Here's a hack I use regularly to step through the files in a directory:
(defun dired-next-file () "Kill the current buffer, advance to next line in dired, get that file. Requires that 'other buffer' be a dired." (interactive) (when (eq (cdr (assoc 'major-mode (buffer-local-variables (other-buffer)))) 'dired-mode) (kill-buffer (current-buffer)) (dired-next-line 1) (dired-find-file)))
Could the respondents (the students) cause the plaintiff (the city) harm through their actions? Would it cause the respondents hard to have to cease their action? Well yes, it would cause the city harm if the students revealed their information.
You appear to be overlooking the critical point that the students' planned presentation did not Reveal All -- critical information needed to actually exploit the flaw was left out. MBTA was told this and sued anyway. The only "harm" the city would have suffered is well-deserved acute embarrassment.
Seconded. I am blond with blue eyes. There was a fair amount of such attention when I was a kid, in the 50s and 60s; but the last time I was there, I only drew noticeable attention once, when I wandered into a small neighborhood restaurant and ordered in Japanese. I don't remember which city, but it wasn't Tokyo.
As my father, a former Lutheran missionary in Japan, would tell you, "yes, but only a small percentage".
Not sure I get the joke, though. I've never heard such a description applied to Lutherans, and would not think it applied any more than to many mainline Protestant churches...
That was probably the idea. The Japanese seem to be fond of adopting transliterations, sometimes even when there already was a perfectly good Japanese word for it. That said, I'm not sure if this particular one is in use; I've not been there in a while.
Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. The law does not allow you to be remedied twice for the same act.
A reasonable argument. At the same time, having the court tell SCO, "you weren't allowed to do that, but you get to keep the money for doing it" would strike me as a miscarriage of justice.
Sun already bought out their rights to Unix so if what Novell is saying is true, SCO coudldn't sell them anything. So if Novell's claim of SCO exceeding their authority is true and the deal is invalid, then Sun didn't get anything it didn't already have.
But Novell is claiming that Sun did gain rights in the 2003 deal. And I'm still seeing the implication that "SCO exceeded its authority" = "we declare the deal invalid", which I don't think is right. I suspect it's more like, "SCO exceeded its authority, and we want a ruling to that effect so they don't do it again; but we'll honor the deal anyway."
... it would have made more sense for Novell to claim that SCO is not entitled to collect that money rather than SCO owes them the 95%.
Why "rather than"? Once again, it looks to me that Novell is saying both, and appears to have strong arguments for doing so. Mind you, saying SCO exceeded its authority when it cut the deal is not the same thing as saying the deal is (or will be) repudiated. I think I'm agreeing with you when I say it's unlikely Novell will sue Sun, but I'm not sure Novell has publicly committed either way.
By saying the agreement between Sun and SCO was part of the APA between Novell and SCO they are affirming the deal between Sun and SCO.
I disagree. Novell is saying that the APA means SCO owes them a goodly chunk of the moneys it got it the SCO-Sun deal. It is also saying SCO exceeded its authority under the APA when it made the deal without consulting Novell. Neither statement indicates approval or disapproval of the deal itself, and Novell has not to my knowledge committed either way.
I suppose this qualifies as a mis-directed 5xx rather than backscatter, but... Exactly a year ago, coincidentally, I received "failure delivery" bounces from a Yahoo.com server, for email I never sent, apparently because the actual sender put my corporate email address in the Return-Path! You'd think Yahoo'd know better.
Yup. I still remember a call on an open line asking me what the TEMPEST rating of a Symbolics LISP Machine was (I bought the first one at NSA). I told him I didn't know, then called him on a secure line to explain I wasn't permitted to divulge that in the open.
Not just the 1620. We did the same with our IBM 1130 in the early 70s. I was under the impression it was due to the unshielded core memory (8K, baby!), not the CPU.
I love the way the article makes figuring this email out sound like rocket science. "three cyber security specialists" worked out the path the email took, as if no-one else can read Received lines. (Yeah, sure, sometimes there are forged Received lines added to confuse the issue, but IME they're virtually always easy to spot.) And, oh my goodness, 3322.org is registered in Changzhou, China! As anyone who nows how to use whois (or even simpler, web sites like samspade or domaintools) could determine in 30 seconds.
Hmmph. I try to humorously (?) point out that some moderators have missed the point by calling GP Insightful rather than Funny. The GP then gets Funny and I get Troll. Apparently said lunkheads were not amused.
Uh, what? My Windows system (it's my company's laptop, OK?) has emacs, and (thanks to cygwin) grep, sed, awk, and shell commands for file management. No hacking or ill-behaved emulator, and no issues.
