I suspect the primary use would be using an internet-connected device to cheat on multiple-choice tests.
So you are saying that when someone sees the question: "What is the molecular weight of NaCl? 1) 34.99 2) 43.33 3) 58.44 4) 3" they'll google each number to see what it says instead of googling the question itself?
AMEN! I'm using one now. I have one on my main system at home. I have one sitting here not being used right now. I have one on the shelf, ready to replace any of those four. I LOVE my trackman marble.
There IS no mouse that could deal with the clutter of my desk. Moving from the bottom of the screen to the top requires PUSHING crap out of the way, and still it takes three or four pushes to get to the top.
DFing a handheld radio operating intermittently in a big-city/urban environment would be nearly impossible. Five watts just doesn't carry well in concrete and steel canyons. That's why they put big antennas up on the top of tall buildings and use repeaters.
Back in the day, I'm sure the transit police may have invited the FCC in to play, and this kid would have seen more time in interrogation rooms than he ever wanted to see.
The FCC doesn't use interrogation rooms. They send letters. "Notice of Apparent Liability". You get a certain amount of time to respond, and then an administrative law judge decides the case. Then you get a letter telling you the fine.
Now, it rates a vacation in Southeastern Cuba.
What utter nonsense.
You forgot to read one important clause: "in order to cause harm or death to passengers". Yelling at the bus driver as you get on that the fares are too high isn't "in order to cause harm or death" of anyone.
Now, it's all in how you read it, and they'll probably read it to screw him.
Well, he deserves it. He was deliberately countermanding safety orders.
You could just knock on the train drivers door, and that could be enough to qualify for the same thing. You interfered with the driver, while he was operating a train (even if it wasn't moving) with passengers on it.
What utter nonsense. If the train isn't moving, knocking on the driver's door isn't going to cause harm or death to anyone. Even knocking on the door while it IS moving is unlikely to cause such harm. On the other hand, ordering a train to proceed through a stop, or to proceed when it was otherwise verbally ordered to stop, IS likely to cause harm.
You could probably technically get in trouble by walking across a road or railroad tracks.
What utter nonsense. Walking across a road is somehow damaging the control systems?
You may have distracted the driver of the vehicle into doing an emergency stop,
What vehicle? Do you typically cross railroad tracks just in front of an oncoming train? Or jump in front of a bus to cross the street? Wow. I guess you'd be better off in a prison somewhere instead of risking your life; don't even think about the effects on the driver if you succeed in killing yourself by stepping in front of the bus.
I don't know how much more encrypted radios are, but I'm assuming it's more of a budget issue than a technological one,
I'm a borderline participant in the local digital fiasco^H^H^H^H^H changeover, so I can add some to this.
It is a very large budget issue. Standard LMR (land mobile radio) units run $100 to $600, depending on features. Digital (APCO Project 25, in the US) makes the radios START at $1000 each and go up from there. Every radio in the system must be upgraded for the system to work as a whole. Every radio in the system must be programmed correctly (and if you think that is as easy as it sounds, well, it isn't that hard, but our local "major brand" radio shop can't seem to do it right the first two or three times...).
But, there is also a big technical issue. Analog coverage is almost always better than digital. You can hear an analog signal further away or with less signal than a digital one. Analog degrades more gracefully. A weak analog signal can be understandable; a weak digital signal just isn't heard at all. You typically need more bases or repeaters for digital systems than for analog.
The "major brand" company came into our area and started talks designing a two-county 700MHz digital trunked radio system for all public service users. They wound up proposing a mixed 150MHz/700MHz trunked system using at least 36 repeater sites, just to get reasonable coverage where it was mandatory. (Compare this to a total of about 10 sites for current analog Sheriff's Office coverage for both counties.)
About five years ago, our Sheriff wrote a DHS grant to convert the entire county and city law enforcement communication system to digital. Radios were replaced, both mobile and handheld. Repeaters were upgraded. Then it was tested. It didn't work. Something wasn't programmed right. Years went by. A year ago, the Fine Candy Company issued a license for the same frequency to an SO a few hundred miles away. They started interfering with our main repeater. Aha! A great excuse to finally go digital. Nope, it still didn't work. Another round of reprogramming ALL the radios. While we're waiting for the final digital switchover, let's change the CTCSS access tone for the repeaters to DCS. That'll solve the problem, but it also required another round of programming everything. Nope. Interference still there. One more programming round. Finally, digital worked! Yay! The switches were flipped, dispatch went digital.
