Well it must be pointed out that Google didn't innovate the search engine, they just did it better when ventures like Hotbot and AltaVista dropped the ball.
Microsoft is just following that tradition of letting others find a path to food and then totally dominate that path until everyone thinks they blazed it...
My recommendation is to use shocking nonsense for passphrase. They can be easily remembered because of the emotionally "shocking" part and cannot be guessed easily since they don't reflect a factual state of affairs that someone could easily guess. Finally, it's OK to be really "shocking" since passphrases by their nature are not public.
For example, huskynutsdriveanenomerapage. I am sure you can come up with far more shocking examples.
The company was going public and we were delivering the "pink sheet" of disclosures... it claimed we were not a one product company, that we had shipped two product lines.
A single Apple/// was shipped to a relative of Wendell (I believe) so that the disclosure was accurate.
By sacrificing the reliability of the Apple/// Apple was able to raise a few more 100's of millions of dollars that were ploughed into product development...
So, even if the Apple/// has sold only one machine, it made a ton of money for Apple.
And SOS was good too... Bob Etheredge in Bandley 3 had the lead and was doing the most professional job he could given the daily euphoria that was Apple culture.
For those who still don't suspect, you might try Firefox.
And for those of you who think that the new Microsoft Anitspyware product will make everything happy again, they are already buckling under to demands to remove spyware signatures.
It is also a disservice to the community to hype "pre" standards since it encourages companies to actually NON standardize in the rush to the trough.
The Wi-Fi Alliance said that it would strip 802.11n certification from products making such claims before IEEE standards agreement because companies often purposively make their "standard" non-compatible with other company "pre-standards."
The existence of conflicting rights, responsibilities, and laws means that we have to live where no interest is perfectly satisfied.
It could well be that right now we have the proper balance with some people getting away with unlawful behavior, just as some companies get away with monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior in software.
And that is exactly why you should remain silent until you have consulted with counsel and balanced all the factors such as "getting things off your chest," personal credibility, countering wild accusations and so forth with the far greater likilihood that you are simply making yourself a obvious and easier-hit target by the plaintiff.
Webroot's product used to be the best, but now Microsoft's free product is better. For now.
But until a bright line separates unlawful adware and spyware from lawful, no product is going to beat Spyware.
Contrast to viruses and worms, which with very very few exceptions, are entirely unlawful and do not financially profit anyone. It is hard enough for the market leader Symantec to stay only epsilon behind the virus makers; with Spyware, which is both legally ambiguous and highly profitable, even the behemoth Microsoft will succumb to the Army ants.
Moral, we cannot rely upon a single company to protect us. We need a combination of laws, profit and non-profit organizations and financial disincentives to control the parasites.
While it is true Apple would want to set a very public example of him to keep others from violating their NDA, Apple has to balance this with the need to keep a reputation for aggressive vindictiveness from overshadowing the fact that they want to present themselves as a company whose products people have fun with.
I know Steve Jobs is suffering a potentially life-threatening disease and that Apple has suffered innumerable disclosures which have derailed its competitive strategy, but a swift and just conclusion by Apple will ultimately benefit them more than a grisly head on a pike.
It's not about "Stronger Copyright Laws" but in reducing the rights of the invidividual to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It is obvious the Apple's agenda goes farther than this student, otherwise they would have already proposed a settlement and injunction with him.
So, given that the extent of his responsiblity is basically irrelevant to Apple, this guy should get some advice (namely, a lawyer) before believing that admitting error is the quickest way of resolving the case.
We are not talking about geometrical / Euclidean / deductive / Peano / reductio ad absurdum proofs here, we are talking about convincing Joe Schmuck that there is a 50.01% chance that the guy has liability for a tort.
I think that is the biggest error in intuition technical people have when they encounter the law for the first time.
Well, even in his interview he believes that his avowed lack of malicious intent "mens rea" should mitigate liability.
Google "strict liability tort."
That is another reason to talk to an attorney before giving interviews--the law is a three-thousand year coral reef and you are just a polyp. Your intuition and perspective suck.
And the "calculated PR" inference will be shown to the jury as evidence of a malicious wrong-doer trying to escape his due.
Note that for many civil offenses that harken back to the old "chancery" courts, you are not even entitled a trial by jury. A judge is far less likely to be swayed by this kind of "MEA CULPA!"
