For computer equipment, besides the arcade games (1981 and 1983) and the old Commodores (1983, etc.) I have a 5 1/4" floppy drive from the late 80s in one of my desktop machines. I use it to copy old video games I get on ebay in the format.
For example, I can print a copy of Moby Dick, edit it by adding line notes, making grammar changes, and adding extensive commentary, then copyright the new work as my own.
That does not, however, give me any claims of copyright over the original work, which copyright law very clearly says is now in the public domain.
Yes, I don't care how much they apologize, they've lost my business already. And I think I have convinced my dad to switch too, as I just had to walk him through installing the patch to uninstall the spyware.
I do wish that I had found something other than TaxCut (= HR Block + Microsoft). I looked around at other packages (open source, shareware, freeware), but I didn't see anything that could import my old returns, cover all the forms I expected to file, and generally seem "mature" enough to trust my taxes to.
I dunno. Here in Texas, when you speak up against the administration like US Rep Lloyd Doggett does, you have your district chopped up into four sections and spread out among hardcore republican regions to ensure that you can't be elected again.*
* This was in an early republican redistricting plan. I think this particular one is not in the most current plan, as it wasn't too difficult for lots of Austin folks to drive over to the capital and complain. They are still doing this in a few other parts of the state, though.
>> Is there any way to set auto-reply's to only send notices to emails on a specific domain, and not respond to any others?
Lotus Notes supports this, for the 0.001% of us that still use it at work. Well, you can auto-reply to people that email you from inside the corporate network, and not to people from the internet.
Re:Entire Dr Who currently on Air in Australia
on
Doctor Who Comeback
·
· Score: 1
Well, if they are playing "all of it", be sure to record the episodes destroyed by the BBC in the 70s! I want to see them!
LEILA JEANNE HILL, AUDREY HIMMELMANN, and
EVERITT W. SIMPSON, Jr., PETITIONERS v.
COLORADO et al.
[June 28, 2000]
Majority opinion, delivered by Justice Stevens:
>> The unwilling listener's interest in avoiding unwanted communication has been repeatedly identified in our cases. It is an aspect of the broader "right to be let alone" that one of our wisest Justices characterized as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).24 The right to avoid unwelcome speech has special force in the privacy of the home, Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 738 (1970), and its immediate surroundings, Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S., at 485, but can also be protected in confrontational settings.
That covers all the cases above except for number 5. In that case, assuming the WTO officials include US political leaders, I believe that the right to express one's views to one's political leaders may prevail. See http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=1 3699&c=86.
Well, keep an eye on the bill. If the cosigners cross party lines but are almost all in aerospace districts (and no, I haven't checked if they do and are), then I would categorize the bill as A), "a good idea, which passes only because it provides pork across the country."
If the cosigners are all Democrats, then one of two things will happen. B), the bill is scuttled by the current congress as "more pork barrel legislation on idealistic goals, when we instead need to deal with the real world and real issues." Or, C), the bill is modified to specify that only Haliburton can receive any of the funds, all Democrats end up voting against their own bill, and congress points out how Demos "vote against pushing the boundaries of science, technology, and human achievement that made this country great."
Option D) is that the bill is entirely Democrat backed, but it is embraced by Republicans and passes overwhelmingly. Personally, I'm not optimistic.:)
---------
The above post is to be considered Funny +1 and/or Interesting +1.
Seriously. It kills the small investor, and helps Big Business(tm) keep its stranglehold on the economy.
What if you are a brilliant physicist, and you patent technology for a non-polluting, long-term fuel source (like, say, a fusion reactor). You can prove that it will work with math and physics, but you can't build one without money.
What brilliant physicist has $10Billion sitting around to build a functional version of this reactor? None that don't already work for ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, CitiGroup, Microsoft, or some other large mulitglobal fuel, defense, banking, or software giant. Of course, if the physicist works for one of those companies, then that company owns the patent.
There would be NO WAY for a small inventor to patent anything that can't be built in a machine or wood shop in his own garage. And I, personally, don't want anyone testing fusion reactors they built on a lathe.:)
--------
The above discussion uses just one example. There are many other inventions that would fit into the same category of "I can invent it, and describe it in great detail, but I don't have the money to build it because I'm not rich." I also know that not all Big Businesses(tm) are bad. I know that there are counter examples. Yadda yadda.