For three days. Then the county side of the operation went back to analog. The digital coverage sucked out in the county. The city was fine. But, of course, the radios were MISprogrammed so that digital users didn't hear the analog users . City users were stepping on county users because they couldn't hear them, and county users couldn't tell what was happening in the city because they were receiving only analog. After another two or three days, the city users went back to analog, too.
We're still analog. But we have really nice, new radios. (Our Emergency Services side of the operation used to use $200 Icom radios; we have now replaced them all with $1500 Bendix-King digital units. The Icoms were small and convenient, the BKs are BRICKS that nobody wants to carry.)
As for the previous comment about aviation radios being available to anyone who wants to buy one, guess what? So are LMR. Pony up the money and you, too, can have a P25 compliant LMR. (I have bought three of them from eBay so far.)
And "yelling at a bus driver"? Sorry. That probably doesn't count as interfering with the operation of a mass transit system, either.
Of course it does.
It distracts the driver.
From what? The comment was simply "yelling at the bus driver", under the SUBJECT "Pranks...". If you are standing at the entrance of the bus yelling at him while he's waiting for you to pay so he can close the doors and move on, you aren't distracting him from anything -- his job at that moment is to watch you pay your fare, so he's already dealing WITH YOU. So no, simply "yelling at the bus driver" as a "prank" isn't a felony because it isn't interfering with the mass transport system.
Now, if you run up behind him while he's DRIVING DOWN THE STREET and start yelling at him out of the blue, yes, I suppose that's something that should be punished and is dangerous, which is why I wouldn't call it a PRANK.
Someone dies.
Yes, if you cause the death of someone, except under specific circumstances, it is a crime and you should go to jail. That's not "a prank". Simply yelling at a driver does not mean "someone dies".
At the very least, you've done your bit to make the mass transit experience singularly unpleasant for everyone.
And now you're trying to define "making something unpleasant" as a felonious interference with a mass transport system that endangers lives and property. Shit, most of the people riding on the bus make the experience unpleasant for the others. They smell, they spit, they yak yak yak, they play radios, they step on your toes as they walk by. They cough, they sneeze, they wheeze and gasp, they spill their drinks on you. If you want to claim that "make the experience unpleasant" is a felony, then there are a lot of people who need to be arrested.
That doesn't help boost ridership and revenues, it sure as heck doesn't make it any easier to recruit and retain drivers.
You really need to get a grip on the difference between "interference with a mass transport system" and "being obnoxious". Or don't, and continue to whine about how the Patriot Act ruins your life because it makes everything you do illegal, and look stupid when you tell people exactly what you're doing that you think is illegal. No, "yelling at a bus driver" isn't. "Putting pennies on a train track" isn't. "Interfering with mass transport communications and safety systems" is.
I suspect your youth was filled with obnoxious behaviour, but that it didn't rise to the level of felony. I mean, you think that putting pennies on a train track actually interferes with the operation of the train. I doubt the train even notices. And "yelling at a bus driver"? Sorry. That probably doesn't count as interfering with the operation of a mass transit system, either.
Now, issuing false instructions that endanger the lives of tens or hundreds of people, THAT's felony territory, and anyone who does that should be locked up.
... just like if you're getting segfaults when writing C you're doing something wrong. It doesn't mean that the process is any less deterministic.
If you are getting segfaults in C you usually ASSUME that the processor you are running on is acting in a deterministic manner and ASSUME the problem is your code.
The DIFFERENCE is that SOMETIMES the underlying hardware is not acting deterministically because it is a PHYSICAL system that has physical flaws or imperfections. Like leakage currents that are JUST a tiny bit too much, or depend on the state of the neighboring circuit or the temperature.
In other words, I've written C code that had "segfaults" and it wasn't the fault of the C code, it was memory issues that resulted in problems. And I've written C code that suffered from a buggy compiler, too. I've also written code that "misread" about 1% of the characters typed in at the terminal, and it wasn't the code that was at fault, it was the UART.
