My spouse has made some really nice Christmas ornaments this way by scanning dragonflys and butterflies
I hope she scans them after they're dead / stunned. I just had the vaguely disturbing mental image of her running around the garden, scanner in hand, cackling insanely as she attempts to snap the scanner shut on the flying insects.
It seems that the downfall of a fair few hackers is boasting about their antics. Many seem to have an inborne need to actually make someone aware of their 'l33t sk1llz'. I'd surprised if your average hacker didn't let at least one person in on what they were doing.
Just because you catch me strolling across your yard doesn't mean I should pay for having it fenced. No, but in certain parts of America you might end up paying in other ways when you found some shotgun toting guy taking offence to you trampling his lawn.
That's the lawyers fault? Funny, I make that the fault of the people for allowing such a law to exist. Change it if you don't like it.
It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. You've got people deciding everything is anyone's fault but their own, and lawyers taking up every damn frivolous case. Which came first? If knew, I'd get myself a time machine and go back and slap some sense into the first fool who decided there was a market for suing or to sue someone not because they needed to but because they thought they'd make some quick cash. Sad thing is, I can't see the situation getting any better at all.
Of course we do. And I for one welcome our new.. er, in Soviet Russia... nope, that's not it. Screw the RIA... er.. SCO.. Microsoft.. hang on. Sorry - what was the article about again?
I wonder why you wonder. After all, PR wise, this may be a disaster, but many corporations have shown to have few qualms when it comes to making money - this isn't any different.
No, not the 'study' in question, but 'Tainted Truth: The manipulation of truth in America' by Cynthia Crossen, available on Amazon, ISBN 0684815567. It may seem obvious to some Slashdot readers to take any studies funded by the organisation that they favour with a pinch of salt. But it's still an excellent book about a variety of studies and how they were skewed in the favour of the organisation funded them yet somehow got press attention. Definitely worth reading.
Bad english? I doubt it. I think they chose their words very carefully dead. They didn't use use 'improper use' or - as was truncated from my original post'improperly copied' or 'stolen' because that then would imply a distinct target and activity for their wishy-washy allegations. A target who could then counter-sue, or at least ask SCO to provide evidence of these activities.
'Improper contribution' on the other hand is so meaningless and vague so as to sound important on first glance but not to offer ammunition for any counter-suits. Alas for SCO, it also doesn't stand up when you read the phrase twice. I think SCO picked their words very carefully indeed.
The article doesn't offer as much insight into SCO's thinking with this apparently suicidal (PR wise anyway)
move, but one thing does stand out, the use of the words 'improper contribution'. Not 'improper use' or
This for me shows just how empty SCO's talk is. How exactly does someone improperly
contribute something? If you contribute something, you do so. If something is stolen or copied from you,
it's stolen. SCO didn't even have the guts to accuse anyone of stealing, they just came up with this
nonsensical phrase. Kind of telling.
What about that last quote, where they said that because they weren't a legal organization, they weren't bound by the limits of search?
So they're saying they have the right to enter your house willy nilly and take your things? That'd be burglary, surely? When can we expect RIAA members to be arrested for breaking and enterting?
This was the theoretically legal basis for pirating on BBSes in the 80s (a few anyway).
And is still used on some rom-swapping sites these days. But it's more of an urban legend than anything else since - correct me if I'm wrong - it has no legal weight at all. Instead this '24 hours and delete' has become a particularly hard to kill meme which a great many people seem to believe but in actual fact is pretty much untrue.
While this development certainly sounds interesting, calling something cheap and stable based soley on a prototype wihout major major long-term testing seems to be jumping the gun a little.
... the real explanation for ghosts is that it was old Mr McCavity, the janitor. He knew about the abandoned gold mine under the house and used the ghost disguse to try to scare away the house's rightful owners. And he would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO still haven't paid the ransom, then?
Are you a terrorist? Yes / No
Are you telling the truth? Yes / No
Do you respect our authoritaaay Yes / No.
