To deny evolutionary theory makes about as much sense as claiming the world is flat.
Well, the bible does say that the earth is a round disk that rests on 4 pillars which, during earthquakes, is simply God shaking those pillars. Sigh...
Well, it's enough to say they should show the religious propaganda to be fair, but is the religious propaganda made for Imax?
The solution, of course, is to show all sides of the so-called controversy. Present the scientific view and explain how it's backed by evidence. Then present the Christian view and how it's backed by a book. Show how the bible says that we're all descended from Adam and Eve, therefore Adam and Eve's children must have had sex with each other and we're all one big incestual family. But don't stop there. Show the Hindu perspective. Show what Buddhists, Muslims, and dozens of other major and semi-major religions believe.
If they want balance, boy are they going to be surprised.
Definition: faith - belief in something that is neither provable nor disprovable.
If you want to get technical, the bible defines faith as belief without evidence. Something can have evidence, but still not be provable. However, that's not faith. Faith is when you have no evidence at all and you still believe. Wonderful, isn't it?
I mean, can you have a super PDA that acts as a cell phone, GPS, mp3 player, movie player, connects to the internet etc etc? Sure, they can make it but the battery that powers it will only last for about 5 minutes.
Check out the i-mate PDA2K. With the exception of GPS it can do all of that, as long as you don't mind watching your movies at 320x240 and highly compressed.:) I'm using one to post this reply over a GPRS connection. And the battery life is quite respectable too. The downside is that it's certainly not cheap.
Obviously someone who hasn't read the book "The science of Star Trek".
That's about as useful as "The science of the Bible". It's easy to go in after the fact and justify whether or not something can be made to fit science. It's harder to examine the evidence at hand and decide whether or not the bible/Star Trek came to the right conclusion.
If you wish to turn this off and be informed that the URL isn't valid rather than a Verisign-style "no domain is invalid" result, go into about:config and search for "keyword", then change keyword.enabled to false.
...phone up a user, tell them to change their password to x. login and fuck about. the end. this is +5, why?
The point you seemed to miss is that the purpose of any con is to gain the user's trust. Why should somebody trust you when you ask them to change their password? And how likely will it be that you'll hit someone who is somewhat security conscious, reports the phone call, and causes you trouble?
However, going through the supposed security exercise reinforces the notion of trust, makes the user feel good that they're helping, and in the end they believe their account is fully secure because they've never given out the password. The likelihood of them being suspicious is even lower and odds are good it'll never raise any red flags.
As far as I know, there aren't any forks of C, Perl, and the other languages that I've listed.
I find that hard to believe. How many different C implementations are there, and are they all fully 100% compatible with each other? Now, in commercial versions you don't get forks as the code is copyrighted and can't be reused for another project. But I'd be really surprised to not find any forks.
Besides, any admin worth his salt will reset a user's password and tell him to change it instead of telling him to change it to what the admin wants.
There's a good scam I read about in a book, I think it might have been the one written by Mitnick. Here's how it works:
You pretend to be the network administrator testing some new security procedures and you phone up your target user. Introduce yourself and say that you're running some security testing on the networks and you need five minutes of their time to do some testing. Remind them that never, under any circumstances, should the user tell anybody else their password. Even reinforce that they shouldn't even tell you, as you don't need to know.
Now here's the trick. Ask them to logoff. Once they've done that, tell them that you're doing some monitoring and that they should now login with their password... "and remember, don't tell me what it is!" Great, now we need to test the change password function. Get them to change their user account password to something which is known, such as "abacus". Once they've changed their password, ask them to logoff again. You, the intruder, can now login to their account as you know the password. If it's unix-based, you can setup some kind of daemon to run and accept connections, grab random files, login to the corporate VPN, whatever. Stall them for a little bit while you pillage their network... get them to login, letting them know you can't see their login come through, etc. Whatever buys you the time you need.
Then get them to login once more and change their password back to what it was. Remind them yet again not to tell you that password as they should never tell anybody what their password is. Thank them for their time and for helping you test the security system [and for allowing you to preview tomorrow's result of whether or not the FDA will be accepting or rejecting their new drug therapy, thereby allowing you to take out appropriate options on the stock].
Now if you believe that a company may lawfully customize someone else's all-rights-reserved proprietary software, then it's your turn to provide a reference to the exemption from sections 107 through 121.