Apple will just ask the court the simple question "If this guy really wanted to accept responsibility and not grandstand, why didn't he quietly admit his liability to us and humbly accept the damages and permanent injunction that we would formulate for him?"
Distinguish "accepting responsibility" from "letting yourself be at the mercy of the plaintiffs."
You don't have to the do the second in order to accomplish the first. A person with more intelligence and experience might realize that during an emotional situation one's judgment might not be the best, and that even though the person was a central player in the situation he might not know the entire relevant facts and law to judge one's own liability or guilt or to make conclusions about the situation.
THAT is why you remain silent. Not because you are avoiding responsbility for your acts.
What an idiot. This interview will become evidence against him.
When charged with a criminal or civil offense:
1. remain silent;
2. talk to an attorney;
3. if case unresolved, goto 1
Of course in the United States you do not have the right to an attorney if charged with a civil offense.
You also do not have the right to be silent at trial, unless your statement may tend to incriminate you.
Note that in the above program, there is no "grandstand / justify / brag to a blogger" statement.
It took many other ideas such as "Page Rank" (compare to the Science Citations Index, which ranks papers by times cited) and "Search Engine" and made into a tool that is universally used by people with access to the Internet.
Hey from Pacific Grove California I could regularly hit 2m repeaters on the Santa Cruz mountains (about 40 mi) using a dummy load as an antenna from a 100mw handheld.
And of course I was able to hit satellite transponders routinely with my 2m ht so... don't underestimate the power of line of sight 73 Ko6eb
I suspect that is the wrong way to put it; in any event good analog tape with clean heads and good tranport will far surpass human hearing in its highest frequency.
It's just so much cheaper and easier to do this with digital, which in magnetic resonance imaging applications, for example, use analog to digital samplers measured in the *megahertz.* (Most of our hearing goes up to a maximum of 22 KILOHz.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well it must be pointed out that Google didn't innovate the search engine, they just did it better when ventures like Hotbot and AltaVista dropped the ball.
Microsoft is just following that tradition of letting others find a path to food and then totally dominate that path until everyone thinks they blazed it...
My recommendation is to use shocking nonsense for passphrase. They can be easily remembered because of the emotionally "shocking" part and cannot be guessed easily since they don't reflect a factual state of affairs that someone could easily guess. Finally, it's OK to be really "shocking" since passphrases by their nature are not public.
For example, huskynutsdriveanenomerapage. I am sure you can come up with far more shocking examples.
The company was going public and we were delivering the "pink sheet" of disclosures... it claimed we were not a one product company, that we had shipped two product lines.
/// was shipped to a relative of Wendell (I believe) so that the disclosure was accurate.
/// Apple was able to raise a few more 100's of millions of dollars that were ploughed into product development...
/// has sold only one machine, it made a ton of money for Apple.
A single Apple
By sacrificing the reliability of the Apple
So, even if the Apple
And SOS was good too... Bob Etheredge in Bandley 3 had the lead and was doing the most professional job he could given the daily euphoria that was Apple culture.
By now it should hardly be "unsuspecting."
For those who still don't suspect, you might try Firefox.
And for those of you who think that the new Microsoft Anitspyware product will make everything happy again, they are already buckling under to demands to remove spyware signatures.
I think I erred in permitting my kids to play GTA *before* taking driver's training...
I knew I was playing too much Armagetron when I kept scraping along the walls of my house to gain speed.
It is also a disservice to the community to hype "pre" standards since it encourages companies to actually NON standardize in the rush to the trough.
The Wi-Fi Alliance said that it would strip 802.11n certification from products making such claims before IEEE standards agreement because companies often purposively make their "standard" non-compatible with other company "pre-standards."
According to C. Brian Grimm, communications director for the Wi-Fi Alliance, the range of 802.11g is about 10 percent LESS than 802.11b.
, 00.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,109041
The existence of conflicting rights, responsibilities, and laws means that we have to live where no interest is perfectly satisfied.
It could well be that right now we have the proper balance with some people getting away with unlawful behavior, just as some companies get away with monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior in software.
And that is exactly why you should remain silent until you have consulted with counsel and balanced all the factors such as "getting things off your chest," personal credibility, countering wild accusations and so forth with the far greater likilihood that you are simply making yourself a obvious and easier-hit target by the plaintiff.
Webroot's product used to be the best, but now Microsoft's free product is better. For now.