I think, however, that a better change to patent law would require companies to enforce the patent within the first five years of its lifetime in order to earn the remaining 15 years. And, when a global spec is developed, anyone with relevant patents would be required to submit their objections by a certain date or their patent would be considered unenforceable against anyone who followed that standard.
>> Evidently, when Linux is more secure than Microsoft, the impression is generated that you can install a Linux based webserver and you're instantly secured. That's what I did. Being a Linux newb, I set up a Redhat/Apache server and within 2 weeks it was rooted.
This is precisely why I haven't set up my own Linux servers for email, webhosting, etc., but still pay a hosting service. I'm an electrical engineer who did tech support many many years ago (microchannel, yum!). I know enough to KNOW that I must secure the server, but I don't know enough to actually secure it. And - well, I haven't seen an up-to-date webpage describing in 20 easy steps how to set up *and* secure a Linux server, for n00bs like me.
Can be a problem? It is one of the major problems. Most (hot) fusion reactions produce a 14.1 MeV neutron as a primary or secondary reaction. The neutron flux (initial current + reflected and slowed neutrons) is sufficient enough so that, at the power levels a commercial fusion reactor would probably operate, every-single atom in the first wall of the reactor containment would be displaced from its lattice every few months!
Plus, there is no way to deflect or stop a neutron without letting it run into something, and whatever it hits will become radioactive itself as its atomic structure is blown apart from the bombardment. This means that a large, radioactive shield structure could have to be replaced every few months, making fusion not very much better than fission.
One of the few reactions that does not produce the neutron is the helium-3 helium-3 reaction. (He-3 + He-3 -> He-4 + 2 protons) Of course, helium 3 isn't that easy to find either. This is where the stories about "mining the moon for helium" come from; the moon is constantly blasted with miniscule trace amounts of helium-3 from the sun.
Reference: Roth, J. R. Introduction to Fusion Energy. Ibis Publishing, 1986. Pages 210, 295-296.
>> You think, maybe, the voting machine pushes its data to a repository and defined intervals? Maybe? kinda?
You mean, in direct violation of Federal law, which specifically does not allow counting any votes until the poll closes? And directly contradicting what the vendor says, which is that there is a wireless card in the system but that "they don't use it"?
So the vendor that made it is lying and violating Federal law? What would keep them from manipulating votes, too? Their integrity? Hah!
1. If McDonald's had turned the coffee maker up to 190 THAT DAY, and had no idea that it was dangerous, I would agree with you that she was more at fault.
2. If the coffee was served in a cup with a lid that wasn't PARTIALLY MELTED from the heat, I would agree with you. (Might be hard to open a coffee with the lid partially melted unless you can get some leverage on it, especially as an old lady.)
However,
1. The McDonald's had been WARNED REPEATEDLY that their coffee was dangerously and unexpectedly hot, and they refused to change. That INCREASES their fault.
2. If the coffee had been at an EXPECTED temperature - 140 degrees - and she opened it in her lap, she probably would have still spilled it. In that case, though, the coffee would have cooled long before it even hurt her.
The fault is not in the SPILLING of the coffee, it is in the BURNS from the coffee. Her spilling it was partially to blame for the burns. The McDonald's was also partially to blame for the burns.
Someone else on this thread mentioned that, when you buy a "cold Coke" from a vending maching, you expect it to be cold. If the owner of a vending maching decided to use liquid nitrogen to cool his Cokes instead, and when you picked it up the flesh on your hand froze and fell off, would you be 100% at fault? After all, you didn't take precautions with a "cold" object. Might the vendor be at least 40% at fault? If he had been warned that what he was doing was dangerous, might he be at least 60% at fault?
>> Or... maybe the document would never get sent to the recipient. Instead the document would remain on an HTTPS accesible document store. The recipient would get an attachment that contains authentication to allow seamless access to the https document store and a path to the document. Along with this document store is the ability to "edit locally" which would give the user the option to run an editor over the HTTPS link or use a locally installed editor depending on the situation. This would go well beyond anything the MS Office suite does now and would appear to be far beyond MS's current mode of thought.
