And in case you missed it: it's Free Software, not Free Brand. Software is protected by copyright, brands by trademarks. So don't mix apples with oranges.
Wrong. Free Software does not regulate anything about trademarks. Linux, Mozilla, Firefox, even Debian(!) are all registered trademarks. Do you get the point?
FYI, Linux is a registered trademark too. Yet, it is released under the GPL and it is still Free Software. Free Software is about copyright (copyleft), not about trademarks.
GBDE have proven you wrong a long time ago, it is transparent and does not use such a 1 to 1 mapping.
If it's not 1-to-1 mapped, it's not really transparent. And what are you talking about anyway? GBDE does NOT prevent traffic analysis. You can prevent water-mark attacks based on traffic analysis only by massive relocation of sectors during write operations. In software, this can be hardly real-time.
Even more secure solutions using a few percent extra disk space could avoid this weakness entirely.
Obviously, you don't know much about designing and developing transparent real-time disk encryption software. The two attributes "transparent" and "real-time" rule out any solution that is not 1-to-1 mapped.
That's why all transparent real-time disk encryption programs (PGPDisk, TrueCrypt, etc.) use and have to use 1-to-1 mapping.
So now one of those basically just discovered, "whaaaat? you mean RL locks have exploits and can be hacked??
Actually, the people are not amazed by the fact that locks can be hacked, but by the incredible ease and speed of it and by the fact that any little kid without any sort of training can do it in seconds.
> He should quickly trademark in the USA as that will override that trademark especially > since the author can provide proof of creation and originally naming it.
Sorry, but everything you wrote is utter nonsense. The filing date and geographical jurisdiction are what counts. You can "override" it only in USA (not in Germany), and only if the holder of the German trademark does not oppose your US registration.
Nope. The whole Europe has approx. 710 milion residents. It's EU that has 400 million. (It's not very unlikely that EU will eventually be a federation like US. Then California will be similar to Germany.)
Also, if you still think that US population of 291 milion represents a significant portion of the worlds population, then I should remind you that the world has population of more than 6 bilion. Eurasia alone (Europe + Asia, which forms actually one real continent) has approximately 4.5 bilion inhabitants.
those eastern european countries where a good portion of the population still eats dirt and shits in outhouses?
You claim that "people in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, etc. eat dirt and shits in outhouses?" I happen to live in one of those countries in the EU and can assure you this is not happening here.
At the moment I've got 5 mod points but, unfortunately, already contributed so I can't mod this thread. But I'm sure it won't take long for a mod to give you the flattering Flaimbait or Troll label.
Actually, US residents often forget that the EU alone (which does not cover the whole Europe) has many more residents than the US (about 400 milion). Giving US-only stats as a proof of a statement is, to say the least, questionable.
> "Only very rarely is someone widely ridiculed who is actually correct." is > really not that absurd of a statement.
I don't know about absurd, but the statement certainly shows lack of knowledge about human nature, social psychology, history, and particularly lives of geniuses.
You missed the point. People were laughing at the "crazy" ones many many times in the past. Later (often centuries later) we found out that these "crazy" people were actually undervalued geniuses. Don't laugh at "crazy" people (someone could be laughin at *you* a few centuries later).
I was taught otherwise. Nobody really believed him. He was treated as a crazy guy, until there were real proofs. Niels Bohr was considered as crazy too.
BTW, only a little kid would make fun of a typo (Einsteing).
Initially, when Einsteing presented his ideas, they all thought he was a member of such "club of crazies" too. Geniuses coming up with revolutional and and original ideas are often considered "crazy" by the "average" ordinary people.
Absolutely no justification? You kidding me right? I told you that OS X has the Mach kernel and Mach kernel is _not_ a Unix-like kernel. The aim of the authors of the Mach kernel was to create a better and _different_ kernel than Unix. OS X has BSD toolset which is Unix-like, but the kernel is not Unix like. Saying that OS X is "true Unix" is just plain wrong. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
And in case you missed it: it's Free Software, not Free Brand. Software is protected by copyright, brands by trademarks. So don't mix apples with oranges.
Wrong. Free Software does not regulate anything about trademarks. Linux, Mozilla, Firefox, even Debian(!) are all registered trademarks. Do you get the point?
Or they could use a different logo/name combo that is quite similar to the original
Or, they couldn't. Trademark law forbids not only names that are the same but also "quite similar" to a trademark.
