1. Those hijacked computers do spoof. I've seen quite a few cases where people who have my address in their address book send email supposedly being from my address.
2. Even if they ARE the verified senders of email, at least you would know which computers need to be cleansed of the trojans. Email the owner or ban the IP.
It's very similar to "anonymous call blocking" in that you don't talk to anonymous (spoofed) callers, and if you don't want to talk to an certain identified caller you don't.
I'm sure something about this was posted on Slashdot a while ago but here's a link for you regarding the new availability of diamonds.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.h tml
The validity of one claim typically does not invalidate the others. My patent lawyers call this a layered approach, where the first claims are purposely broad in an attempt to grab as much IP ground as possible. Subsequent numbered claims in the patent are become more specific. They take this land grabbing approach essentially because they can.
"Immunity is exposed by infection. It isn't created out of thin air as needed."
Immunity to computer viruses/worms and the ilk is indeed created/coded as soon as the susceptibility is detected. Sometimes that happens before an infection, sometimes it happens afterwards.
So yes, infection can expose immunity, but it can also lead to the purposeful creation of immunity (immunization). For example: if smallpox didn't previously exist, would a vaccine have been developed against it? I doubt it. Then again, in that case, one could argue that the intelligence of the smallpox susceptible population had the effect of making them immune.
Finally, since I can't read the Slashdotted site, I can only go from the tagline. It mentions building immunity, not creating it. Removing the susceptible parts of the population does build immunity in the population as a percentage.
"Moores Law was not the first, but the fifth paradigm, to provide exponential growth in computing. The next paradigm, which will involve computing in three dimensions rather than the two manifested in todays flat chips, will lead to computing at the molecular, and ultimately the subatomic level. We can be confident that the acceleration of computing will survive the well anticipated demise of Moore s Law."
Wow! You did an amazing job. Google News is now reporting this on their front page:
SCO Execs Dumping Stock Slashdot - 10 minutes ago Lindon, UT - The SCO Group announced the launch of a campaign to shoot 1% of all babies born in the US.
"In a place where everyone and their dogs don't vote"
My dog gets to vote? In a rural location such as this, things could change real quick. I think it's best that we keep this a secret for now.
Then again, as long as they don't know how to hack the voting machines, I guess I'm ok.
From what I could gather (the standard not a lawyer disclaimer goes here), they don't want to show the code because they think it's a trade secret. From the press release yesterday, SCO seems to be claiming that their trade secrets trump the rights of the supposed copyright violator to know the details of the accusation.
I've been drawing an analogy in my mind. Something akin to Coca-Cola's (SCO - nothing against Coke) having a secret (trade secret) ingredient that they claim Pepsi (Linux) is using. But the claim they can't tell what that ingredient is or the secret is out. So instead they ask Pepsi to pay royalties or stop producing the formula.
Pepsi says no, just tell us what it is and we'll remove it from our formula, but in Coke's mind, that could reveal the formula to all of the non-Pepsi world, a fate possibly worse in Coke's eyes since no longer does just one competitor know their trade secret but all of them know it.
Remember before you flame that I'm just trying to see things from SCO's point of view. And I don't believe for a second that they have a tenable position.
It seems to me if Coke had released their entire formula at one point (including the trade secret part), they forfeit claims to that trade secret.
Also if claims of trade secrecy can trump the right of a defendant to know the accusation, then "trade-secrecy" claims could be abused way to easily. (Again, the not-a-lawyer-disclaimer goes here.)
I'd love to get comments from well educated lawyers about what parts of the above are bad assumptions/incorrect and what is accurate, just to help my understanding if not others.
Where is this Octave build? I think MATLAB kicks the hell out of an HP calc, having Octave on a PDA would be awesome for me. As a researcher I could jot down and refine algorithms and stuff when traveling, without having to keep an unwieldy laptop handy.
I'm sure there's a hundred holes in this but here goes:
Is there anyway that one could apply copy-protection/encryption to the network itself so that anyone who isn't part of the network would have to break the DCMA in order to find the files in the first place?