Well, a Mac can be naturally immune to Windows security holes and safety exploits, while a Windows-based PC can't. On a laptop, where it may move around and get plugged into lots of unsafe networks, that sounds pretty damn spiffy.*
If the only piece of PC software you need is one thing (like an industry-specific app only developed for one platform) then a PC emulator sounds great.
*I have no experience with and am not claiming that MacOS is "safe". I just know it is safe from the problems that Windows machines have been hit by recently. And it is probably safe from the next unpatched MS security hole that gets hit.
Anything they can? What about hacking onto your machine and reformatting it? What about running an algorithm that will physically damage your hard drive? What about taking your user name, finding your street address, then going to your house and raping your wife and shooting your child in the face and promising to do it to your parents too if you don't stop?
So, is it still anything? Or, perhaps, is it anything "legal" to protect their rights?
And, if it's anything "legal", then we're back to the start of the discussion. What they are doing may or may not be legal, depending on the information they are retrieving. Specifically, if they are looking outside of the memory space designated for their software (or scanning hardware information unnecessary for the operation of their hardware), what they are doing is most certainly ILLEGAL.
Remember, a few years ago Sony attempted to do the same thing to find people running 3rd party software with EverQuest, but they were forced to stop. That case is similar to this; in this case the software copy is invalid because it doesn't not have a valid license. In that case the software license had been broken by using 3rd party tools, but Sony still could not engage in illegal activities to stop the actions of the consumer.
One of my coworkers is from Lebanon (he's been a US citizen and a Republican for 10+ years, but he goes back home every summer).
A year or so ago, he said that Lebanon was ready to toss out Hamas. They live in the southern part of the country and steal their food and electricity from the country as they need it. The people were getting sick of a leech on their system.
Then, Israel decided to attack Lebanon again. They killed some Hamas leader with a missle strike, and in the process killed a few civilians and a few kids. The Lebanese were outraged, but of course the Lebanese government and military can do nothing, because Israel would ignore them, laugh at them, or just invade them again. The only group that can stand up to Israel are those leech Hamas. Thus, the Lebanese people stopped complaining about Hamas for a while again...
So that at least helps to explain how a terrorist group can find support.
>> turning what would have been a wasted sat. requiring complete replacement and relaunch into a fully-functioning success
It is very commonly, but completely mistakenly assumed that the repair job made the Hubble a "fully-functioning" anything. The physics professor that taught me a senior-level optics class in college explained it more like the following:
"The Hubble was supposed to photograph wide swaths of the sky with the greatest precision ever achieved. With the blurry lens the precision was gone. However, when they repaired the lens to restore the precision, the resulting view was no longer wide swaths, and was more like looking through a keyhole at a little piece of the sky."
...is the one that gave Microsoft access to the system with power to add/remove software.
Bill Gates labelled this bug a "critial" security hole and asserted that its closing demostrates Microsofts commitment to secure computing.
"We want to ensure the public that we mean it when we call Windows the safest operating system in the world. And to continue to support this assertion, we began work today on Service Pack Five that will fix the security holes introduced with Service Pack Four," Gates said in an interview with the New York Times this morning.
Linus goes to SCO's site, tonight, and downloads Linux source. It is still freely available there after all, released by SCO under the GPL even though they claim they have IP in it.
Tomorrow, Linus creates a new Linux trunk based on the "SCO" kernal, and starts developing Linux from there.
Would that not absolve Linux of any IP claims, even if SCO did win something in court? Sure, they claim to have IP, but they knowingly gave it away under an open source license, months after they "knew" of the IP.
Slashdot Mirror
Still works great, though the knocks and blue sparks inside when you put in a coin are exciting..
Galahad
For computer equipment, besides the arcade games (1981 and 1983) and the old Commodores (1983, etc.) I have a 5 1/4" floppy drive from the late 80s in one of my desktop machines. I use it to copy old video games I get on ebay in the format.