I don't know anything about the source of Intel's problem, but I will say that they can send me ALL of the "defective" SSDs and I'll give them a home where I promise never to set a password on the disk or change it after I do.
I think that was the whole point to the exercise...missed by some above. The content provider trying to extort people into paying license fees they may not need.
And the point that you are missing is that NOBODY WAS EXTORTED.
The AP made no demands. The AP didn't track anyone down for using their words. The AP made no threats to get this yahoo to send them $12. They simply offered a service to him that allowed him to license material from them. They even let HIM determine what material he wanted to license.
The fact that he VOLUNTARILY licensed material that was in the public domain proves only that HE was stupid, not that AP was greedy.
This exercise demonstrates that the content provider in question can't positively identify their own material or material that they can't legitimately claim as intellectual property.
Oh, don't be silly. Of course they can identify their own material. All that THIS example proves is that THIS piece of software doesn't bother checking, it assumes that the CUSTOMER knows what he wants to license and has done what he was instructed: paste the text FROM THE ARTICLE.
They're ignoring the context, intended use and trying to rewrite fair use by their own definition.
Of course they are ignoring the intended use, because it isn't the job of this bit of software to CARE what the intended use is, it's the USER's job. If you know something is fair use, then why the hell would you offer the AP money to use it, unless you are a MORON?
This story is nothing more than an idiot walking into a store carrying something he already owned and asking the cashier to charge him for it. Ok, fine, they said. Here's what you can pay, if you want to. Ok fine, the moron said, here's your money!
God forbid we get to the point where we really do need laws to protect such morons from themselves, because NOBODY benefits when those kinds of laws are enacted.
The fault is not with the hackers pointing out the screw up by the city and meter manufacturer.
Whatever happened to the concept of using a level of security that is appropriate for the task? And personal responsibility?
You consider it a 'screwup' because the city and the manufacturer didn't use 4k-bit triple-DES system redundantly encoded by Blowfish or (insert your favorite unhackable encryption system here), for a transaction that ranges from twenty five cents to a dollar? It's their fault that someone broke the law and actually went to the trouble to get out of paying a handful of change for parking?
Humanity collectivly hiding our heads in the sand and pretending there is a locked door when clearly there is no door at all, let alone a lockable one, does not security make.
And spouting hyperbole to support illegal activity does not an intelligent argument make.
Get some perspective here. It isn't worth the effort and cost to apply NATO-SECRET levels of encryption to a simple parking meter. Yeah, some people are going to break the law by hacking the meters, but it is still THEIR FAULT for breaking the law, not the fault of the city that didn't harden the system against nuclear attack.
If you want to be upset at someone, be upset at the city for spending your taxes on some magical beans...
You know how much money the city spent on "magical beans" to prevent people from jay-walking? Zero. Is it the fault of the city that someone got hit by a car, or even disrupted traffic, by jay-walking, or is it the fault of the person who broke the law and jay-walked?
How much money did the city spend on "magical beans" to prevent someone from speeding? Same answer. None. (No, detection of people who speed is not the same as preventing it from happening. Oh, wait, they installed 'sleeping policemen' in some places.) I guess it's the fault of the city that someone breaks the law by speeding because the city didn't spend enough to prevent them.
If you break the law by hacking a parking meter, there is nobody responsible for breaking the law other than yourself. If you figure out how to break the law and then help others to do it, too, you are still responsible.
It is this style of "hacking" that gives real hackers a bad name in the eyes of the public.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but having this whole mess center around "1984" is a pretty big coincidence.
AND it was right around the anniversary of the fictional moon landings, which were prompted by the President who arranged his own "dissappearance" so he, Marilyn Monroe, and Elvis could go live on an island off the coast of Chile....
The worst that would happen is the lightbulb burns out sooner (it's a lightbulb).
You have no imagination.
The worst that could happen is that the light shorts out, is improperly fused, and the wiring starts an engine fire that destroys the car. Or the light itself draws too much current, overheats and melts the reflector/housing, starting an engine fire. (You say it is a halogen bulb, which DOES run a lot hotter than normal tungsten bulbs.)
Or it simply creates a large amount of smoke, distracting the driver who abandons the car in the middle of the motorway causing a multi-car pileup.