Depends what you mean by customize. If it's reverse engineering the underlying source code, making changes, and then redistributing... then, no you can't. But customizing some products simply involves creating macros or interfacing with the product's public API, such as writing a mod for many current game engines.
The second I do business as that name, it becomes legally recognizable.
You still haven't stated whether or not you claim a mark in the 4 letter acronym of your business name. However, given that you're such a smart, well-rounded kid who's clearly wise in the ways of the world, I'll just figure you do. And if so, as I said in my last post, then you may indeed have a case.
Apple continues its innovative streak with the two-ended stylus. 99% of PDA users on slashdot have mocked the simplistic one "button" stylus for years and welcome Apple's innovation. A small permanent neodymium magnet embedded into each end of the stylus provides a different polarity which the PDA senses and treats as either a regular click or a secondary click.
The part you quoted was never meant to prove it, but take a look at the UDRP and see if "selling for profit" is one of the criteria.
Why don't you read it? For your benefit (emphasis mine):
4. a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.
Enter the UDRP. The reason unfathomable? Well, it's my business's name...is that unfathomable to you?
So what? Have you trademarked the 4 letter acronym of your business's name? If you haven't, then you have no rights to that domain according to section 4(a) as you need to prove that all three of those conditions have been met.
Again, please find yourself a definition of cyber-squatting and read the UDRP. Use an open mind and scrounge up some intelligence, read the UDRP and ICANN's stance/definition of cyber-squatting and legitamate use for domain names...
Well, I've read up on UDRP and you're wrong. Unless you're leaving out the crucially vital tidbit that you have a trademark for your company name's 4 letter acronym, the rest of it doesn't matter. The Internic UDRP FAQ confirms this (emphasis mine):
In such cases, - commonly called "cybersquatting" - a holder of trademark rights initiates the administrative procedure by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider. In order to have the domain name transferred or cancelled, the trademark holder must establish (1) that he has a legally recognized trademark in a name that is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name; (2) that the current registrant of the domain name has no legitimate rights in the name; and (3) that there has been some evidence of bad faith or abuse.
you might also want to check out how many other short domain names are used by cyber-squatters...they tended to buy those up a while ago to sell for profit
And popularity proves what, exactly? Show me the ICANN policy which states that if I purchase a domain name in good faith, have violated no trademarks in doing so, and wish to sell it, that I'm in violation of said policy.
In everything I've read, cybersquatting only applies when a trademark violation occurs. Just tell me that you've trademarked your company name's 4 letter acronym which matches this domain name in question and I will fully agree that UDRP applies and that you have a case. Otherwise, I don't think it's I who needs to scrounge up intelligence.
Please go read the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy before you type about something you obviously don't understand.
Care to state which section is being violated? First off, you never stated that you have the 4 letter acronym trademarked -- only that you have a sole proprietorship. So unless you left this important bit of information out of your post, UDRP doesn't apply as it doesn't satisfy the criteria under section 4(a)(i). The fact that the party intends to profit from this domain is irrelevant to UDRP unless you can demonstrate that if affects your trademark, if indeed you have one and that all three criteria under 4(a) are met.
Now perhaps there's a different ICANN policy to which you're referring, in which case I'd be interested to know.
My only other option would be to pay them around $1300 (proving they are only 'squatting' it for profit in potential resale--also against ICANN's guidelines.
It doesn't prove that they're squatting. What if I went there and registered a junk domain name such as www.n3sd92k1jhde82jdcmbzo30.com and put it up for sale, asking $2000? And what if you bought it because, for some reason unfathomable, you decided that you must have it? Does that prove I was simply squatting on the domain name? Or does squatting only apply for "good" domain names being sold?
Besides, by my understanding a 4 letter domain name isn't by default squatting unless a registered trademark exists and the current owner of the domain name is looking to profit directly or indirectly from the trademark.
And on this topic, what is the criteria for projects to become Mozilla branded? Is there a selection process, can developers apply for their project to be considered, or is it a more organic method where you see what's around and, if sufficiently interesting and compatible, you go from there?
Slashdot Mirror
To deny evolutionary theory makes about as much sense as claiming the world is flat.
Well, the bible does say that the earth is a round disk that rests on 4 pillars which, during earthquakes, is simply God shaking those pillars. Sigh...
Well, it's enough to say they should show the religious propaganda to be fair, but is the religious propaganda made for Imax?