Then just create a restrictive license that keeps businesses and their agents (like the RIAA) off of the network.
--- cyborg A human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices. ---
YOU can be a cyborg. A nontrivial percent 0.3% of the US population can be considered cyborg just because they have pacemakers. I believe they share 99.9%+ (or some stadard deviation of genetic makeup between humans) of your genetic material.
Cyborgs are not machines that look human. You're thinking of androids.
--- android adj. Possessing human features. n. An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid. ---
There indeed is a considerable basis for cyborg rights in that we are all just a mere wire away from being a cyborg. As far as I know being a cyborg doesn't change your rights as far as the law goes. Right now, it doesn't suddenly make one a different species.
This may not be so clear cut in the future however. If you decide to add a large tentacle to your body you might expect to be looked at differently. This is where the issue of rights creeps in. As humans, we may find ourselves genetically homgenous but so varied in capability and appearance that we might be considered different species.
Now that we as humans control our own evolution, it seems all too likely that our species will bifurcate either genetically or otherwise. At that point, the issue of rights/respect for other species will be critical since some of us will be the "other" species.
Yea, you get 34+ telemarketing calls per day on average with a sleeping baby and see how well CallerID works. And even after it rings, it only works when people don't care if you know who's calling.
And DNC doesn't work? I've gone from 34+ soliciations per day to 2 calls in 7 months. That's 1 call for every 3,500 I used to get.
Finally, how how does call waiting stop telemarketers?
This is merely a monopoly/collusion tactic involving Apple and the US Government to make sure American citizens don't switch their citizenship to a country that has no DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
Remind me never to ask you a question via email... or send me reminders.
Are we sure this isn't just a promotional gimmick for "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer"?
Personally, I think Ray Kurzweil's view of technology is more to the point for most slashdotters.
r ticles/art0134.html?
"Moore's Law Was Not the First, but the Fifth Paradigm To Provide Exponential Growth of Computing"
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/a
until someone loses an eye.
It's so very Ayn Rand.
1. Those hijacked computers do spoof. I've seen quite a few cases where people who have my address in their address book send email supposedly being from my address.
2. Even if they ARE the verified senders of email, at least you would know which computers need to be cleansed of the trojans. Email the owner or ban the IP.
It's very similar to "anonymous call blocking" in that you don't talk to anonymous (spoofed) callers, and if you don't want to talk to an certain identified caller you don't.
Here's a link for all who shoot first.
I'm sure something about this was posted on Slashdot a while ago but here's a link for you regarding the new availability of diamonds. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.h tml
The validity of one claim typically does not invalidate the others. My patent lawyers call this a layered approach, where the first claims are purposely broad in an attempt to grab as much IP ground as possible. Subsequent numbered claims in the patent are become more specific. They take this land grabbing approach essentially because they can.
Considering that I use MATLAB most of the work week, I'm pretty darn happy with LyME on my Clie.
Actually, it sounds like something Carl Sagan would have said.
I thought that usernames and passwords were unique user identifiers.
And whats the problem with only allowing code patents, not software idea patents?
A new multilevel marketing business...
Here's how:
1) Move to Washington state.
2) Set up an email account.
3) Populate the web with your email address.
4) Collect the spam.
5) Sue for thousands.
My largest table works fine at way over
4 billion rows.
And yes, I've got other tables with more than 1 billion rows.
"Immunity is exposed by infection. It isn't created out of thin air as needed."
Immunity to computer viruses/worms and the ilk is indeed created/coded as soon as the susceptibility is detected. Sometimes that happens before an infection, sometimes it happens afterwards.
So yes, infection can expose immunity, but it can also lead to the purposeful creation of immunity (immunization). For example: if smallpox didn't previously exist, would a vaccine have been developed against it? I doubt it. Then again, in that case, one could argue that the intelligence of the smallpox susceptible population had the effect of making them immune.
Finally, since I can't read the Slashdotted site, I can only go from the tagline. It mentions building immunity, not creating it. Removing the susceptible parts of the population does build immunity in the population as a percentage.
