Don't mean to be picky (ok, maybe I do), but how is this story about "Rights Online"? Politics maybe. I agree there may be a rights issue. Big Brother Bush wanting to ensure that we all stay adequatly Nationalist and all, but I troll...
YRO, IIRC, is "Your Rights Online". And don't say, "Your reading it online, right?" 'Cause that would be "Your Rights, Online".
Has anyone ever tried to deny a charge that they signed with a fake name? The CC company will see that no real signature was ever put on the card. Wouldn't they have to agree?
You'll have to go through the hassle of a new card, I assume, but could it work?
Couldn't you buy a big screen TV, sign it "Ima Theif", and argue the charge when it shows up on you're bill. I wonder if the CC companies would start taking security more seriously if that started happening.
I am so tired of reading news based on sources that "decline to be named", speak "on condition of anonymity", or any of those phrases. It really means that either the reporter or the source, or both, are cowards, liars, or lawbreakers. If you have something to say, SAY IT! Use your free speech! Otherwise, be quiet!
While your post started out hopeful, you lost me on the end part I quoted above.
Free speech only exists because you are free from being persecuted for excercising it. If those you are speaking against are powerful (boss, police officer, president), then they may abuse their power (fire, imprison, assasinate) to silence you.
While anonymity may be the refuge of the cowardly, it is also the last shield of the powerless.
That's why voting is by secret ballot.
I would have posted as AC if I didn't think the irony would be too corny.;)
We saw the exact same thing at our University. It got so bad we had to seperate internal delivery from external and block users from sending directly to our MX. The zombies only did an MX lookup for the domain it was in, and nothing else.
When they get smart enough to look at local configs for relays, then we're in trouble. We'll have to move to authenticated relays for all mail (assuming the zombie isn't smart enought to do that, too)
Oh, yeah, George! I'm so mad about the whole "new Anikan" at the end of the DVD, that I'm going to watch a PIRATED (Arrr) Ep III when it comes out JUST so you don't get paid!
I don't think so. The DMCA pertains to the encryption of copyrighted works. What's the "works" in this case? The "encryption" is on someones personal documents, not Lexar code or works.
This is just encryption here, not "encrypted works". Circumventing for research is legal under the DMCA, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply here.
I see it boil down very nicely into this comparison:
Throw out the medals, the pay-stubs and the contriversal stuff. What do you have left:
W - helped into guard (low score, jumped to head of line) K - volunteered for army
W - was part-time airman stateside K - got shot at
W - flew planes over peaceful countrysides K - saved lives of some soldier(s) in a fire fight
Purple Hearts, conflicting reports and missing records be damned. These are undisputed facts. The rest is just spin!
All this BS about medals is hypocracy. Kerry went, Bush didn't. Kerry saved lives in a crunch, Bush got dental work. What are we trying to compare here? Maybe Kerry didn't deserve all medals he got, but he deserves more than Bush.
And a little thing I've been wondering: Why does an NorthEastern schooled boy from Connecticut have a texas accent when no one else in his family does?
While I'm voting for brand Y in this election (as opposed to the incumbent. brand X), I would agree. It's NOT right for one side to tell another that they can't be on the ballot.
Now for the expected counter arguement...
It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
I love seeing the American flag at almost any chance (being American, go figure)...
But I always considered Slashdot a little more geographically neutral than this. I think a politics section is the best thing to happen on/. in a long while, but I think it should be a tad more inclusive.
The US election IS the most important political thing (to me) right now, but not to everyone.
Consider the veteran's group that recently ran those TV ads flat-out accuse Kerry of lying about his service in Nam. While they GOP had nothing to do with this group neither the GOP nor th e White House denounced their slanderous attacks on the presidential challenger.
Actually, it turns out that several GOP groups funded them.
The White House DID come out against the ads, but a few of the non-right media outlets quickly attacked them as hypocrits, since they did the same thing to McCain during the 2000 election campaign, going so far as to suggest to voters that he had an illegitimate, mixed race child.
So, the patent is actually on the copy made via the PCR method of that particular gene sequence. Not the gene itself.
So to enforce their patent, they have to prove that an enfringer has used their method to obtain that exact sequence.
