Yeah... see, I've never understood this $50-stolen-card-bit.
I just foresee something like this: "Hello, Visa? My card is missing, number XXX. My last three bills were for $X, $Y, and $Z, so you know it's me calling. Please cancel my card immediately and don't authorize any transactions." "All right, thank you, sir. We'll cancel your card when we get around to it, or, if the transactions from this point henceforth begin to exceed $50." "No, I want my card cancelled *NOW*. Why can't you do that?" "Because we don't want to. And you thought having a credit card was cool! Sucks to be our customer now, eh?"
Please tell me this *isn't* the case... I mean, if you were a customer of a video rental place, and someone stole your card... if you call up and tell them to end your membership immediately, would they wait until someone had checked out a dozen movies or so, and *then* bother to end it, and forward that $50 of charges on to you, even though that's not what you told them you wanted them to do? That's what it sounds like to me, and it doesn't really seem to make sense:-/
What about video rental places? Every rental store around here requires a credit card on file with them, so if you fail to bring something back, they can start charging you overtime.
They used to just require a one-time "membership deposit" of like $60 or $70 to cover costs like this; some stores would give you (most of) that back after being a good customer for 1 or 2 years, or some would give (some of) it back when you ended your membership.
404 page on my server. You can pretty easily resolve lost pages on my site, although it's not automatic. I guess the next step could be to, whenever a 404 is generated, log it, and run a daemon later that searches the possible replacement matches and stores the relevant information later; then, the next time that particular URL 404's, some keywords or such could be provided, and the user could be asked, "Is this a close match to what you wanted?," and this poll could be used to sort the keyword links on the 404 page for most probable match.
IBM needs to stop patenting so much stuff, IMHO. It seems pretty obvious to me. I know that my solution isn't the same, but it's similar in intent, and it could easily be extended to compete with IBM's tool...
Yes, exactly. You can't choose what genes you get; things like cancer, endometriosis, and organ failure can costs tens of thousands of dollars PER YEAR, sometimes PER MONTH.
That's a good point! They ought to make them login first, before giving them access to their Inbox. That way, they could perhaps send notices to accounts that check more than X times per day, saying it will start ignoring more than Y requests per day from IP addresses that check their accounts.
Also, I'm wondering why people haven't designed software to get around those silly try-to-guess-what-word-we've-seriously-distorted-b eyond-recognition systems. I have enough trouble reading 13375|*33| (elite-speak). I've never understood sites that want to prevent automatic registration don't just stall before sending the "registration completed" page. If the same IP comes back more than one time in a day (unless it's a known proxy, in which case maybe set the stall-time longer to begin with but don't lengthen it), increase the stall time each time. (For netblocks known to be used by troublesome persons, start with a larger stall time). If the connection is closed during the stall, cancel the registration.
Crap---I bet it's probably patented, that's why it's not used.
What are you implying? I *always* cross my chasms in two small jumps. It may lower my gas mileage a bit, but I don't have to jump as h--- *looks down* SHIT. Uh-oh. . . . *distant thump*
Hmm, it seems that I accidentally started a small debate from my categorical error (or misnomer, seen from the other end). I've learned an awful lot about contracts versus licenses today =D I had always considered a license a diminuitive form of a contract, but, touche.
It seems to me that this is the simplest way of defining it:
License = you gain something you did NOT have before (previously, you were prohibited), often via purchase, or through acceptance of terms of usage (which is an agreement, but not a "contractual agreement" in the courts). Licensing is like letting a kid borrow your calculator for an evening if he gives you a couple dimes. Contract = some sort of definite terms of agreement (very broad); generally, there is an exchange of goods/services/money. Contract can be used in a broad sense, but it has a specific legal meaning.
Or something like that. I give up. Time to go home now...heh.
Actually, if you read the rest of this thread, you'll notice that I already found and perused that. I google more often than I whack off, and for a computer nerd, you KNOW that's a lot.;)
I was more interested in the FSF stuff, though.
But, the first hit is actually a very informative page which gives a clever (thought somewhat obvious) argument: "Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.
Err, whoops, you're correct, but that doesn't really detract from the rest of my post.
[ The English-language definition of contract is somewhat broader than the American legal definition, but, I was attempting to speak in legal terms. (I _did_ disclaim my non-lawyer status already, though *g*). Contracts _can_ be merely implied, if wikipedia is to be believed; I would call the GPL a weak contract in this sense, since you're agreeing to abide by the rules and regulations set forth in exchange for permissions granted to do things that may otherwise be prohibited, but, it's probably more properly called a license, to distinguish from the traditional oral or written agreement to negotiated terms of exchange. ]
These are some good resources about contracts and contract law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/contracts. html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract The exact nature of the GPL has been subject to some debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_L icense), because it differs so greatly from traditional software licenses.