The solution, of course, is to show all sides of the so-called controversy. Present the scientific view and explain how it's backed by evidence. Then present the Christian view and how it's backed by a book. Show how the bible says that we're all descended from Adam and Eve, therefore Adam and Eve's children must have had sex with each other and we're all one big incestual family. But don't stop there. Show the Hindu perspective. Show what Buddhists, Muslims, and dozens of other major and semi-major religions believe.
If they want balance, boy are they going to be surprised.
Definition: faith - belief in something that is neither provable nor disprovable.
If you want to get technical, the bible defines faith as belief without evidence. Something can have evidence, but still not be provable. However, that's not faith. Faith is when you have no evidence at all and you still believe. Wonderful, isn't it?
Ironically, you've misspelled misspelt.
What's that? A lack of grain?
ive never died from dropping a fag on my shirt.
What do you say if someone comes up and asks you if they could bum a fag?
I mean, can you have a super PDA that acts as a cell phone, GPS, mp3 player, movie player, connects to the internet etc etc? Sure, they can make it but the battery that powers it will only last for about 5 minutes.
:) I'm using one to post this reply over a GPRS connection. And the battery life is quite respectable too. The downside is that it's certainly not cheap.
Check out the i-mate PDA2K. With the exception of GPS it can do all of that, as long as you don't mind watching your movies at 320x240 and highly compressed.
Obviously someone who hasn't read the book "The science of Star Trek".
That's about as useful as "The science of the Bible". It's easy to go in after the fact and justify whether or not something can be made to fit science. It's harder to examine the evidence at hand and decide whether or not the bible/Star Trek came to the right conclusion.
If you wish to turn this off and be informed that the URL isn't valid rather than a Verisign-style "no domain is invalid" result, go into about:config and search for "keyword", then change keyword.enabled to false.
At least, riding on one of those, we'll be sure to segue into the new trusted architecture without ever falling over!
Well, I guess most of us will.
...phone up a user, tell them to change their password to x. login and fuck about. the end. this is +5, why?
The point you seemed to miss is that the purpose of any con is to gain the user's trust. Why should somebody trust you when you ask them to change their password? And how likely will it be that you'll hit someone who is somewhat security conscious, reports the phone call, and causes you trouble?
However, going through the supposed security exercise reinforces the notion of trust, makes the user feel good that they're helping, and in the end they believe their account is fully secure because they've never given out the password. The likelihood of them being suspicious is even lower and odds are good it'll never raise any red flags.
But hey... your choice.
Maybe a fake nerd is a nerf?
As far as I know, there aren't any forks of C, Perl, and the other languages that I've listed.
I find that hard to believe. How many different C implementations are there, and are they all fully 100% compatible with each other? Now, in commercial versions you don't get forks as the code is copyrighted and can't be reused for another project. But I'd be really surprised to not find any forks.
Besides, any admin worth his salt will reset a user's password and tell him to change it instead of telling him to change it to what the admin wants.
There's a good scam I read about in a book, I think it might have been the one written by Mitnick. Here's how it works:
You pretend to be the network administrator testing some new security procedures and you phone up your target user. Introduce yourself and say that you're running some security testing on the networks and you need five minutes of their time to do some testing. Remind them that never, under any circumstances, should the user tell anybody else their password. Even reinforce that they shouldn't even tell you, as you don't need to know.
Now here's the trick. Ask them to logoff. Once they've done that, tell them that you're doing some monitoring and that they should now login with their password... "and remember, don't tell me what it is!" Great, now we need to test the change password function. Get them to change their user account password to something which is known, such as "abacus". Once they've changed their password, ask them to logoff again. You, the intruder, can now login to their account as you know the password. If it's unix-based, you can setup some kind of daemon to run and accept connections, grab random files, login to the corporate VPN, whatever. Stall them for a little bit while you pillage their network... get them to login, letting them know you can't see their login come through, etc. Whatever buys you the time you need.
Then get them to login once more and change their password back to what it was. Remind them yet again not to tell you that password as they should never tell anybody what their password is. Thank them for their time and for helping you test the security system [and for allowing you to preview tomorrow's result of whether or not the FDA will be accepting or rejecting their new drug therapy, thereby allowing you to take out appropriate options on the stock].
