It is mot possible to decode without knowing the one time padd. And the one time padd is implemented in the physical world, by the window.
I wouldn't say that. The "one time pad" is static. If it were truly an OTP, you would either need hundreds of these cards, or at least several that could be combined together in thousands of different ways. and they would have to have lots and lots of different combinations to make it work.
The bottom line is the physical factor is the weak link in the chain. The key-length is too short.
At it's heart it's a question of whether a person that runs a bulletin board is responsible for what posters post, a subject of frequent commentary on slashdot.
That's exactly what I thinking. Of course, the problem is that we're all Internet denizens, and therefore, we assume that no one would ever question this. But, obviously, some ignorant people do.
Of course you can't hold the operator of an online forum responsible for what other people say on it. The very thought is completely ridiculous. Do we hold a bar owner responsible when one of his customers makes a slanderous statement?
For Red Hat to be representative of their industry, they need to be a healthy and profitable company. While I agree that this doesn't necessarily point to Linux as a being a "runaway success", it is significant to note that Red Hat's flagship product is a distribution of Linux and the various open source tools from GNU, X.org, Gnome, X.org, etc, and that their other products that help to boost their profitable, like JBoss are also open source tools. So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company. That puts things in proper perspective.
The machine is as ever only as good as the person utilizing it.
My point exactly.
Of course, the thing is that despite your statement, non-psychopaths can defeat a lie detector with a great deal of practice. Not only that, but polygraph examiners that are very good can make a person who is not lying appear to be lying. That is why polygraphs are not (usually) admissable in court unless all parties have agreed beforehand on their admissability. Some jurisdictions have an outright ban on them.
No they aren't the same. The problem with a polygraph isn't just that some poeple can 'beat it', it's also subjective.
Hit that nail right on the head! Yep. We use the term "lie detector" because polygraph examiners use the term to mean 'polygraph.' But the term implies that it can answer a question with a binary answer: Is A lying about X? But what polygraph machines show us is anything but binary. The only way we can tell if someone is lying or not is by the opinion of the polygraph examiner! Who, BTW, can stack the results anyway he likes.
Forget about it. There is not now and there will never be any way to accurately gauge whether or not someone is lying. Everything you've been told to the contrary is nothing by lies and deceit, designed to make a few bucks.
In fact, the Corel case seems to be identical to this one. No doubt about it. Kaplan ruled not once, but twice that a photograph that is intended to produce a "slavish copy" of a painting lacks originality for copyright purposes.
Of course, the thing is that this is a legal gray area in the U.S.. Photographs are very much copyrighted, but if the museum had pulled the paintings off the wall and ran them through a big color copier, the result would not be copyrighted in the U.S.. The only argument is whether a photograph of a painting is a "straight-up copy" in the first place, as far as U.S. law is concerned, as you point out.
Also as you point out, it isn't easy to get a high-quality photo of a painting. OTOH, that doesn't necessarily mean that it meets the test as copyrightable. It isn't to make a mold of, say, Leonardo's David, either. But that doesn't mean that the result is copyrightable, either..
Having to compete on feature sets, interoperability, and user satisfaction is a lot harder than claiming moral superiority. -_- This is why open source still isn't taken seriously by businesses -- the mindset of its adherents is still blatantly immature.
Nice troll you have there.
Open source gets lots of things right -- and -- lots of things wrong.
If you want to talk about competing on feature sets, interoperability and user satisfaction, well, there are quite a few packages out there that do exactly that. OF course, you always have to take into account your audience.
Development tools like gcc, autoconf, Python, Perl, Emacs, gdb, are all at the top of their class in terms of these three things. I know several people, for example, who have been using Emacs since 1984, including myself (off and on; it's a love/hate relationship for me.:)
But then again, these are tools written by developers, for developers, not by developers for marketeers. Say what you will about Visual Studio.NET, but I can point you at scores of people that absolutely despise it, and not for the fact that it's closed source. It's terrible bug-infested bloatware, and everyone who has ever used it knows that. (That being said, there are those that are forced to use it, of ocurse).
For user software, Firefox is definitely at the top of its class in those three categories, no doubt about it. Its constantly rising market share proves that.
Apache? Despite Microsoft's best efforts, more than 2/3rds of all websites are still running Apache. Again, specifically because of user satisfaction (webmasters love Apache), interoperability (everybody makes their stuff work with Apache), and feature sets (IIS can hardly compete with Apache today, considering how badly Microsoft has stagnated it.)
