown to exist. And as mentioned in a recent slashdot story only 151 patents have been overturned since 1988.
Yes
because it is nearly a rule of computers that desktops are cheaper than portables.
Really? Since when? I recently bought a Tungsten T3 for $399. And thats one of the pricier ones. A PDA with a color screen and everything can be had for as little as $150. So you have a secret source where you can buy desktop machines for $99?
Face it, you're just a narrow minded @^#$& who thinks "if its cool, it must be too good for the Indians."
Perhaps the reason you don't get it is because you're just making wild guesses without bothering to try find out any facts? It currently costs Rs.17000 (~$377) and is expected to cost about Rs.9000 ($200) when mass-produced. Even at $377 it costs way less than high-end PDAs
Try guessing a little less, and obtaining a little more information next time.
Yeah, because Intel's new chips really speed up your internet downloads...
Haven't you heard? They're going to start shipping WinDSL modems and WinCable modems soon that shift the DSP onto the CPU.
No it isn't. To comply with the GPL the source should be available from the same source as the binary. This is to prevent someone from, say, putting up the sources on a server and choking the bandwidth to 1b/s or offering to mail a CD for $5million "shipping and handling"
I guess the writer had written the payload in advance and waited for an appropriated vulnerability to show up to use as a vectir. Generating exploits isn't rocket-science... in fact there are automated tools out there that will generate exploits for common holes like buffer/stack overflows.
There is also the chance that the author discovered the bug either himself or through "black hat" groups before the advisory was put out.
I mean seriously... this is the EU ruling on MS violating european law. What the DOJ really needs to do is STFU
You seem to have forgotten that we still do have brick and mortar stores. Its not all about the internet.
Never mind. I wish at times like these that Slashdot let you nuke your posts.
Minor nit -- it would be libel, not slander. Slander is spoken.
I stand corrected. But do you know why law makes the distinction between the two? AFAIK the distinction between written and spoken communication isn't usually made (eg. by the First Ammendment)
If they'd just blocked pages and put up a harmless message, they would have been within their rights. But their message said
This is slander, becuase Linux Today never tried to redistribute their content.
I think it will bomb... its called NO cona, remember?
There was this story a while back about how manufacturers send units that are far better than the retail unit to reviewers.
2 20 9&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=149&tid=98&tid=9 9
For example, Samsung sent the reviewers LCD monitors with a 700:1 contrast ratio, while the off-the-shelf ones have only 450:1
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/29/135
Ports are part of the TCP and UDP headres. Nothing to do with IP.