California receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, which is below the national average return for states of $1.22 per dollar paid
How exactly does one "plan on going" private in Ontario with health care when providing private health care is essentially illegal?
Private dental, mental, and prescription coverage, but you can go private for many doctors, too.
I use EQ virtual, but there are other apps that can basically do the same thing. It's illegal to see Ontario doctors for a fee, but it's perfectly fine to see doctors from any other province, and for $50 I can be seen in an hour or two. I also see clinics when I travel to the US - it's cheaper to pay the doctors to prescribe me medication there and fill it there than it is to fill it here. Plus, the clinics are willing to actually prescribe things like migraine medication and ADHD medication without simply telling me that I'll have to see a specialist, where I have to wait 3 months just to get an appointment.
Reimplementation also gives people the option to choose their own license. As developers, it's all too easy to succumb to "not invented here" syndrome, but there are sometimes very legitimate reasons to re-write things, even if they do exactly the same thing as existing solutions.
It's my understanding that a DMCA take down notice has to be signed "under penalty of perjury" in order be valid.
No, you have to sign "under penalty of perjury" that you represent the company whose rights are being infringed, and that you have a "good faith" belief that the work is infringing.
The work (CoreAVC for Linux), did in fact have a reverse-engineered system for emulating (breaking) the copy protection in CoreAVC. The DMCA takedown itself wasn't bogus, nor was any perjury involved.
It's use was inappropriate, however, as the software was designed to benefit our customers, rather than principally as a "circumvention device" (keygen, crack, etc.). Our policy is to go after people distributing illegal copies of our software, not customers finding new ways to use it.
The phone number is answered by a machine. So is our Austin number - (512)878-1262. It's during the middle of Digital Hollywood; what do you expect? Posting personal phone numbers online isn't really a good idea.
For what it's worth, we do answer our phones.
As for the "What trademarks are registered", it's obvious you didn't read my post. I not only included a list, I even gave a link to the USPTO. If you're going to ignore my responses, why even bother asking?
Why call Dan Marlin (betaboy) an "overzelous employee" when his signature reads, "Corecodec Founder" ?
He is the CEO, an employee, and a Founder. He was also overzealous in this particular DMCA takedown notice. What's your point?
Actually, google does log search results, just not all the time. Occasionally, I will see them do a redirect in the search results of stuff I search for. Also, it shows up in the log files as a google referer without a query.
I don't remember the exact tracking URL they use, though.
The difference being that there is a differenct level of expectation when you download free (as in beer) software, it's not reasonable to demand support for it.
As soon as you pay money, expecting support is not unreasonable.
If you pay money for unsupported software, you may very well be a moron.
Courtesy of Adobe vs. Softman and numerous other court cases, the typical software purchase is a purchase, not a license. However, the decision does not apply to subscription services like MMORPG, as it is not a perpetual use thing.
Because if the goal is to keep your kid or a robber from blowing his (or your) head off, a breakable authentication system is better than no authentication system at all. Almost any system can be broken, the question is just how hard do you have to make it before you see some benefit from doing so.
Although, if the robber wants to blow his own head off, let him.
The URL decodes to "http://148.244.213.131:4907/st/index.htm", which opens a popup and redirects to suntrust.com. A quick google search shows that this IP has been used in a CitiBank phish as well.
2 problems with that approach: first off, it's hard enough getting the resources to stream all the connections. Encrypting each of those streams seperatly would consume far more resources. Secondly, it would kill the whole peer to peer aspect. A computer can't decrypt and re-encrypt a file if it doesn't have the key. This would force all downloads to come from a central server, and make the first problem worse.
Being funny doesn't help your karma - +1 funny doesn't affect your karma. In fact, it actully can lose karma for you, by allowing you to be downmodded further.
Programming is great, but how can a company know that you in fact know your stuff? Certification, as it is, just doesn't work.
It's been my unfortunate experience that those whose titles contain the word "Certified" tend to lag far behind the rest of us in the industry. In school, the hackers studied Computer Science or Electrical Engineering and learned how to make computers work. The dropouts from these majors who just couldn't hack it (those who wanted the jobs but didn't have that special gift that lets you think like a computer) switched instead to "Information Systems" in the business school. Instead of learning how to make a computer work, there they learned how to work a computer. I.e., they learned how to use the programs that we learned how to create. Their programming coursework was graded on effort rather than effectiveness. The program they wrote didn't have to work (or even compile), it just had to look right. And yet, interestingly enough, part of this particular university's I.S. program was to complete the MSCE coursework and obtain certification.