For example, I can print a copy of Moby Dick, edit it by adding line notes, making grammar changes, and adding extensive commentary, then copyright the new work as my own.
That does not, however, give me any claims of copyright over the original work, which copyright law very clearly says is now in the public domain.
This case doesn't sound any different.
Tried BeOS?
Yes, I don't care how much they apologize, they've lost my business already. And I think I have convinced my dad to switch too, as I just had to walk him through installing the patch to uninstall the spyware.
I do wish that I had found something other than TaxCut (= HR Block + Microsoft). I looked around at other packages (open source, shareware, freeware), but I didn't see anything that could import my old returns, cover all the forms I expected to file, and generally seem "mature" enough to trust my taxes to.
I dunno. Here in Texas, when you speak up against the administration like US Rep Lloyd Doggett does, you have your district chopped up into four sections and spread out among hardcore republican regions to ensure that you can't be elected again.*
* This was in an early republican redistricting plan. I think this particular one is not in the most current plan, as it wasn't too difficult for lots of Austin folks to drive over to the capital and complain. They are still doing this in a few other parts of the state, though.
>> Is there any way to set auto-reply's to only send notices to emails on a specific domain, and not respond to any others?
Lotus Notes supports this, for the 0.001% of us that still use it at work. Well, you can auto-reply to people that email you from inside the corporate network, and not to people from the internet.
Well, if they are playing "all of it", be sure to record the episodes destroyed by the BBC in the 70s! I want to see them!
LEILA JEANNE HILL, AUDREY HIMMELMANN, and EVERITT W. SIMPSON, Jr., PETITIONERS v. COLORADO et al.
1 3699&c=86.
[June 28, 2000]
Majority opinion, delivered by Justice Stevens:
>> The unwilling listener's interest in avoiding unwanted communication has been repeatedly identified in our cases. It is an aspect of the broader "right to be let alone" that one of our wisest Justices characterized as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).24 The right to avoid unwelcome speech has special force in the privacy of the home, Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 738 (1970), and its immediate surroundings, Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S., at 485, but can also be protected in confrontational settings.
That covers all the cases above except for number 5. In that case, assuming the WTO officials include US political leaders, I believe that the right to express one's views to one's political leaders may prevail. See http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=
IANAL, but I can use google and quote things.
Well, keep an eye on the bill. If the cosigners cross party lines but are almost all in aerospace districts (and no, I haven't checked if they do and are), then I would categorize the bill as A), "a good idea, which passes only because it provides pork across the country."
:)
If the cosigners are all Democrats, then one of two things will happen. B), the bill is scuttled by the current congress as "more pork barrel legislation on idealistic goals, when we instead need to deal with the real world and real issues." Or, C), the bill is modified to specify that only Haliburton can receive any of the funds, all Democrats end up voting against their own bill, and congress points out how Demos "vote against pushing the boundaries of science, technology, and human achievement that made this country great."
Option D) is that the bill is entirely Democrat backed, but it is embraced by Republicans and passes overwhelmingly. Personally, I'm not optimistic.
---------
The above post is to be considered Funny +1 and/or Interesting +1.
That doesn't exist, and that SHOULD NEVER EXIST.
:)
Seriously. It kills the small investor, and helps Big Business(tm) keep its stranglehold on the economy.
What if you are a brilliant physicist, and you patent technology for a non-polluting, long-term fuel source (like, say, a fusion reactor). You can prove that it will work with math and physics, but you can't build one without money.
What brilliant physicist has $10Billion sitting around to build a functional version of this reactor? None that don't already work for ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, CitiGroup, Microsoft, or some other large mulitglobal fuel, defense, banking, or software giant. Of course, if the physicist works for one of those companies, then that company owns the patent.
There would be NO WAY for a small inventor to patent anything that can't be built in a machine or wood shop in his own garage. And I, personally, don't want anyone testing fusion reactors they built on a lathe.
--------
The above discussion uses just one example. There are many other inventions that would fit into the same category of "I can invent it, and describe it in great detail, but I don't have the money to build it because I'm not rich." I also know that not all Big Businesses(tm) are bad. I know that there are counter examples. Yadda yadda.