FYI, Linux is a registered trademark too. Yet, it is released under the GPL and it is still Free Software. Free Software is about copyright (copyleft), not about trademarks.
GBDE have proven you wrong a long time ago, it is transparent and does not use such a 1 to 1 mapping.
If it's not 1-to-1 mapped, it's not really transparent. And what are you talking about anyway? GBDE does NOT prevent traffic analysis. You can prevent water-mark attacks based on traffic analysis only by massive relocation of sectors during write operations. In software, this can be hardly real-time.
Even more secure solutions using a few percent extra disk space could avoid this weakness entirely.
Obviously, you don't know much about designing and developing transparent real-time disk encryption software. The two attributes "transparent" and "real-time" rule out any solution that is not 1-to-1 mapped.
That's why all transparent real-time disk encryption programs (PGPDisk, TrueCrypt, etc.) use and have to use 1-to-1 mapping.
How about monopolies or de-facto monopolies? How will you "not buy" their products?
So now one of those basically just discovered, "whaaaat? you mean RL locks have exploits and can be hacked??
Actually, the people are not amazed by the fact that locks can be hacked, but by the incredible ease and speed of it and by the fact that any little kid without any sort of training can do it in seconds.
Just a reminder: e.g. ancient Greeks had more than one god.
Frankly, I don't believe any EU country could have laws like this. Could you provide a reference or quotation?
Yeah, sure you were. Too late buddy.
> He should quickly trademark in the USA as that will override that trademark especially
> since the author can provide proof of creation and originally naming it.
Sorry, but everything you wrote is utter nonsense. The filing date and geographical jurisdiction are what counts. You can "override" it only in USA (not in Germany), and only if the holder of the German trademark does not oppose your US registration.
Nope. The whole Europe has approx. 710 milion residents. It's EU that has 400 million. (It's not very unlikely that EU will eventually be a federation like US. Then California will be similar to Germany.)
Also, if you still think that US population of 291 milion represents a significant portion of the worlds population, then I should remind you that the world has population of more than 6 bilion. Eurasia alone (Europe + Asia, which forms actually one real continent) has approximately 4.5 bilion inhabitants.
those eastern european countries where a good portion of the population still eats dirt and shits in outhouses?
You claim that "people in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, etc. eat dirt and shits in outhouses?" I happen to live in one of those countries in the EU and can assure you this is not happening here.
At the moment I've got 5 mod points but, unfortunately, already contributed so I can't mod this thread. But I'm sure it won't take long for a mod to give you the flattering Flaimbait or Troll label.
Have a nice day.
Actually, US residents often forget that the EU alone (which does not cover the whole Europe) has many more residents than the US (about 400 milion). Giving US-only stats as a proof of a statement is, to say the least, questionable.
Of course I read the statement. This statement also indicates the lack of knowledge.
> "Only very rarely is someone widely ridiculed who is actually correct." is
> really not that absurd of a statement.
I don't know about absurd, but the statement certainly shows lack of knowledge about human nature, social psychology, history, and particularly lives of geniuses.
You should do more reading.
> Only very rarely is someone widely ridiculed who is actually correct.
You're wrong. Read something about the lives of geniuses in the field of science and inventions.
You missed the point. People were laughing at the "crazy" ones many many times in the past. Later (often centuries later) we found out that these "crazy" people were actually undervalued geniuses. Don't laugh at "crazy" people (someone could be laughin at *you* a few centuries later).
I was taught otherwise. Nobody really believed him. He was treated as a crazy guy, until there were real proofs. Niels Bohr was considered as crazy too.
BTW, only a little kid would make fun of a typo (Einsteing).
club of crazies
Initially, when Einsteing presented his ideas, they all thought he was a member of such "club of crazies" too. Geniuses coming up with revolutional and and original ideas are often considered "crazy" by the "average" ordinary people.
> absolutely no justification
Absolutely no justification? You kidding me right? I told you that OS X has the Mach kernel and Mach kernel is _not_ a Unix-like kernel. The aim of the authors of the Mach kernel was to create a better and _different_ kernel than Unix. OS X has BSD toolset which is Unix-like, but the kernel is not Unix like. Saying that OS X is "true Unix" is just plain wrong. Period.
I will just repeat what I said in my first post to this thread: OS X is not "true Unix". Period.
And in case you missed it, Linux is the name of the kernel.