Now that's scary.
You may be thinking that this is nothing special--network administrators don't need to know how to write programs, right? Well, immagine hiring an MSCE who can't even write a working batch file--but who can at least recognize one 80% of the time! This gets even more complicated in the *NIX world, where customization means script writing. Certification requires you to have more or less the same understanding of computers as someone like me has of quantum physics: memorized well enough to pass the test, but not necessarily understood enough to remember it next week.
Those of us with real computer skills never bothered to take those certification tests because they cost money and meant nothing (after all, the CS and EE dropouts are all certified). Do I really want to be placed in the same catagory as THEM? Those of us real admins who are actually certified only did it so they could pass the resume word search.
And yet, it's useful to know who understands system administration and who doesn't. Certification was a stab at making such a devision. It's relied on heavily by HR departments everywhere, despite the fact that it means so little in practical terms, because the HR department doesn't know any better.
But the truth is, IT certification is a flawed system at its very core. Certification is based on book work and tests--neither of which you'll find in the real world. It doesn't have to be that way, and here's why:
IT Certification should work like Pilot Licensing
In order to fly an airplane, you need to know the books, but you also need to know how to fly--that means extensive practical knowledge that can be demonstrated to an examiner in an actual airplane thousands of feet above the earth. You can't cram for that test.
In the same way, certified Linux experts should be able to demonstrate practical skills, not just pass tests. For example, a Linux system administrator should be able to write (in just a few minutes) a simple script to parse 300 log files looking for a specific pattern. He should also be able to modify the boot scripts such that a custom executable runs after (and only if) the network is brought online, but before any remote login programs start. They should be able to customize a firewall, build and install a kernel module, examine a syslog file, and maybe even configure xdm. And the stuff that he demonstrates has to *actually work*, not just look right.
I dare say that any of the existing certification courses will have a well-thought-out curriculum, and probably cover all the necessary aspects of system administration. However, knowing the location and purpose of the rc.sysinit script doesn't mean that you know how to customize it to do your bidding. Certified engineers may know "what", "where", and even "why". But only experience and practice teaches you "how". And knowing how is a mandatory component of being useful.
Compared to the TI-89 (and 92), the 84 has a feature set more target to middle and high school users. For example, their Startup Picture picture is not a feature targeted so much at college users.
I also use SpamAssassin, but I couple it with TMDA. Messages which fail SpamAssassin are challenged by TMDA. Users can adjust their threshold.
The nice thing is that any given email can only fail once (if they confirm), and it does not delete a legitimate mail, if the sender ever reads his e-mail.
The default SA score is 7, but users can lower it if they want.
How many of these people who "Agree" to EULAs are minors, or are not the owner of the machine, and as such not allowed to enter into contracts for the machine?
The thoery behind EULAs is that your system makes copies (in RAM, and onto disk), and as such you need a _license_ to make copies. Copyright laws _specifically_ say this is not the case - furthermore, they are often trying to amend the terms of a sale, after it has taken place.
There are a number of other reasons EULAs are not binding in the first place. Have you truly _read_ the full text of every EULA you have ever supposedly been subject to anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
California receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, which is below the national average return for states of $1.22 per dollar paid
It's a "donor" state, but not by much.
Generally, no. The business is fined a multiple of the wages illegally not paid, and the employee is paid from those.
So, the employee is paid by the employer, and the rest of the fine goes towards funding the government agency.
Private dental, mental, and prescription coverage, but you can go private for many doctors, too.
I use EQ virtual, but there are other apps that can basically do the same thing. It's illegal to see Ontario doctors for a fee, but it's perfectly fine to see doctors from any other province, and for $50 I can be seen in an hour or two. I also see clinics when I travel to the US - it's cheaper to pay the doctors to prescribe me medication there and fill it there than it is to fill it here. Plus, the clinics are willing to actually prescribe things like migraine medication and ADHD medication without simply telling me that I'll have to see a specialist, where I have to wait 3 months just to get an appointment.