4. Other people choose free blogging rather than the pay service. 5. Go Bust 6. 'Would you like fries with that?'
I hope she scans them after they're dead / stunned. I just had the vaguely disturbing mental image of her running around the garden, scanner in hand, cackling insanely as she attempts to snap the scanner shut on the flying insects.
It seems that the downfall of a fair few hackers is boasting about their antics. Many seem to have an inborne need to actually make someone aware of their 'l33t sk1llz'. I'd surprised if your average hacker didn't let at least one person in on what they were doing.
Just because you catch me strolling across your yard doesn't mean I should pay for having it fenced. No, but in certain parts of America you might end up paying in other ways when you found some shotgun toting guy taking offence to you trampling his lawn.
.. has also been done, albeit with a lesser degree of success. I believe it appears in the Annals of Improbably Research collected book.
Thanks a bunch. I now have a vaguely disturbing mental image of a naked bee.
It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. You've got people deciding everything is anyone's fault but their own, and lawyers taking up every damn frivolous case. Which came first? If knew, I'd get myself a time machine and go back and slap some sense into the first fool who decided there was a market for suing or to sue someone not because they needed to but because they thought they'd make some quick cash. Sad thing is, I can't see the situation getting any better at all.
Now all we need is a Gnome that is absolutely and utterly foolproof and we can slap Linux onto every PC ever.
Of course we do. And I for one welcome our new.. er, in Soviet Russia... nope, that's not it. Screw the RIA... er.. SCO.. Microsoft.. hang on. Sorry - what was the article about again?
I wonder why you wonder. After all, PR wise, this may be a disaster, but many corporations have shown to have few qualms when it comes to making money - this isn't any different.
It's almost as though it was a setup. The only thing that was missing was the fact that she wasn't in a wheelchair.
And the fact they took her dialysis machine and the spare kidney she was due to be given as a downpayment on her fine... but if you don't nip listening to Britney Spears in the bud, who knows where it may lead.
No, not the 'study' in question, but 'Tainted Truth: The manipulation of truth in America' by Cynthia Crossen, available on Amazon, ISBN 0684815567. It may seem obvious to some Slashdot readers to take any studies funded by the organisation that they favour with a pinch of salt. But it's still an excellent book about a variety of studies and how they were skewed in the favour of the organisation funded them yet somehow got press attention. Definitely worth reading.
'Improper contribution' on the other hand is so meaningless and vague so as to sound important on first glance but not to offer ammunition for any counter-suits. Alas for SCO, it also doesn't stand up when you read the phrase twice. I think SCO picked their words very carefully indeed.
You missed out '11th Sept 2003 - 'Bob' comes a ridin in on a giant fire-breathing Atlantean Penguin.'
The article doesn't offer as much insight into SCO's thinking with this apparently suicidal (PR wise anyway) move, but one thing does stand out, the use of the words 'improper contribution'. Not 'improper use' or This for me shows just how empty SCO's talk is. How exactly does someone improperly contribute something? If you contribute something, you do so. If something is stolen or copied from you, it's stolen. SCO didn't even have the guts to accuse anyone of stealing, they just came up with this nonsensical phrase. Kind of telling.
So they're saying they have the right to enter your house willy nilly and take your things? That'd be burglary, surely? When can we expect RIAA members to be arrested for breaking and enterting?
I guess it's true - on the internet no-one knows you're a dog.
And is still used on some rom-swapping sites these days. But it's more of an urban legend than anything else since - correct me if I'm wrong - it has no legal weight at all. Instead this '24 hours and delete' has become a particularly hard to kill meme which a great many people seem to believe but in actual fact is pretty much untrue.
While this development certainly sounds interesting, calling something cheap and stable based soley on a prototype wihout major major long-term testing seems to be jumping the gun a little.
Rat's right, raggy! Rooby rooby roo!
Doubly so if there's an out-take in which SWK decapitates Jar Jar Binks.
... the real explanation for ghosts is that it was old Mr McCavity, the janitor. He knew about the abandoned gold mine under the house and used the ghost disguse to try to scare away the house's rightful owners. And he would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.