And if the sequence or the method is different, then it doesn't violate.
Does that make sense and is it correct? In that case then the patent really does seem narrow. I only worry about the method being the only one or its definition too broad. I don't know about these things, so I'm asking.
I would expect that instead of actually fixing the technology (if possible) adopters and promoters of RFID will start a massive campaign of lobbying for harsh federal laws that make it illegal to possess, create or look at any device that could possibly be used in "hacking" RFIDs. These would include (but are not limited to:
RF detectors Calculators pencils human brain words
True, but they only reason the species keeps it is because they would need it. I was just trying to use some linguistic shorthand. Sorry for the confusion.
Ok, I think the comment about the ants came out wrong. I didn't mean to say that because ants have existed for a long time they should have evolved into intelligent creatures. What I meant was, they have survived for (possibly) millions of years without needing much intelligence. Obviously their survival isn't dependant upon their intelligence, so intelligence must not be the only thing that is needed for survival.
Agreed. Creatures have "survived" on earth for 100s on millions of years without need much "intelligence".
If evolution (on the large scale from one species to another) is true, then why would humans have so much intelligence?
Well, the problem with that arguement is "what do you consider 'so much' of intelligence?" It's all relative. Lets try to forget the fact the WE are making up the definitions (and therefore rather biased).
Compare ourselves to similar looking creatures and we have the ape. Compared to and ant they are genius (they can use tools, have social orders, taught and comprehend language_ Compared to humans they are stupid.
Dolphins on the other hand are much smarter than apes, despite being genetically dissimilar to us. Complex problem solving, language skills, possibly even math! So intelligence is not a trait that is confined to genetic structure.
My point is that intelligence may be an evolutionary trait much like any other. It can develop seperately in multiple lines in similar ways.
An eye is an eye not becuase two creature where decended from a common eye-having creature, or were created by a single supernatural entity, but because it works. Same for legs and hair and teeth and bone. Adaptation to the environment.
In response to Progman3K on this, I would agree that we have made a leap from simple intelligence to technology, allowing us to survive far beyond our "natural" environment, but we have both evolved and become extinct (well, our cousins anyway). There is plenty of evidence that we are the latest line in a long line of "humanoid" species. We were better, they died off. Now we are technology. Maybe THAT is why we survived that they didn't.
They are also finding out about how easy it is for life to exist in even the harshest of environments. Life is looking more and more simple to create and sustain than we ever thought in the past.
Intelligence is not all that important for survival in general, but survival from other slightly "better" creatures. Is a rabbit more intelligent than a fox when it runs faster? Maybe not, but the wolf may be more intelligent when it works with 5 other to catch some rabbits.
Ants, on the other hand, have been around for millenia, yet are very simple creatures.
Not to insult, but that statement display a fundamental lack of understanding of the known processes of change over time with modification and natural selection. (AKA evolution)
An ant doesn't get smarter or more complicated over time just for the hell of it, it needs a reason. (and no, the ant species doesn't decide this, it just common to anthropomophize the subject). If it never needs to cut leaves, it doesn't benefit from mandibles, so they never become a survival trait to pass on the the next generation.
And we are not that unique. We share so many attributes and have so little range of difference with some other species that denying the evidence smacks of agenda and dogma.
Give me a break! Don't start the "Oh whoa is me, a little helpless persecuted christian, oh waaa!" crap!
Christianity is big the big guy the way MicroSoft is, not because is any better than the rest, only more ruthless!
Has Christianity been persecuted in history? Yes, starting 2000 years ago. Has Christianity done the same to others? Yes starting slighty less than 2000 years ago. (Approx 33 yrs less.)
And since when has Christians treated ANY other religion with respect! (Not saying they all deserve it, but still a valid question!)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't mean to be picky (ok, maybe I do), but how is this story about "Rights Online"? Politics maybe. I agree there may be a rights issue. Big Brother Bush wanting to ensure that we all stay adequatly Nationalist and all, but I troll...
YRO, IIRC, is "Your Rights Online". And don't say, "Your reading it online, right?" 'Cause that would be "Your Rights, Online".
This really should have been an "Ask Slashdot". And $30k? Please, you can probably get better profit you sold it for parts...