Now if you believe that a company may lawfully customize someone else's all-rights-reserved proprietary software, then it's your turn to provide a reference to the exemption from sections 107 through 121.
Depends what you mean by customize. If it's reverse engineering the underlying source code, making changes, and then redistributing... then, no you can't. But customizing some products simply involves creating macros or interfacing with the product's public API, such as writing a mod for many current game engines.
Only Hitler would try to claim that was a joke.
I hear that Hitler is an old Korean these days.
Easy solution to that problem. Instead of using your index finger to authenticate, give Microsoft the middle finger.
The second I do business as that name, it becomes legally recognizable.
You still haven't stated whether or not you claim a mark in the 4 letter acronym of your business name. However, given that you're such a smart, well-rounded kid who's clearly wise in the ways of the world, I'll just figure you do. And if so, as I said in my last post, then you may indeed have a case.
what will become CmdrTaco's new reason to not use a macintosh?
Too stable. Doesn't run Windows. Lame.
Apple continues its innovative streak with the two-ended stylus. 99% of PDA users on slashdot have mocked the simplistic one "button" stylus for years and welcome Apple's innovation. A small permanent neodymium magnet embedded into each end of the stylus provides a different polarity which the PDA senses and treats as either a regular click or a secondary click.
Why don't you read it? For your benefit (emphasis mine):
Enter the UDRP. The reason unfathomable? Well, it's my business's name...is that unfathomable to you?
So what? Have you trademarked the 4 letter acronym of your business's name? If you haven't, then you have no rights to that domain according to section 4(a) as you need to prove that all three of those conditions have been met.
Again, please find yourself a definition of cyber-squatting and read the UDRP. Use an open mind and scrounge up some intelligence, read the UDRP and ICANN's stance/definition of cyber-squatting and legitamate use for domain names...
Well, I've read up on UDRP and you're wrong. Unless you're leaving out the crucially vital tidbit that you have a trademark for your company name's 4 letter acronym, the rest of it doesn't matter. The Internic UDRP FAQ confirms this (emphasis mine):
you might also want to check out how many other short domain names are used by cyber-squatters...they tended to buy those up a while ago to sell for profit
And popularity proves what, exactly? Show me the ICANN policy which states that if I purchase a domain name in good faith, have violated no trademarks in doing so, and wish to sell it, that I'm in violation of said policy.
In everything I've read, cybersquatting only applies when a trademark violation occurs. Just tell me that you've trademarked your company name's 4 letter acronym which matches this domain name in question and I will fully agree that UDRP applies and that you have a case. Otherwise, I don't think it's I who needs to scrounge up intelligence.
Please go read the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy before you type about something you obviously don't understand.
Care to state which section is being violated? First off, you never stated that you have the 4 letter acronym trademarked -- only that you have a sole proprietorship. So unless you left this important bit of information out of your post, UDRP doesn't apply as it doesn't satisfy the criteria under section 4(a)(i). The fact that the party intends to profit from this domain is irrelevant to UDRP unless you can demonstrate that if affects your trademark, if indeed you have one and that all three criteria under 4(a) are met.
Now perhaps there's a different ICANN policy to which you're referring, in which case I'd be interested to know.
My only other option would be to pay them around $1300 (proving they are only 'squatting' it for profit in potential resale--also against ICANN's guidelines.
It doesn't prove that they're squatting. What if I went there and registered a junk domain name such as www.n3sd92k1jhde82jdcmbzo30.com and put it up for sale, asking $2000? And what if you bought it because, for some reason unfathomable, you decided that you must have it? Does that prove I was simply squatting on the domain name? Or does squatting only apply for "good" domain names being sold?
Besides, by my understanding a 4 letter domain name isn't by default squatting unless a registered trademark exists and the current owner of the domain name is looking to profit directly or indirectly from the trademark.
And if you can't, you'll probably have trouble getting/maintaining a real-life GF, which will make you d/l more porn, etc. ad. infinitum.
At first I thought you wrote "a real-life GIF". Talk about misreading!
And on this topic, what is the criteria for projects to become Mozilla branded? Is there a selection process, can developers apply for their project to be considered, or is it a more organic method where you see what's around and, if sufficiently interesting and compatible, you go from there?
Please look at some recent interviews with Ms. Baker and check her blog before posting in order to avoid duplication.
Ah... if only slashdot editors followed this advice and checked their own site, we too might avoid duplication.