Sure, there's stuff open source gets wrong, but that's not my point. My point is this: your comment is either astroturfing, or you're Microsoft zealot, or you're a troll, plain and simple.
You keep using that term "authenticity," which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Authenticity != accuracy. Someone can say something that they really believe is true, and even if it isn't, it's authentic. Someone posting for purely ulterior motives, lying for whatever financial gain that they can stand to benefit from, posts their crap, intelligent discourse becomes impossible.
There really was "authenticity" back in the days of Usenet. Anyone old enough to remember Usenet, FidoNet, etc., back in their glory days will tell you that.
The "return" part is "total global domination." Unless they've seriously changed their tune since Bill Gates stopped running things day-to-day (which I doubt very much given the man he left in charge), Microsoft will have nothing less.
Millions is nothing to Microsoft. Microsoft has $25 billion in cash sitting in the bank.
What's $20 million to a company with 10 times that in cash and a market cap in excess of $200 billion?
You've almost got it. There was also the Soviet war in Afghanistan, though some historians call this the Second Cold War. (I disagree.) . In a way, our current involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to some extent with Iran and Syria is basically a "cleanup" of loose strings leftover from the Cold War. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about any other events surrounding these conflicts.
IANAL, but generally the Statute of Frauds only cares about dollar amount if it is for a sale of goods. This looks like a service contract.
Ding! The Statute of Frauds only applies to:
* Contracts in consideration of marriage.
* Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.
* Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
* Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.
* Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.
* Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.
This was clearly a unilateral service contract. No one's getting married, the contract clearly could be performed in under a year, there was no land involved, had nothing to do with the executor of a will, and was not for the sale of goods, and nobody is acting as a guarantor here.
what was ruled in the Pepsi Points Case was that the TV commercial didn't constitute an offer and that no reasonable person could believe that a company like Pepsi was prepared to convey a $23 million jet for under a million bucks.
OTOH, it might be perfectly reasonable that the defense attorney could convey a million dollar prize to someone who could prove his client's innocence -- but his guilt? I don't know. Doesn't seem like that's in his client's best interests or his own best interests, given the duty to provide a zealous defense.
If you ask me, it sounded like a bet. And, FWIU, betting is illegal in the State of the Florida. Contracts are null and void if executing them involves breaking the law.
The lawyer asked for proof that HIS CLIENT, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.
Not that someone else could do it.
You're splitting hairs. I think it's safe to assume that there is no question that Serrano had the motive and the opportunity, the question was more along the lines of did he have the means? The lawyer was saying that "Serrano couldn't have done because nobody could have done it," but clearly Kolodziej proved that someone could have done it, hence Serrano could have done it, all else being equal.
The idea that anyone is astroturfing Slashdot is, in itself, both dumb and paranoid in equal amounts. Do you seriously think anyone with both decision-making power and a lack of technical knowledge a) actually reads Slashdot in the first place and b) is going to make up their mind based on a posting here (or even a thousand of them) ?
A) Yes and B) No. The reason I think A) is true is because I know Microsoft's culture. They are paranoid. And they are out to win at all costs. And winning for Microsoft means that everyone else has to lose. Including any credible competition, which, we know from the Halloween Memos that Microsoft has viewed Linux as a credible threat since at least 1998. That's more than 10 years.
Certainly. However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".
There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so. Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer." Surely if that is your argument, you can come up with a better one than that load of BS.
Give me a real keyboard and pointing device over a touch screen any day of the week. Use an iPhone (non-Apple-fanbois only, please) or another touchscreen phone like Samsung Instinct and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Garbage. They're just incredibly frustrating to work with (I know, I know, you'll get to used to it. What if I don't want to?)
I can pick up a Dell Mini 10 for under $500 that has the same processor and memory configuration, 4 times the SSD space, a bigger screen with the same screen resolution (or, for an extra $50, one that does 1366x768), everything else being comparable. Oh, and this one actually comes with Ubuntu 8.04 pre-loaded instead of that Microsoft proprietary garbage.
BTW--I really want to know the answer to the question (it isn't rhetorical), so any legal experts out there, please give as a complete an answer as you can.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say that. The "one time pad" is static. If it were truly an OTP, you would either need hundreds of these cards, or at least several that could be combined together in thousands of different ways. and they would have to have lots and lots of different combinations to make it work.