Has anyone ever tried to deny a charge that they signed with a fake name? The CC company will see that no real signature was ever put on the card. Wouldn't they have to agree?
You'll have to go through the hassle of a new card, I assume, but could it work?
Couldn't you buy a big screen TV, sign it "Ima Theif", and argue the charge when it shows up on you're bill. I wonder if the CC companies would start taking security more seriously if that started happening.
I am so tired of reading news based on sources that "decline to be named", speak "on condition of anonymity", or any of those phrases. It really means that either the reporter or the source, or both, are cowards, liars, or lawbreakers. If you have something to say, SAY IT! Use your free speech! Otherwise, be quiet!
;)
While your post started out hopeful, you lost me on the end part I quoted above.
Free speech only exists because you are free from being persecuted for excercising it. If those you are speaking against are powerful (boss, police officer, president), then they may abuse their power (fire, imprison, assasinate) to silence you.
While anonymity may be the refuge of the cowardly, it is also the last shield of the powerless.
That's why voting is by secret ballot.
I would have posted as AC if I didn't think the irony would be too corny.
We saw the exact same thing at our University. It got so bad we had to seperate internal delivery from external and block users from sending directly to our MX. The zombies only did an MX lookup for the domain it was in, and nothing else.
When they get smart enough to look at local configs for relays, then we're in trouble. We'll have to move to authenticated relays for all mail (assuming the zombie isn't smart enought to do that, too)
Well, I would have modded it as funny anyways.
Where are my mod points when I need them.... This one goes UP!
Well good for you! Good luck!
Now a question: Not being the math wiz I wish I was, does relativity effect the clock synchronicity, and if so, how do you compansate?
I assume lots of that math I mentioned earlier that I am no wiz at.
Oh, yeah, George! I'm so mad about the whole "new Anikan" at the end of the DVD, that I'm going to watch a PIRATED (Arrr) Ep III when it comes out JUST so you don't get paid!
Yeah, that'll teach him.
Doesn't that violate DMCA?
I don't think so. The DMCA pertains to the encryption of copyrighted works. What's the "works" in this case? The "encryption" is on someones personal documents, not Lexar code or works.
This is just encryption here, not "encrypted works". Circumventing for research is legal under the DMCA, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply here.
I see it boil down very nicely into this comparison:
Throw out the medals, the pay-stubs and the contriversal stuff. What do you have left:
W - helped into guard (low score, jumped to head of line)
K - volunteered for army
W - was part-time airman stateside
K - got shot at
W - flew planes over peaceful countrysides
K - saved lives of some soldier(s) in a fire fight
Purple Hearts, conflicting reports and missing records be damned. These are undisputed facts. The rest is just spin!
All this BS about medals is hypocracy. Kerry went, Bush didn't. Kerry saved lives in a crunch, Bush got dental work. What are we trying to compare here? Maybe Kerry didn't deserve all medals he got, but he deserves more than Bush.
And a little thing I've been wondering:
Why does an NorthEastern schooled boy from Connecticut have a texas accent when no one else in his family does?
While I'm voting for brand Y in this election (as opposed to the incumbent. brand X), I would agree. It's NOT right for one side to tell another that they can't be on the ballot.
Now for the expected counter arguement...
It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
I love seeing the American flag at almost any chance (being American, go figure)...
/. in a long while, but I think it should be a tad more inclusive.
But I always considered Slashdot a little more geographically neutral than this. I think a politics section is the best thing to happen on
The US election IS the most important political thing (to me) right now, but not to everyone.
RTA. The nearby gas giant is at 2AU. The rocky planet is within that orbit, and therefore going faster.
Consider the veteran's group that recently ran those TV ads flat-out accuse Kerry of lying about his service in Nam. While they GOP had nothing to do with this group neither the GOP nor th e White House denounced their slanderous attacks on the presidential challenger.
Actually, it turns out that several GOP groups funded them.
The White House DID come out against the ads, but a few of the non-right media outlets quickly attacked them as hypocrits, since they did the same thing to McCain during the 2000 election campaign, going so far as to suggest to voters that he had an illegitimate, mixed race child.
This is not the flamebait your looking for! Nothing to see here. Troll along.