First, what lunkhead moderators called this insightful?!?! Second, we are now faced with the astonished realization that there are moderators unfamiliar with The Matrix! The mind... wobbles.
First off, how in the world did you get anything about non-spammers out of what you quoted??? She even said "unsolicited bulk e-mail", which is the very definition of spam, regardless of content.
Second, no less than then-Chief Justice Berger, as I quoted above, was comfortable with prohibiting "at the outer boundary of every person's domain" regardless of content.
Sorry, the reason for dissent gives me no comfort.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a hack I use regularly to step through the files in a directory:
(defun dired-next-file ()
"Kill the current buffer, advance to next line in dired, get that file.
Requires that 'other buffer' be a dired."
(interactive)
(when (eq (cdr (assoc 'major-mode (buffer-local-variables (other-buffer))))
'dired-mode)
(kill-buffer (current-buffer))
(dired-next-line 1)
(dired-find-file)))
(global-set-key "\C-cf" 'dired-next-file)
And it's not hard to find cheaper US sources, too, unless you have your heart set on stainless steel: here, here, here, etc
You appear to be overlooking the critical point that the students' planned presentation did not Reveal All -- critical information needed to actually exploit the flaw was left out. MBTA was told this and sued anyway. The only "harm" the city would have suffered is well-deserved acute embarrassment.
Seconded. I am blond with blue eyes. There was a fair amount of such attention when I was a kid, in the 50s and 60s; but the last time I was there, I only drew noticeable attention once, when I wandered into a small neighborhood restaurant and ordered in Japanese. I don't remember which city, but it wasn't Tokyo.
As my father, a former Lutheran missionary in Japan, would tell you, "yes, but only a small percentage". Not sure I get the joke, though. I've never heard such a description applied to Lutherans, and would not think it applied any more than to many mainline Protestant churches...
Zing! Funny but true.
That was probably the idea. The Japanese seem to be fond of adopting transliterations, sometimes even when there already was a perfectly good Japanese word for it. That said, I'm not sure if this particular one is in use; I've not been there in a while.
Or, perhaps he decided the hilarious ending of "The Big U" (definitely worth reading) was too over the top, and has been overcompensating ever since?
Sounds like the Department was aptly named.
All very true. At the same time, he has occasionally gotten things right. It would not surprise me if this turned out to be one of those times.
I always liked the next one in the series, too: And The Inevitable Occurs
I suppose this qualifies as a mis-directed 5xx rather than backscatter, but... Exactly a year ago, coincidentally, I received "failure delivery" bounces from a Yahoo.com server, for email I never sent, apparently because the actual sender put my corporate email address in the Return-Path! You'd think Yahoo'd know better.
Yup. I still remember a call on an open line asking me what the TEMPEST rating of a Symbolics LISP Machine was (I bought the first one at NSA). I told him I didn't know, then called him on a secure line to explain I wasn't permitted to divulge that in the open.
Not just the 1620. We did the same with our IBM 1130 in the early 70s. I was under the impression it was due to the unshielded core memory (8K, baby!), not the CPU.
Preach it, brother. Just as true as when I posted it the last time we had this discussion: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=472546&cid=22613834
I love the way the article makes figuring this email out sound like rocket science. "three cyber security specialists" worked out the path the email took, as if no-one else can read Received lines. (Yeah, sure, sometimes there are forged Received lines added to confuse the issue, but IME they're virtually always easy to spot.) And, oh my goodness, 3322.org is registered in Changzhou, China! As anyone who nows how to use whois (or even simpler, web sites like samspade or domaintools) could determine in 30 seconds.
Of course, then I'd be in a quandry, choosing between "Funny" and "Informative"...
Hmmph. I try to humorously (?) point out that some moderators have missed the point by calling GP Insightful rather than Funny. The GP then gets Funny and I get Troll. Apparently said lunkheads were not amused.
Uh, what? My Windows system (it's my company's laptop, OK?) has emacs, and (thanks to cygwin) grep, sed, awk, and shell commands for file management. No hacking or ill-behaved emulator, and no issues.
First, what lunkhead moderators called this insightful?!?! Second, we are now faced with the astonished realization that there are moderators unfamiliar with The Matrix! The mind ... wobbles.
First off, how in the world did you get anything about non-spammers out of what you quoted??? She even said "unsolicited bulk e-mail", which is the very definition of spam, regardless of content. Second, no less than then-Chief Justice Berger, as I quoted above, was comfortable with prohibiting "at the outer boundary of every person's domain" regardless of content. Sorry, the reason for dissent gives me no comfort.