The bottom line is the physical factor is the weak link in the chain. The key-length is too short.
At it's heart it's a question of whether a person that runs a bulletin board is responsible for what posters post, a subject of frequent commentary on slashdot.
That's exactly what I thinking. Of course, the problem is that we're all Internet denizens, and therefore, we assume that no one would ever question this. But, obviously, some ignorant people do.
Of course you can't hold the operator of an online forum responsible for what other people say on it. The very thought is completely ridiculous. Do we hold a bar owner responsible when one of his customers makes a slanderous statement?
[citation needed]
For Red Hat to be representative of their industry, they need to be a healthy and profitable company. While I agree that this doesn't necessarily point to Linux as a being a "runaway success", it is significant to note that Red Hat's flagship product is a distribution of Linux and the various open source tools from GNU, X.org, Gnome, X.org, etc, and that their other products that help to boost their profitable, like JBoss are also open source tools. So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company. That puts things in proper perspective.
While being added to the S&P 500 may result in temporarily increasing the stock price, over the longhaul, it means practically nothing.
The machine is as ever only as good as the person utilizing it.
My point exactly.
Of course, the thing is that despite your statement, non-psychopaths can defeat a lie detector with a great deal of practice. Not only that, but polygraph examiners that are very good can make a person who is not lying appear to be lying. That is why polygraphs are not (usually) admissable in court unless all parties have agreed beforehand on their admissability. Some jurisdictions have an outright ban on them.
No they aren't the same. The problem with a polygraph isn't just that some poeple can 'beat it', it's also subjective.
Hit that nail right on the head! Yep. We use the term "lie detector" because polygraph examiners use the term to mean 'polygraph.' But the term implies that it can answer a question with a binary answer: Is A lying about X? But what polygraph machines show us is anything but binary. The only way we can tell if someone is lying or not is by the opinion of the polygraph examiner! Who, BTW, can stack the results anyway he likes.
Forget about it. There is not now and there will never be any way to accurately gauge whether or not someone is lying. Everything you've been told to the contrary is nothing by lies and deceit, designed to make a few bucks.
You can never prove it works 100% of the time.
Well, you can't prove that anything works 100% of the time, so how does that change anything?
But my muffler flaps help me get an additional 207 stone to the pint highway miles.
Ummm...aren't stones a measure of weight rather than length?
Wow. You're right.
In fact, the Corel case seems to be identical to this one. No doubt about it. Kaplan ruled not once, but twice that a photograph that is intended to produce a "slavish copy" of a painting lacks originality for copyright purposes.
Of course, the thing is that this is a legal gray area in the U.S.. Photographs are very much copyrighted, but if the museum had pulled the paintings off the wall and ran them through a big color copier, the result would not be copyrighted in the U.S.. The only argument is whether a photograph of a painting is a "straight-up copy" in the first place, as far as U.S. law is concerned, as you point out.
Also as you point out, it isn't easy to get a high-quality photo of a painting. OTOH, that doesn't necessarily mean that it meets the test as copyrightable. It isn't to make a mold of, say, Leonardo's David, either. But that doesn't mean that the result is copyrightable, either..
Yeah. I'm with ya on that one. Turbo C++, at least the newer versions, are garbage.
Then again, as someone who cut his programming teeth on Turbo Pascal, I will always have a soft spot for Borland's products, even if they do suck. ;)
Well, it's a good thing it didn't end up in the hands of some acid-tripping UK rock band or their producers...sheesh....oh, wait...
Having to compete on feature sets, interoperability, and user satisfaction is a lot harder than claiming moral superiority. -_- This is why open source still isn't taken seriously by businesses -- the mindset of its adherents is still blatantly immature.
Nice troll you have there.
Open source gets lots of things right -- and -- lots of things wrong.
If you want to talk about competing on feature sets, interoperability and user satisfaction, well, there are quite a few packages out there that do exactly that. OF course, you always have to take into account your audience.
Development tools like gcc, autoconf, Python, Perl, Emacs, gdb, are all at the top of their class in terms of these three things. I know several people, for example, who have been using Emacs since 1984, including myself (off and on; it's a love/hate relationship for me. :)
But then again, these are tools written by developers, for developers, not by developers for marketeers. Say what you will about Visual Studio .NET, but I can point you at scores of people that absolutely despise it, and not for the fact that it's closed source. It's terrible bug-infested bloatware, and everyone who has ever used it knows that. (That being said, there are those that are forced to use it, of ocurse).