BMW is quite right not to pay for installing third-party hardware on their vehicles. They have no way of judging the risks from cheaply-made crap that people ask to have installed. Even for something as simple as a halogen light bulb, many of which have caused house fires in cheap accent lights.
'expand' is a program that comes with some versions of Unix that allows you to expand
tabs to ANY NUMBER of spaces or an arbitrary list of columns. Were it a 'rule' that 'tabs are eight', there would be no options, and no Unix program would be able to violate that 'rule', must less help you violate it trivially.
Maybe you mean "common practice", but that's a different thing, and "common practice" often differs in different places. If a programming language relies on "common practice" in order for people AND THE COMPUTER to be able to correctly process the source code, then that language is poorly defined.
lets be honest if you're the kind of geek that has ever done any 'cracking' you knew what it mean, if you're not then you don't care.
Let's be honest, I'm a kind of geek that has done cracking, but I don't devote my life to it. I've never heard the term "rainbow table" applied to the lists of precomputed hashes, so it was nice to have a simple hint that said "precomputed hashes", and I do care.
At least for now, most civilized countries have doctrines such as "innocent until proven guilty".
And they also have "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond any shadow of doubt".
Guess who gets to decide "reasonable"? In a jury trial, 6 or 12 of your "peers", who are rarely your peers in computer knowledge. In many cases, a single judge, who is almost never your peer in computer knowledge.
Parent said "line was open",...
Parent also said range was at most one house on either side. If people on either side are stupid enough about computers to leave the default SSID, then they are probably ("reasonable doubt") too stupid to commit a computer-based crime. YOU, OTOH, are smart enough to change your SSID and know the range of your signal so you can use it as an excuse! Very suspicious!
Even in the American ones where the door lock would disengage when you closed the door, you could get it to stay locked by simply holding in the button on the door handle (outside) while closing it.
No, you hear about people getting large checks and returning them.
I wouldn't return it right away, I would stuff it into a short term account,
The very good chance is that the check you tried to deposit would not clear and you would be faced with a bank charge for handling an invalid check.
I tried cashing a 178-day old check. The issuing bank refused to honor it, and I got it back in the mail with a $5 fee attached.
Hey, they don't like it we can battle it out in court.
"Your honor, the defendant tried to cash a check that he knew was invalid, thus demonstrating intent to defraud both his own bank and the company issuing the invalid check." Yeah, you're going to win THAT one.
I really don't know where people get this bullshit from.
I get this "bullshit" from working in the field and being involved in the experiments designed to measure the impact on shorelines from changes in the local wave climate.
Piss about it all you want, but you cannot remove energy from a system without changing it in some way, and when you remove energy from the nearshore wave environment you can make changes that are hard to predict and can cost a lot of money to fix.
People used to do things like dump riprap on the shore to protect their little bit of the coast, and then we learned that doing stuff like that caused massive erosion in other places. The pictures are quite amazing. A large-scale offshore structure recently put in place off the Gold Coast in Australia wound up changing the shore in unanticipated ways. Even simple stuff like the jettys at the outlet of the Columbia River near Astoria Oregon have disrupted the flow of sediment to the point that the coast north of the jettys nearly dissappeared. You change something today and everything looks fine, and then ten years down the line comes the next el Nino and everything goes to hell.
... please avoid black magic bullshit...
Wow. I bet those blinders you are wearing cause you some really bad migraines.
This doesn't even touch on the potential of tapping into ocean tides,
You should be aware that there are serious concerns about "tapping into tides", since extraction of such energy is a localized event and can cause serious localized damage.
Re:Blocks by indentation
on
Hello World!
·
· Score: 1
<quote>It sounds like someone simply has a holy-war going on there. I mean, seriously, why should it matter what another person is comfortable with? As long as each developer has the code in a format they are comfortable with (by setting tab widths), I would think that would result in an increase in productivity.</quote>
Well, it apparently does matter because some shops have programming standards that are enforced. Indent like this, put elses here, ifs there. All the code looks the same, and you don't have to deal with one section of code done one way and another done another.