I think, however, that a better change to patent law would require companies to enforce the patent within the first five years of its lifetime in order to earn the remaining 15 years. And, when a global spec is developed, anyone with relevant patents would be required to submit their objections by a certain date or their patent would be considered unenforceable against anyone who followed that standard.
>> Evidently, when Linux is more secure than Microsoft, the impression is generated that you can install a Linux based webserver and you're instantly secured. That's what I did. Being a Linux newb, I set up a Redhat/Apache server and within 2 weeks it was rooted.
This is precisely why I haven't set up my own Linux servers for email, webhosting, etc., but still pay a hosting service. I'm an electrical engineer who did tech support many many years ago (microchannel, yum!). I know enough to KNOW that I must secure the server, but I don't know enough to actually secure it. And - well, I haven't seen an up-to-date webpage describing in 20 easy steps how to set up *and* secure a Linux server, for n00bs like me.
>>plus a neutron (which can be a problem
Can be a problem? It is one of the major problems. Most (hot) fusion reactions produce a 14.1 MeV neutron as a primary or secondary reaction. The neutron flux (initial current + reflected and slowed neutrons) is sufficient enough so that, at the power levels a commercial fusion reactor would probably operate, every-single atom in the first wall of the reactor containment would be displaced from its lattice every few months!
Plus, there is no way to deflect or stop a neutron without letting it run into something, and whatever it hits will become radioactive itself as its atomic structure is blown apart from the bombardment. This means that a large, radioactive shield structure could have to be replaced every few months, making fusion not very much better than fission.
One of the few reactions that does not produce the neutron is the helium-3 helium-3 reaction. (He-3 + He-3 -> He-4 + 2 protons) Of course, helium 3 isn't that easy to find either. This is where the stories about "mining the moon for helium" come from; the moon is constantly blasted with miniscule trace amounts of helium-3 from the sun.
Reference: Roth, J. R. Introduction to Fusion Energy. Ibis Publishing, 1986. Pages 210, 295-296.
>> You think, maybe, the voting machine pushes its data to a repository and defined intervals? Maybe? kinda?
You mean, in direct violation of Federal law, which specifically does not allow counting any votes until the poll closes? And directly contradicting what the vendor says, which is that there is a wireless card in the system but that "they don't use it"?
So the vendor that made it is lying and violating Federal law? What would keep them from manipulating votes, too? Their integrity? Hah!
Yes, mod you down. low low
1. If McDonald's had turned the coffee maker up to 190 THAT DAY, and had no idea that it was dangerous, I would agree with you that she was more at fault.
2. If the coffee was served in a cup with a lid that wasn't PARTIALLY MELTED from the heat, I would agree with you. (Might be hard to open a coffee with the lid partially melted unless you can get some leverage on it, especially as an old lady.)
However,
1. The McDonald's had been WARNED REPEATEDLY that their coffee was dangerously and unexpectedly hot, and they refused to change. That INCREASES their fault.
2. If the coffee had been at an EXPECTED temperature - 140 degrees - and she opened it in her lap, she probably would have still spilled it. In that case, though, the coffee would have cooled long before it even hurt her.
The fault is not in the SPILLING of the coffee, it is in the BURNS from the coffee. Her spilling it was partially to blame for the burns. The McDonald's was also partially to blame for the burns.
Someone else on this thread mentioned that, when you buy a "cold Coke" from a vending maching, you expect it to be cold. If the owner of a vending maching decided to use liquid nitrogen to cool his Cokes instead, and when you picked it up the flesh on your hand froze and fell off, would you be 100% at fault? After all, you didn't take precautions with a "cold" object. Might the vendor be at least 40% at fault? If he had been warned that what he was doing was dangerous, might he be at least 60% at fault?