For user software, Firefox is definitely at the top of its class in those three categories, no doubt about it. Its constantly rising market share proves that.
Apache? Despite Microsoft's best efforts, more than 2/3rds of all websites are still running Apache. Again, specifically because of user satisfaction (webmasters love Apache), interoperability (everybody makes their stuff work with Apache), and feature sets (IIS can hardly compete with Apache today, considering how badly Microsoft has stagnated it.)
Sure, there's stuff open source gets wrong, but that's not my point. My point is this: your comment is either astroturfing, or you're Microsoft zealot, or you're a troll, plain and simple.
You keep using that term "authenticity," which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Authenticity != accuracy. Someone can say something that they really believe is true, and even if it isn't, it's authentic. Someone posting for purely ulterior motives, lying for whatever financial gain that they can stand to benefit from, posts their crap, intelligent discourse becomes impossible.
There really was "authenticity" back in the days of Usenet. Anyone old enough to remember Usenet, FidoNet, etc., back in their glory days will tell you that.
s/10 times/1000 times.
The "return" part is "total global domination." Unless they've seriously changed their tune since Bill Gates stopped running things day-to-day (which I doubt very much given the man he left in charge), Microsoft will have nothing less.
Millions is nothing to Microsoft. Microsoft has $25 billion in cash sitting in the bank.
What's $20 million to a company with 10 times that in cash and a market cap in excess of $200 billion?
You've almost got it. There was also the Soviet war in Afghanistan, though some historians call this the Second Cold War. (I disagree.) . In a way, our current involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to some extent with Iran and Syria is basically a "cleanup" of loose strings leftover from the Cold War. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about any other events surrounding these conflicts.
IANAL, but generally the Statute of Frauds only cares about dollar amount if it is for a sale of goods. This looks like a service contract.
Ding! The Statute of Frauds only applies to:
This was clearly a unilateral service contract. No one's getting married, the contract clearly could be performed in under a year, there was no land involved, had nothing to do with the executor of a will, and was not for the sale of goods, and nobody is acting as a guarantor here.
what was ruled in the Pepsi Points Case was that the TV commercial didn't constitute an offer and that no reasonable person could believe that a company like Pepsi was prepared to convey a $23 million jet for under a million bucks.
OTOH, it might be perfectly reasonable that the defense attorney could convey a million dollar prize to someone who could prove his client's innocence -- but his guilt? I don't know. Doesn't seem like that's in his client's best interests or his own best interests, given the duty to provide a zealous defense.
If you ask me, it sounded like a bet. And, FWIU, betting is illegal in the State of the Florida. Contracts are null and void if executing them involves breaking the law.
Not if you're from NYC. Most NYC residents see "upstate" New York as practically being Connecticut.
You're splitting hairs. I think it's safe to assume that there is no question that Serrano had the motive and the opportunity, the question was more along the lines of did he have the means? The lawyer was saying that "Serrano couldn't have done because nobody could have done it," but clearly Kolodziej proved that someone could have done it, hence Serrano could have done it, all else being equal.
A) Yes and B) No. The reason I think A) is true is because I know Microsoft's culture. They are paranoid. And they are out to win at all costs. And winning for Microsoft means that everyone else has to lose. Including any credible competition, which, we know from the Halloween Memos that Microsoft has viewed Linux as a credible threat since at least 1998. That's more than 10 years.
There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so. Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer." Surely if that is your argument, you can come up with a better one than that load of BS.
Why bother? Because it has a touch screen?
Give me a real keyboard and pointing device over a touch screen any day of the week. Use an iPhone (non-Apple-fanbois only, please) or another touchscreen phone like Samsung Instinct and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Garbage. They're just incredibly frustrating to work with (I know, I know, you'll get to used to it. What if I don't want to?)
I can pick up a Dell Mini 10 for under $500 that has the same processor and memory configuration, 4 times the SSD space, a bigger screen with the same screen resolution (or, for an extra $50, one that does 1366x768), everything else being comparable. Oh, and this one actually comes with Ubuntu 8.04 pre-loaded instead of that Microsoft proprietary garbage.
BTW--I really want to know the answer to the question (it isn't rhetorical), so any legal experts out there, please give as a complete an answer as you can.