On my terminal, with tabs set to 4, looks like: for(i=0;i<5;i++) { doThat(i); doThis(i); }
On yours, tabs set to 8: for(i=0;i<5;i++) { doThat(i); doThis(i); }
It's still valid C, but looks awful. Nothing lines up. If this was python code, I'd see the two calls as being part of the for (if python has such a thing, I dunno), you'd see only the doThat call as part of the for. Two different interpretations of one piece of code BASED SOLELY ON TAB STOP SETTINGS IN THE EDITOR! That's absolutely nuts!
(In many C shops, there would be a "standard".indentrc, and if you wanted to see it in a different style, you'd have your own.indentrc you could run the code through before you worked on it. Then you'd convert it back and everyone would be happy. Python? No.)
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that when someone sees the question: "What is the molecular weight of NaCl? 1) 34.99 2) 43.33 3) 58.44 4) 3" they'll google each number to see what it says instead of googling the question itself?
You don't have a case. He paid AP $0.57 for the right to use those words.
There IS no mouse that could deal with the clutter of my desk. Moving from the bottom of the screen to the top requires PUSHING crap out of the way, and still it takes three or four pushes to get to the top.
Logitech, PLEASE start making these again!
DFing a handheld radio operating intermittently in a big-city/urban environment would be nearly impossible. Five watts just doesn't carry well in concrete and steel canyons. That's why they put big antennas up on the top of tall buildings and use repeaters.
The FCC doesn't use interrogation rooms. They send letters. "Notice of Apparent Liability". You get a certain amount of time to respond, and then an administrative law judge decides the case. Then you get a letter telling you the fine.
Now, it rates a vacation in Southeastern Cuba.
What utter nonsense.
You forgot to read one important clause: "in order to cause harm or death to passengers". Yelling at the bus driver as you get on that the fares are too high isn't "in order to cause harm or death" of anyone.
Now, it's all in how you read it, and they'll probably read it to screw him.
Well, he deserves it. He was deliberately countermanding safety orders.
You could just knock on the train drivers door, and that could be enough to qualify for the same thing. You interfered with the driver, while he was operating a train (even if it wasn't moving) with passengers on it.
What utter nonsense. If the train isn't moving, knocking on the driver's door isn't going to cause harm or death to anyone. Even knocking on the door while it IS moving is unlikely to cause such harm. On the other hand, ordering a train to proceed through a stop, or to proceed when it was otherwise verbally ordered to stop, IS likely to cause harm.
You could probably technically get in trouble by walking across a road or railroad tracks.
What utter nonsense. Walking across a road is somehow damaging the control systems?
You may have distracted the driver of the vehicle into doing an emergency stop,
What vehicle? Do you typically cross railroad tracks just in front of an oncoming train? Or jump in front of a bus to cross the street? Wow. I guess you'd be better off in a prison somewhere instead of risking your life; don't even think about the effects on the driver if you succeed in killing yourself by stepping in front of the bus.
I'm a borderline participant in the local digital fiasco^H^H^H^H^H changeover, so I can add some to this.
It is a very large budget issue. Standard LMR (land mobile radio) units run $100 to $600, depending on features. Digital (APCO Project 25, in the US) makes the radios START at $1000 each and go up from there. Every radio in the system must be upgraded for the system to work as a whole. Every radio in the system must be programmed correctly (and if you think that is as easy as it sounds, well, it isn't that hard, but our local "major brand" radio shop can't seem to do it right the first two or three times...).
But, there is also a big technical issue. Analog coverage is almost always better than digital. You can hear an analog signal further away or with less signal than a digital one. Analog degrades more gracefully. A weak analog signal can be understandable; a weak digital signal just isn't heard at all. You typically need more bases or repeaters for digital systems than for analog.
The "major brand" company came into our area and started talks designing a two-county 700MHz digital trunked radio system for all public service users. They wound up proposing a mixed 150MHz/700MHz trunked system using at least 36 repeater sites, just to get reasonable coverage where it was mandatory. (Compare this to a total of about 10 sites for current analog Sheriff's Office coverage for both counties.)