Do you have pointers to those documents? I'm curious to see them. I know that arrangements similar to the GPL can be implied contracts or such, although, this may be an out-of-date notion since the rise of software license law by precedent (a la the first sale doctrine).
Contracts are considered legally binding. The GPL is a contract. If a court deems a contract to be either enforceable or nonenforceable, it sets a precedent, which is sort of pseudo-law, but you generally do not go to jail or the federal pen for breaching a contract, unless the State, the Federal Government, or a private party files criminal charges against you. Criminal charges show up rarely in business, except for things like shoplifting, fraud, and tax evasion; usually, it's just civil charges, and those are pretty much all private party money exchange (and sometimes a way for the big guy with the good lawyers to screw over the little guy who can't afford a nice lawyer).
I know you wanted a lawyer, but I just like the sound of "I, Anal!" (or is that Aye, Anal! Or.. Eye-Anal!)---don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah.. ok, that makes MUCH more sense.
(I lack common sense, 'tis all... *g*)
How, exactly, do they support these groups? I'm curious...
Yeah... see, I've never understood this $50-stolen-card-bit.
:-/
I just foresee something like this:
"Hello, Visa? My card is missing, number XXX. My last three bills were for $X, $Y, and $Z, so you know it's me calling. Please cancel my card immediately and don't authorize any transactions."
"All right, thank you, sir. We'll cancel your card when we get around to it, or, if the transactions from this point henceforth begin to exceed $50."
"No, I want my card cancelled *NOW*. Why can't you do that?"
"Because we don't want to. And you thought having a credit card was cool! Sucks to be our customer now, eh?"
Please tell me this *isn't* the case... I mean, if you were a customer of a video rental place, and someone stole your card... if you call up and tell them to end your membership immediately, would they wait until someone had checked out a dozen movies or so, and *then* bother to end it, and forward that $50 of charges on to you, even though that's not what you told them you wanted them to do? That's what it sounds like to me, and it doesn't really seem to make sense
What about video rental places? Every rental store around here requires a credit card on file with them, so if you fail to bring something back, they can start charging you overtime.
They used to just require a one-time "membership deposit" of like $60 or $70 to cover costs like this; some stores would give you (most of) that back after being a good customer for 1 or 2 years, or some would give (some of) it back when you ended your membership.
404 page on my server. You can pretty easily resolve lost pages on my site, although it's not automatic. I guess the next step could be to, whenever a 404 is generated, log it, and run a daemon later that searches the possible replacement matches and stores the relevant information later; then, the next time that particular URL 404's, some keywords or such could be provided, and the user could be asked, "Is this a close match to what you wanted?," and this poll could be used to sort the keyword links on the 404 page for most probable match.
IBM needs to stop patenting so much stuff, IMHO. It seems pretty obvious to me. I know that my solution isn't the same, but it's similar in intent, and it could easily be extended to compete with IBM's tool...
Actually, you don't need a kitchen nor a toilet because, you can just visit the Italian bistro in the engine room. Duh.
A simple string analysis of the trojan reveals some intimidating-looking strings:M icrosoft\Windows\ CurrentVersion\Rune bPageThread , Socket4RandomThread, Socket4ServerThreadA , InternetConnectA
GetSystemDirectoryA, xProxyBot v 1.0.0, 1.0.0 , w32.exe,
Windows Service Application, www.earthlabs.biz,
sockproxy/rec.php.
Software\
Software\Microsoft\Windows\ CurrentVersion\RunServices
%s?&p=%d&v=%s
VisitW
SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\ Control\SafeBoot\
explorer.exe
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible)
InternetCloseHandle, InternetGetLast ResponseInfoA
InternetReadFile , InternetCrackUrlA
InternetOpenUrlA
InternetOpen
FtpPutFileA, FtpGetFileA
HttpSendRequestA, HttpOpenRequestA
InternetGet ConnectedStateEx, InternetGetConnected State
No no no!!
Play Cricket with it, but, bowl very badly.
Aha... I tend to like standardization, too, just not on my own computer ;)
Whatever happened to things like ^a, ^e, and ^u for beginning, end, and kill? Is there any way to get these back in the new firefox?
Actually, here's a really easy exact formula for Pi (written in base Pi, just convert the answer to base 10): 10
You mean a personal slave^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhapless grad student?