Reimplementation also gives people the option to choose their own license. As developers, it's all too easy to succumb to "not invented here" syndrome, but there are sometimes very legitimate reasons to re-write things, even if they do exactly the same thing as existing solutions.
It's my understanding that a DMCA take down notice has to be signed "under penalty of perjury" in order be valid.
No, you have to sign "under penalty of perjury" that you represent the company whose rights are being infringed, and that you have a "good faith" belief that the work is infringing.
The work (CoreAVC for Linux), did in fact have a reverse-engineered system for emulating (breaking) the copy protection in CoreAVC. The DMCA takedown itself wasn't bogus, nor was any perjury involved.
It's use was inappropriate, however, as the software was designed to benefit our customers, rather than principally as a "circumvention device" (keygen, crack, etc.). Our policy is to go after people distributing illegal copies of our software, not customers finding new ways to use it.
The phone number is answered by a machine.
So is our Austin number - (512)878-1262. It's during the middle of Digital Hollywood; what do you expect? Posting personal phone numbers online isn't really a good idea.
For what it's worth, we do answer our phones.
As for the "What trademarks are registered", it's obvious you didn't read my post. I not only included a list, I even gave a link to the USPTO. If you're going to ignore my responses, why even bother asking?
Why call Dan Marlin (betaboy) an "overzelous employee" when his signature reads, "Corecodec Founder" ?
He is the CEO, an employee, and a Founder. He was also overzealous in this particular DMCA takedown notice. What's your point?
Actually, phillips owns the rights to the name and logo. They have sued over misuse, as well.
Actually, google does log search results, just not all the time. Occasionally, I will see them do a redirect in the search results of stuff I search for. Also, it shows up in the log files as a google referer without a query.
I don't remember the exact tracking URL they use, though.
I am.
Or use sprint pcs.
15 dollars per month. No minutes used.
The difference being that there is a differenct level of expectation when you download free (as in beer) software, it's not reasonable to demand support for it.
As soon as you pay money, expecting support is not unreasonable.
If you pay money for unsupported software, you may very well be a moron.
Yes, doctrine of first sale applies to software.
Courtesy of Adobe vs. Softman and numerous other court cases, the typical software purchase is a purchase, not a license. However, the decision does not apply to subscription services like MMORPG, as it is not a perpetual use thing.
[If you think you're getting a 17" LCD or iPod for free, you're an idiot.]
I got mine (iPod). There may be no free lunch, but you can certainly take advantage of human greed.
Because if the goal is to keep your kid or a robber from blowing his (or your) head off, a breakable authentication system is better than no authentication system at all. Almost any system can be broken, the question is just how hard do you have to make it before you see some benefit from doing so.
Although, if the robber wants to blow his own head off, let him.
I've got wireless internet using Sprint, with a Treo 300.
I've found it to be rather useful, allowing me to work (and play games) at the airport, for example.
It would be nice to see other options available for Wireless, as the latency is horrible. (2.5sec ping, 120 KBps thouroughput).
I got a phish in my email yesterday, using an image map to accomplish the same thing.
e cking/OnlineBanking/Inerenet_Banking/security.asp" ><map2 E%32%31%33%2E%31%33%31:%34%39%30%37/%73%74/%69%6E% 64%65%78%2E%68%74%6D"></map><img0 6070006.08060403@identdep_op51@suntrust.com"d er="0" usemap="#FPMap0"></A>
== Paste ==
<A
hREf="http://www.suntrust.com/personal/Ch
name="FPMap0"><area coords="0, 0, 646, 437" shape="rect"
href="http://%31%34%38%2E%32%34%34%
SRC="cid:part1.
bor
== End Paste ==
The URL decodes to "http://148.244.213.131:4907/st/index.htm", which opens a popup and redirects to suntrust.com. A quick google search shows that this IP has been used in a CitiBank phish as well.
The image was encoded in the message itself.
2 problems with that approach: first off, it's hard enough getting the resources to stream all the connections. Encrypting each of those streams seperatly would consume far more resources. Secondly, it would kill the whole peer to peer aspect. A computer can't decrypt and re-encrypt a file if it doesn't have the key. This would force all downloads to come from a central server, and make the first problem worse.
Being funny doesn't help your karma - +1 funny doesn't affect your karma. In fact, it actully can lose karma for you, by allowing you to be downmodded further.