About five years ago, our Sheriff wrote a DHS grant to convert the entire county and city law enforcement communication system to digital. Radios were replaced, both mobile and handheld. Repeaters were upgraded. Then it was tested. It didn't work. Something wasn't programmed right. Years went by. A year ago, the Fine Candy Company issued a license for the same frequency to an SO a few hundred miles away. They started interfering with our main repeater. Aha! A great excuse to finally go digital. Nope, it still didn't work. Another round of reprogramming ALL the radios. While we're waiting for the final digital switchover, let's change the CTCSS access tone for the repeaters to DCS. That'll solve the problem, but it also required another round of programming everything. Nope. Interference still there. One more programming round. Finally, digital worked! Yay! The switches were flipped, dispatch went digital.
For three days. Then the county side of the operation went back to analog. The digital coverage sucked out in the county. The city was fine. But, of course, the radios were MISprogrammed so that digital users didn't hear the analog users . City users were stepping on county users because they couldn't hear them, and county users couldn't tell what was happening in the city because they were receiving only analog. After another two or three days, the city users went back to analog, too.
We're still analog. But we have really nice, new radios. (Our Emergency Services side of the operation used to use $200 Icom radios; we have now replaced them all with $1500 Bendix-King digital units. The Icoms were small and convenient, the BKs are BRICKS that nobody wants to carry.)
As for the previous comment about aviation radios being available to anyone who wants to buy one, guess what? So are LMR. Pony up the money and you, too, can have a P25 compliant LMR. (I have bought three of them from eBay so far.)
Of course it does.
It distracts the driver.
From what? The comment was simply "yelling at the bus driver", under the SUBJECT "Pranks...". If you are standing at the entrance of the bus yelling at him while he's waiting for you to pay so he can close the doors and move on, you aren't distracting him from anything -- his job at that moment is to watch you pay your fare, so he's already dealing WITH YOU. So no, simply "yelling at the bus driver" as a "prank" isn't a felony because it isn't interfering with the mass transport system.
Now, if you run up behind him while he's DRIVING DOWN THE STREET and start yelling at him out of the blue, yes, I suppose that's something that should be punished and is dangerous, which is why I wouldn't call it a PRANK.
Someone dies.
Yes, if you cause the death of someone, except under specific circumstances, it is a crime and you should go to jail. That's not "a prank". Simply yelling at a driver does not mean "someone dies".
At the very least, you've done your bit to make the mass transit experience singularly unpleasant for everyone.
And now you're trying to define "making something unpleasant" as a felonious interference with a mass transport system that endangers lives and property. Shit, most of the people riding on the bus make the experience unpleasant for the others. They smell, they spit, they yak yak yak, they play radios, they step on your toes as they walk by. They cough, they sneeze, they wheeze and gasp, they spill their drinks on you. If you want to claim that "make the experience unpleasant" is a felony, then there are a lot of people who need to be arrested.
That doesn't help boost ridership and revenues, it sure as heck doesn't make it any easier to recruit and retain drivers.
You really need to get a grip on the difference between "interference with a mass transport system" and "being obnoxious". Or don't, and continue to whine about how the Patriot Act ruins your life because it makes everything you do illegal, and look stupid when you tell people exactly what you're doing that you think is illegal. No, "yelling at a bus driver" isn't. "Putting pennies on a train track" isn't. "Interfering with mass transport communications and safety systems" is.
Now, issuing false instructions that endanger the lives of tens or hundreds of people, THAT's felony territory, and anyone who does that should be locked up.
If you are getting segfaults in C you usually ASSUME that the processor you are running on is acting in a deterministic manner and ASSUME the problem is your code.
The DIFFERENCE is that SOMETIMES the underlying hardware is not acting deterministically because it is a PHYSICAL system that has physical flaws or imperfections. Like leakage currents that are JUST a tiny bit too much, or depend on the state of the neighboring circuit or the temperature.
In other words, I've written C code that had "segfaults" and it wasn't the fault of the C code, it was memory issues that resulted in problems. And I've written C code that suffered from a buggy compiler, too. I've also written code that "misread" about 1% of the characters typed in at the terminal, and it wasn't the code that was at fault, it was the UART.
I don't know anything about the source of Intel's problem, but I will say that they can send me ALL of the "defective" SSDs and I'll give them a home where I promise never to set a password on the disk or change it after I do.
And the point that you are missing is that NOBODY WAS EXTORTED.
The AP made no demands. The AP didn't track anyone down for using their words. The AP made no threats to get this yahoo to send them $12. They simply offered a service to him that allowed him to license material from them. They even let HIM determine what material he wanted to license.