- Ray Kurzweil
The entire text
Wow! You did an amazing job. Google News is now reporting this on their front page:
SCO Execs Dumping Stock
Slashdot - 10 minutes ago
Lindon, UT - The SCO Group announced the launch of a campaign to shoot 1% of all babies born in the US.
Is California using electronic machines? If so we should be able to hack him into office!
Just imagine! Outlaw the RIAA. Create a DMCA free zone. Convert SCO to a state run enterprise and free linux. 802.11 at every intersection!
"In a place where everyone and their dogs don't vote" My dog gets to vote? In a rural location such as this, things could change real quick. I think it's best that we keep this a secret for now. Then again, as long as they don't know how to hack the voting machines, I guess I'm ok.
From what I could gather (the standard not a lawyer disclaimer goes here), they don't want to show the code because they think it's a trade secret. From the press release yesterday, SCO seems to be claiming that their trade secrets trump the rights of the supposed copyright violator to know the details of the accusation.
I've been drawing an analogy in my mind. Something akin to Coca-Cola's (SCO - nothing against Coke) having a secret (trade secret) ingredient that they claim Pepsi (Linux) is using. But the claim they can't tell what that ingredient is or the secret is out. So instead they ask Pepsi to pay royalties or stop producing the formula.
Pepsi says no, just tell us what it is and we'll remove it from our formula, but in Coke's mind, that could reveal the formula to all of the non-Pepsi world, a fate possibly worse in Coke's eyes since no longer does just one competitor know their trade secret but all of them know it.
Remember before you flame that I'm just trying to see things from SCO's point of view. And I don't believe for a second that they have a tenable position.
It seems to me if Coke had released their entire formula at one point (including the trade secret part), they forfeit claims to that trade secret.
Also if claims of trade secrecy can trump the right of a defendant to know the accusation, then "trade-secrecy" claims could be abused way to easily. (Again, the not-a-lawyer-disclaimer goes here.)
I'd love to get comments from well educated lawyers about what parts of the above are bad assumptions/incorrect and what is accurate, just to help my understanding if not others.
Where is this Octave build? I think MATLAB kicks the hell out of an HP calc, having Octave on a PDA would be awesome for me. As a researcher I could jot down and refine algorithms and stuff when traveling, without having to keep an unwieldy laptop handy.
I'm sure there's a hundred holes in this but here goes:
Is there anyway that one could apply copy-protection/encryption to the network itself so that anyone who isn't part of the network would have to break the DCMA in order to find the files in the first place?
Then just create a restrictive license that keeps businesses and their agents (like the RIAA) off of the network.
---
cyborg
A human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices.
---
YOU can be a cyborg. A nontrivial percent 0.3% of the US population can be considered cyborg just because they have pacemakers. I believe they share 99.9%+ (or some stadard deviation of genetic makeup between humans) of your genetic material.
Cyborgs are not machines that look human. You're thinking of androids.
---
android
adj.
Possessing human features.
n.
An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid.
---
There indeed is a considerable basis for cyborg rights in that we are all just a mere wire away from being a cyborg. As far as I know being a cyborg doesn't change your rights as far as the law goes. Right now, it doesn't suddenly make one a different species.
This may not be so clear cut in the future however. If you decide to add a large tentacle to your body you might expect to be looked at differently. This is where the issue of rights creeps in. As humans, we may find ourselves genetically homgenous but so varied in capability and appearance that we might be considered different species.
Now that we as humans control our own evolution, it seems all too likely that our species will bifurcate either genetically or otherwise. At that point, the issue of rights/respect for other species will be critical since some of us will be the "other" species.
Yea, you get 34+ telemarketing calls per day on average with a sleeping baby and see how well CallerID works. And even after it rings, it only works when people don't care if you know who's calling. And DNC doesn't work? I've gone from 34+ soliciations per day to 2 calls in 7 months. That's 1 call for every 3,500 I used to get. Finally, how how does call waiting stop telemarketers?
This is merely a monopoly/collusion tactic involving Apple and the US Government to make sure American citizens don't switch their citizenship to a country that has no DMCA.