Having the death penalty as a maximum punishment might not be such a bad thing.
1) It would never be enforced
2) It just _might_ help to show people that our current system is broken, and needs a change.
Nah - they don't need to release keys. If cracking the work in question were legal, anything worth cracking would be cracked.
You _could_ also find it for cheap on Half.com.
Programming is great, but how can a company know that you in fact know your stuff? Certification, as it is, just doesn't work.
It's been my unfortunate experience that those whose titles contain the word "Certified" tend to lag far behind the rest of us in the industry. In school, the hackers studied Computer Science or Electrical Engineering and learned how to make computers work. The dropouts from these majors who just couldn't hack it (those who wanted the jobs but didn't have that special gift that lets you think like a computer) switched instead to "Information Systems" in the business school.
Instead of learning how to make a computer work, there they learned how to work a computer. I.e., they learned how to use the programs that we learned how to create. Their programming coursework was graded on effort rather than effectiveness. The program they wrote didn't have to work (or even compile), it just had to look right. And yet, interestingly enough, part of this particular university's I.S. program was to complete the MSCE coursework and obtain certification.
Now that's scary.
You may be thinking that this is nothing special--network administrators don't need to know how to write programs, right? Well, immagine hiring an MSCE who can't even write a working batch file--but who can at least recognize one 80% of the time! This gets even more complicated in the *NIX world, where customization means script writing. Certification requires you to have more or less the same understanding of computers as someone like me has of quantum physics: memorized well enough to pass the test, but not necessarily understood enough to remember it next week.
Those of us with real computer skills never bothered to take those certification tests because they cost money and meant nothing (after all, the CS and EE dropouts are all certified). Do I really want to be placed in the same catagory as THEM? Those of us real admins who are actually certified only did it so they could pass the resume word search.
And yet, it's useful to know who understands system administration and who doesn't. Certification was a stab at making such a devision. It's relied on heavily by HR departments everywhere, despite the fact that it means so little in practical terms, because the HR department doesn't know any better.
But the truth is, IT certification is a flawed system at its very core. Certification is based on book work and tests--neither of which you'll find in the real world. It doesn't have to be that way, and here's why:
IT Certification should work like Pilot Licensing
In order to fly an airplane, you need to know the books, but you also need to know how to fly--that means extensive practical knowledge that can be demonstrated to an examiner in an actual airplane thousands of feet above the earth. You can't cram for that test.
In the same way, certified Linux experts should be able to demonstrate practical skills, not just pass tests. For example, a Linux system administrator should be able to write (in just a few minutes) a simple script to parse 300 log files looking for a specific pattern. He should also be able to modify the boot scripts such that a custom executable runs after (and only if) the network is brought online, but before any remote login programs start. They should be able to customize a firewall, build and install a kernel module, examine a syslog file, and maybe even configure xdm. And the stuff that he demonstrates has to *actually work*, not just look right.
I dare say that any of the existing certification courses will have a well-thought-out curriculum, and probably cover all the necessary aspects of system administration. However, knowing the location and purpose of the rc.sysinit script doesn't mean that you know how to customize it to do your bidding. Certified engineers may know "what", "where", and even "why". But only experience and practice teaches you "how". And knowing how is a mandatory component of being useful.
Compared to the TI-89 (and 92), the 84 has a feature set more target to middle and high school users. For example, their Startup Picture picture is not a feature targeted so much at college users.
I also use SpamAssassin, but I couple it with TMDA. Messages which fail SpamAssassin are challenged by TMDA. Users can adjust their threshold.
The nice thing is that any given email can only fail once (if they confirm), and it does not delete a legitimate mail, if the sender ever reads his e-mail.
The default SA score is 7, but users can lower it if they want.
How many of these people who "Agree" to EULAs are minors, or are not the owner of the machine, and as such not allowed to enter into contracts for the machine?
The thoery behind EULAs is that your system makes copies (in RAM, and onto disk), and as such you need a _license_ to make copies. Copyright laws _specifically_ say this is not the case - furthermore, they are often trying to amend the terms of a sale, after it has taken place.
There are a number of other reasons EULAs are not binding in the first place. Have you truly _read_ the full text of every EULA you have ever supposedly been subject to anyway?