The fact that he VOLUNTARILY licensed material that was in the public domain proves only that HE was stupid, not that AP was greedy.
This exercise demonstrates that the content provider in question can't positively identify their own material or material that they can't legitimately claim as intellectual property.
Oh, don't be silly. Of course they can identify their own material. All that THIS example proves is that THIS piece of software doesn't bother checking, it assumes that the CUSTOMER knows what he wants to license and has done what he was instructed: paste the text FROM THE ARTICLE.
They're ignoring the context, intended use and trying to rewrite fair use by their own definition.
Of course they are ignoring the intended use, because it isn't the job of this bit of software to CARE what the intended use is, it's the USER's job. If you know something is fair use, then why the hell would you offer the AP money to use it, unless you are a MORON?
This story is nothing more than an idiot walking into a store carrying something he already owned and asking the cashier to charge him for it. Ok, fine, they said. Here's what you can pay, if you want to. Ok fine, the moron said, here's your money!
God forbid we get to the point where we really do need laws to protect such morons from themselves, because NOBODY benefits when those kinds of laws are enacted.
Whatever happened to the concept of using a level of security that is appropriate for the task? And personal responsibility?
You consider it a 'screwup' because the city and the manufacturer didn't use 4k-bit triple-DES system redundantly encoded by Blowfish or (insert your favorite unhackable encryption system here), for a transaction that ranges from twenty five cents to a dollar? It's their fault that someone broke the law and actually went to the trouble to get out of paying a handful of change for parking?
Humanity collectivly hiding our heads in the sand and pretending there is a locked door when clearly there is no door at all, let alone a lockable one, does not security make.
And spouting hyperbole to support illegal activity does not an intelligent argument make.
Get some perspective here. It isn't worth the effort and cost to apply NATO-SECRET levels of encryption to a simple parking meter. Yeah, some people are going to break the law by hacking the meters, but it is still THEIR FAULT for breaking the law, not the fault of the city that didn't harden the system against nuclear attack.
If you want to be upset at someone, be upset at the city for spending your taxes on some magical beans ...
You know how much money the city spent on "magical beans" to prevent people from jay-walking? Zero. Is it the fault of the city that someone got hit by a car, or even disrupted traffic, by jay-walking, or is it the fault of the person who broke the law and jay-walked?
How much money did the city spend on "magical beans" to prevent someone from speeding? Same answer. None. (No, detection of people who speed is not the same as preventing it from happening. Oh, wait, they installed 'sleeping policemen' in some places.) I guess it's the fault of the city that someone breaks the law by speeding because the city didn't spend enough to prevent them.
If you break the law by hacking a parking meter, there is nobody responsible for breaking the law other than yourself. If you figure out how to break the law and then help others to do it, too, you are still responsible.
It is this style of "hacking" that gives real hackers a bad name in the eyes of the public.
I AM Luke's father, you insensitive clod!
Huxley invented /.?
No, it's because of the light.
BTW installing lights at that high a level will mean your car does not pass inspection (in the US at least).
There is no inspection in the US. Some states have inspections, many do not. It is not a "US" thing, it's a state-by-state thing.
AND it was right around the anniversary of the fictional moon landings, which were prompted by the President who arranged his own "dissappearance" so he, Marilyn Monroe, and Elvis could go live on an island off the coast of Chile....
You have no imagination.
The worst that could happen is that the light shorts out, is improperly fused, and the wiring starts an engine fire that destroys the car. Or the light itself draws too much current, overheats and melts the reflector/housing, starting an engine fire. (You say it is a halogen bulb, which DOES run a lot hotter than normal tungsten bulbs.)
Or it simply creates a large amount of smoke, distracting the driver who abandons the car in the middle of the motorway causing a multi-car pileup.
BMW is quite right not to pay for installing third-party hardware on their vehicles. They have no way of judging the risks from cheaply-made crap that people ask to have installed. Even for something as simple as a halogen light bulb, many of which have caused house fires in cheap accent lights.
'expand' is a program that comes with some versions of Unix that allows you to expand tabs to ANY NUMBER of spaces or an arbitrary list of columns. Were it a 'rule' that 'tabs are eight', there would be no options, and no Unix program would be able to violate that 'rule', must less help you violate it trivially.