Obligatory links to TRUTH about McDonald's case whenever a person speaks of it based on IGNORANCE:
m cdonalds.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_
>> Or... maybe the document would never get sent to the recipient. Instead the document would remain on an HTTPS accesible document store. The recipient would get an attachment that contains authentication to allow seamless access to the https document store and a path to the document. Along with this document store is the ability to "edit locally" which would give the user the option to run an editor over the HTTPS link or use a locally installed editor depending on the situation. This would go well beyond anything the MS Office suite does now and would appear to be far beyond MS's current mode of thought.
http://twiki.org
Well, a Mac can be naturally immune to Windows security holes and safety exploits, while a Windows-based PC can't. On a laptop, where it may move around and get plugged into lots of unsafe networks, that sounds pretty damn spiffy.*
If the only piece of PC software you need is one thing (like an industry-specific app only developed for one platform) then a PC emulator sounds great.
*I have no experience with and am not claiming that MacOS is "safe". I just know it is safe from the problems that Windows machines have been hit by recently. And it is probably safe from the next unpatched MS security hole that gets hit.
Anything they can? What about hacking onto your machine and reformatting it? What about running an algorithm that will physically damage your hard drive? What about taking your user name, finding your street address, then going to your house and raping your wife and shooting your child in the face and promising to do it to your parents too if you don't stop?
So, is it still anything? Or, perhaps, is it anything "legal" to protect their rights?
And, if it's anything "legal", then we're back to the start of the discussion. What they are doing may or may not be legal, depending on the information they are retrieving. Specifically, if they are looking outside of the memory space designated for their software (or scanning hardware information unnecessary for the operation of their hardware), what they are doing is most certainly ILLEGAL.
Remember, a few years ago Sony attempted to do the same thing to find people running 3rd party software with EverQuest, but they were forced to stop. That case is similar to this; in this case the software copy is invalid because it doesn't not have a valid license. In that case the software license had been broken by using 3rd party tools, but Sony still could not engage in illegal activities to stop the actions of the consumer.
One of my coworkers is from Lebanon (he's been a US citizen and a Republican for 10+ years, but he goes back home every summer).
A year or so ago, he said that Lebanon was ready to toss out Hamas. They live in the southern part of the country and steal their food and electricity from the country as they need it. The people were getting sick of a leech on their system.
Then, Israel decided to attack Lebanon again. They killed some Hamas leader with a missle strike, and in the process killed a few civilians and a few kids. The Lebanese were outraged, but of course the Lebanese government and military can do nothing, because Israel would ignore them, laugh at them, or just invade them again. The only group that can stand up to Israel are those leech Hamas. Thus, the Lebanese people stopped complaining about Hamas for a while again...
So that at least helps to explain how a terrorist group can find support.
>> turning what would have been a wasted sat. requiring complete replacement and relaunch into a fully-functioning success
It is very commonly, but completely mistakenly assumed that the repair job made the Hubble a "fully-functioning" anything. The physics professor that taught me a senior-level optics class in college explained it more like the following:
"The Hubble was supposed to photograph wide swaths of the sky with the greatest precision ever achieved. With the blurry lens the precision was gone. However, when they repaired the lens to restore the precision, the resulting view was no longer wide swaths, and was more like looking through a keyhole at a little piece of the sky."
Everquest has it now, and has had it for about a year and a half.
That's IM translation, however, not the specific stuff MS is patenting.
...is the one that gave Microsoft access to the system with power to add/remove software.
Bill Gates labelled this bug a "critial" security hole and asserted that its closing demostrates Microsofts commitment to secure computing.
"We want to ensure the public that we mean it when we call Windows the safest operating system in the world. And to continue to support this assertion, we began work today on Service Pack Five that will fix the security holes introduced with Service Pack Four," Gates said in an interview with the New York Times this morning.
That has already been fixed. As of around 12 years ago, patents are 20 years from the date of filing, instead of 17 years from the date of issue.
Hypothetical situation:
Linus goes to SCO's site, tonight, and downloads Linux source. It is still freely available there after all, released by SCO under the GPL even though they claim they have IP in it.
Tomorrow, Linus creates a new Linux trunk based on the "SCO" kernal, and starts developing Linux from there.
Would that not absolve Linux of any IP claims, even if SCO did win something in court? Sure, they claim to have IP, but they knowingly gave it away under an open source license, months after they "knew" of the IP.
>> As they can get at the source, they can build new functions onto it. This could be an assignment.
I don't think your average C compiler is going to do well with Freshman English compositions.