Yes, exactly. You can't choose what genes you get; things like cancer, endometriosis, and organ failure can costs tens of thousands of dollars PER YEAR, sometimes PER MONTH.
That's a good point! They ought to make them login first, before giving them access to their Inbox. That way, they could perhaps send notices to accounts that check more than X times per day, saying it will start ignoring more than Y requests per day from IP addresses that check their accounts.
b eyond-recognition systems. I have enough trouble reading 13375|*33| (elite-speak). I've never understood sites that want to prevent automatic registration don't just stall before sending the "registration completed" page. If the same IP comes back more than one time in a day (unless it's a known proxy, in which case maybe set the stall-time longer to begin with but don't lengthen it), increase the stall time each time. (For netblocks known to be used by troublesome persons, start with a larger stall time). If the connection is closed during the stall, cancel the registration.
Also, I'm wondering why people haven't designed software to get around those silly try-to-guess-what-word-we've-seriously-distorted-
Crap---I bet it's probably patented, that's why it's not used.
I dunno about you, but I get motion sickness. I need to feel a good bit of the road's bumpiness beneath me, or my brain gets confused and I barf.
So, will I be able to adjust a setting to make this not-so-smooth?
That's a very interesting spin on it.
;)
Btw, I was the AC above, but, I don't like to be modded down
# expect -v
expect version 5.38.0
That's funny, I'm already up to 5.38! Damn consequences of time travel.
What are you implying? I *always* cross my chasms in two small jumps. It may lower my gas mileage a bit, but I don't have to jump as h---
*looks down*
SHIT. Uh-oh.
.
.
.
*distant thump*
Hmm, it seems that I accidentally started a small debate from my categorical error (or misnomer, seen from the other end). I've learned an awful lot about contracts versus licenses today =D I had always considered a license a diminuitive form of a contract, but, touche.
It seems to me that this is the simplest way of defining it:
License = you gain something you did NOT have before (previously, you were prohibited), often via purchase, or through acceptance of terms of usage (which is an agreement, but not a "contractual agreement" in the courts). Licensing is like letting a kid borrow your calculator for an evening if he gives you a couple dimes.
Contract = some sort of definite terms of agreement (very broad); generally, there is an exchange of goods/services/money. Contract can be used in a broad sense, but it has a specific legal meaning.
Or something like that. I give up. Time to go home now...heh.
Heh... good point.
/., and you won't believe how quickly your inbox can fill up... *g*)
( Man, you say one-quite-perfect thing on
hah.. clever, hadn't seen "justfuckingoogleit" in a tinyurl before. nice =)
Actually, if you read the rest of this thread, you'll notice that I already found and perused that. I google more often than I whack off, and for a computer nerd, you KNOW that's a lot. ;)
I was more interested in the FSF stuff, though.
But, the first hit is actually a very informative page which gives a clever (thought somewhat obvious) argument:
"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.
But, this is getting pretty far off-topic...
Err, whoops, you're correct, but that doesn't really detract from the rest of my post.
. html: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contractL icense), because it differs so greatly from traditional software licenses.
[ The English-language definition of contract is somewhat broader than the American legal definition, but, I was attempting to speak in legal terms. (I _did_ disclaim my non-lawyer status already, though *g*). Contracts _can_ be merely implied, if wikipedia is to be believed; I would call the GPL a weak contract in this sense, since you're agreeing to abide by the rules and regulations set forth in exchange for permissions granted to do things that may otherwise be prohibited, but, it's probably more properly called a license, to distinguish from the traditional oral or written agreement to negotiated terms of exchange. ]
These are some good resources about contracts and contract law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/contracts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
http
The exact nature of the GPL has been subject to some debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_
Do you have pointers to those documents? I'm curious to see them. I know that arrangements similar to the GPL can be implied contracts or such, although, this may be an out-of-date notion since the rise of software license law by precedent (a la the first sale doctrine).
Contracts are considered legally binding. The GPL is a contract. If a court deems a contract to be either enforceable or nonenforceable, it sets a precedent, which is sort of pseudo-law, but you generally do not go to jail or the federal pen for breaching a contract, unless the State, the Federal Government, or a private party files criminal charges against you. Criminal charges show up rarely in business, except for things like shoplifting, fraud, and tax evasion; usually, it's just civil charges, and those are pretty much all private party money exchange (and sometimes a way for the big guy with the good lawyers to screw over the little guy who can't afford a nice lawyer).
I know you wanted a lawyer, but I just like the sound of "I, Anal!" (or is that Aye, Anal! Or.. Eye-Anal!)---don't you?