I personally welcome our new replicant overlords, and hope that I can prove useful.
So, the patent is actually on the copy made via the PCR method of that particular gene sequence. Not the gene itself.
So to enforce their patent, they have to prove that an enfringer has used their method to obtain that exact sequence.
And if the sequence or the method is different, then it doesn't violate.
Does that make sense and is it correct? In that case then the patent really does seem narrow. I only worry about the method being the only one or its definition too broad. I don't know about these things, so I'm asking.
I would expect that instead of actually fixing the technology (if possible) adopters and promoters of RFID will start a massive campaign of lobbying for harsh federal laws that make it illegal to possess, create or look at any device that could possibly be used in "hacking" RFIDs. These would include (but are not limited to:
RF detectors
Calculators
pencils
human brain
words
-I'm not the troll you're looking for.
True, but they only reason the species keeps it is because they would need it. I was just trying to use some linguistic shorthand. Sorry for the confusion.
Ok, I think the comment about the ants came out wrong. I didn't mean to say that because ants have existed for a long time they should have evolved into intelligent creatures. What I meant was, they have survived for (possibly) millions of years without needing much intelligence. Obviously their survival isn't dependant upon their intelligence, so intelligence must not be the only thing that is needed for survival.
Agreed. Creatures have "survived" on earth for 100s on millions of years without need much "intelligence".
If evolution (on the large scale from one species to another) is true, then why would humans have so much intelligence?
Well, the problem with that arguement is "what do you consider 'so much' of intelligence?" It's all relative. Lets try to forget the fact the WE are making up the definitions (and therefore rather biased).
Compare ourselves to similar looking creatures and we have the ape. Compared to and ant they are genius (they can use tools, have social orders, taught and comprehend language_ Compared to humans they are stupid.
Dolphins on the other hand are much smarter than apes, despite being genetically dissimilar to us. Complex problem solving, language skills, possibly even math! So intelligence is not a trait that is confined to genetic structure.
My point is that intelligence may be an evolutionary trait much like any other. It can develop seperately in multiple lines in similar ways.
An eye is an eye not becuase two creature where decended from a common eye-having creature, or were created by a single supernatural entity, but because it works. Same for legs and hair and teeth and bone. Adaptation to the environment.
In response to Progman3K on this, I would agree that we have made a leap from simple intelligence to technology, allowing us to survive far beyond our "natural" environment, but we have both evolved and become extinct (well, our cousins anyway). There is plenty of evidence that we are the latest line in a long line of "humanoid" species. We were better, they died off. Now we are technology. Maybe THAT is why we survived that they didn't.
They are also finding out about how easy it is for life to exist in even the harshest of environments. Life is looking more and more simple to create and sustain than we ever thought in the past.
Intelligence is not all that important for survival in general, but survival from other slightly "better" creatures. Is a rabbit more intelligent than a fox when it runs faster? Maybe not, but the wolf may be more intelligent when it works with 5 other to catch some rabbits.
Ants, on the other hand, have been around for millenia, yet are very simple creatures.
Not to insult, but that statement display a fundamental lack of understanding of the known processes of change over time with modification and natural selection. (AKA evolution)
An ant doesn't get smarter or more complicated over time just for the hell of it, it needs a reason. (and no, the ant species doesn't decide this, it just common to anthropomophize the subject). If it never needs to cut leaves, it doesn't benefit from mandibles, so they never become a survival trait to pass on the the next generation.
And we are not that unique. We share so many attributes and have so little range of difference with some other species that denying the evidence smacks of agenda and dogma.
Bigotry or Righteousness?
That all depend which side of the fence you're on, doesn't it.Historicly speaking, of course.
As easy as removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance or from the dollor, or removing a chaplin from Congress.
Give me a break! Don't start the "Oh whoa is me, a little helpless persecuted christian, oh waaa!" crap!
Christianity is big the big guy the way MicroSoft is, not because is any better than the rest, only more ruthless!
Has Christianity been persecuted in history? Yes, starting 2000 years ago.
Has Christianity done the same to others? Yes starting slighty less than 2000 years ago. (Approx 33 yrs less.)
And since when has Christians treated ANY other religion with respect! (Not saying they all deserve it, but still a valid question!)