Maybe you mean "common practice", but that's a different thing, and "common practice" often differs in different places. If a programming language relies on "common practice" in order for people AND THE COMPUTER to be able to correctly process the source code, then that language is poorly defined.
Should I kill him now, Doctor?
Let's be honest, I'm a kind of geek that has done cracking, but I don't devote my life to it. I've never heard the term "rainbow table" applied to the lists of precomputed hashes, so it was nice to have a simple hint that said "precomputed hashes", and I do care.
And they also have "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "beyond any shadow of doubt".
Guess who gets to decide "reasonable"? In a jury trial, 6 or 12 of your "peers", who are rarely your peers in computer knowledge. In many cases, a single judge, who is almost never your peer in computer knowledge.
Parent said "line was open", ...
Parent also said range was at most one house on either side. If people on either side are stupid enough about computers to leave the default SSID, then they are probably ("reasonable doubt") too stupid to commit a computer-based crime. YOU, OTOH, are smart enough to change your SSID and know the range of your signal so you can use it as an excuse! Very suspicious!
Even in the American ones where the door lock would disengage when you closed the door, you could get it to stay locked by simply holding in the button on the door handle (outside) while closing it.
The very good chance is that the check you tried to deposit would not clear and you would be faced with a bank charge for handling an invalid check.
I tried cashing a 178-day old check. The issuing bank refused to honor it, and I got it back in the mail with a $5 fee attached.
Hey, they don't like it we can battle it out in court.
"Your honor, the defendant tried to cash a check that he knew was invalid, thus demonstrating intent to defraud both his own bank and the company issuing the invalid check." Yeah, you're going to win THAT one.
I get this "bullshit" from working in the field and being involved in the experiments designed to measure the impact on shorelines from changes in the local wave climate.
Piss about it all you want, but you cannot remove energy from a system without changing it in some way, and when you remove energy from the nearshore wave environment you can make changes that are hard to predict and can cost a lot of money to fix.
People used to do things like dump riprap on the shore to protect their little bit of the coast, and then we learned that doing stuff like that caused massive erosion in other places. The pictures are quite amazing. A large-scale offshore structure recently put in place off the Gold Coast in Australia wound up changing the shore in unanticipated ways. Even simple stuff like the jettys at the outlet of the Columbia River near Astoria Oregon have disrupted the flow of sediment to the point that the coast north of the jettys nearly dissappeared. You change something today and everything looks fine, and then ten years down the line comes the next el Nino and everything goes to hell.
Wow. I bet those blinders you are wearing cause you some really bad migraines.
You should be aware that there are serious concerns about "tapping into tides", since extraction of such energy is a localized event and can cause serious localized damage.
<quote>It sounds like someone simply has a holy-war going on there. I mean, seriously, why should it matter what another person is comfortable with? As long as each developer has the code in a format they are comfortable with (by setting tab widths), I would think that would result in an increase in productivity.</quote>
.indentrc, and if you wanted to see it in a different style, you'd have your own .indentrc you could run the code through before you worked on it. Then you'd convert it back and everyone would be happy. Python? No.)
Well, it apparently does matter because some shops have programming standards that are enforced. Indent like this, put elses here, ifs there. All the code looks the same, and you don't have to deal with one section of code done one way and another done another.
But to answer your "why", here's an example.
/tabfor(i=0;i<5;i++) {
/sp/tab/sp/sp/sp/spdoThat(i);
/sp/sp/sp/sp/sp/sp/sp/spdoThis(i);
/sp/sp/sp/sp}
On my terminal, with tabs set to 4, looks like:
for(i=0;i<5;i++) {
doThat(i);
doThis(i);
}
On yours, tabs set to 8:
for(i=0;i<5;i++) {
doThat(i);
doThis(i);
}
It's still valid C, but looks awful. Nothing lines up. If this was python code, I'd see the two calls as being part of the for (if python has such a thing, I dunno), you'd see only the doThat call as part of the for. Two different interpretations of one piece of code BASED SOLELY ON TAB STOP SETTINGS IN THE EDITOR! That's absolutely nuts!
(In many C shops, there would be a "standard"