But until a bright line separates unlawful adware and spyware from lawful, no product is going to beat Spyware.
Contrast to viruses and worms, which with very very few exceptions, are entirely unlawful and do not financially profit anyone. It is hard enough for the market leader Symantec to stay only epsilon behind the virus makers; with Spyware, which is both legally ambiguous and highly profitable, even the behemoth Microsoft will succumb to the Army ants.
Moral, we cannot rely upon a single company to protect us. We need a combination of laws, profit and non-profit organizations and financial disincentives to control the parasites.
You are right. I misspoke. If the point is justice, whether civil or criminal, then some basic legal assistance is necessary for all.
It is entirely unreasonable to expect a layperson to even minimally be able to fairly defend themselves.
If so, then his public strategy may work.
While it is true Apple would want to set a very public example of him to keep others from violating their NDA, Apple has to balance this with the need to keep a reputation for aggressive vindictiveness from overshadowing the fact that they want to present themselves as a company whose products people have fun with.
I know Steve Jobs is suffering a potentially life-threatening disease and that Apple has suffered innumerable disclosures which have derailed its competitive strategy, but a swift and just conclusion by Apple will ultimately benefit them more than a grisly head on a pike.
It's not about "Stronger Copyright Laws" but in reducing the rights of the invidividual to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It is obvious the Apple's agenda goes farther than this student, otherwise they would have already proposed a settlement and injunction with him.
So, given that the extent of his responsiblity is basically irrelevant to Apple, this guy should get some advice (namely, a lawyer) before believing that admitting error is the quickest way of resolving the case.
We are not talking about geometrical / Euclidean / deductive / Peano / reductio ad absurdum proofs here, we are talking about convincing Joe Schmuck that there is a 50.01% chance that the guy has liability for a tort.
I think that is the biggest error in intuition technical people have when they encounter the law for the first time.
One can imagine Apple's strategy as follows:
1. Suffer embarrassment and $$$ financial loss over the years as information is leaked to the press;
2. Spend $1,000,000 getting a judgment that can't possibly be collected against a student;
3. Resulting in the publicity in intimidating outsiders in the future from disclosing facts that Apple would prefer not be disclosed: PRICELESS!!!
Well, even in his interview he believes that his avowed lack of malicious intent "mens rea" should mitigate liability.
Google "strict liability tort."
That is another reason to talk to an attorney before giving interviews--the law is a three-thousand year coral reef and you are just a polyp. Your intuition and perspective suck.
And the "calculated PR" inference will be shown to the jury as evidence of a malicious wrong-doer trying to escape his due.
Note that for many civil offenses that harken back to the old "chancery" courts, you are not even entitled a trial by jury. A judge is far less likely to be swayed by this kind of "MEA CULPA!"
Apple will just ask the court the simple question "If this guy really wanted to accept responsibility and not grandstand, why didn't he quietly admit his liability to us and humbly accept the damages and permanent injunction that we would formulate for him?"
Distinguish "accepting responsibility" from "letting yourself be at the mercy of the plaintiffs."
You don't have to the do the second in order to accomplish the first. A person with more intelligence and experience might realize that during an emotional situation one's judgment might not be the best, and that even though the person was a central player in the situation he might not know the entire relevant facts and law to judge one's own liability or guilt or to make conclusions about the situation.
THAT is why you remain silent. Not because you are avoiding responsbility for your acts.
What an idiot. This interview will become evidence against him.
When charged with a criminal or civil offense:
1. remain silent;
2. talk to an attorney;
3. if case unresolved, goto 1
Of course in the United States you do not have the right to an attorney if charged with a civil offense.
You also do not have the right to be silent at trial, unless your statement may tend to incriminate you.
Note that in the above program, there is no "grandstand / justify / brag to a blogger" statement.
It took many other ideas such as "Page Rank" (compare to the Science Citations Index, which ranks papers by times cited) and "Search Engine" and made into a tool that is universally used by people with access to the Internet.
Hey from Pacific Grove California I could regularly hit 2m repeaters on the Santa Cruz mountains (about 40 mi) using a dummy load as an antenna from a 100mw handheld.
And of course I was able to hit satellite transponders routinely with my 2m ht so... don't underestimate the power of line of sight 73 Ko6eb
I R soory I bee too bad speller, my grammar was ilitrate and she passd it's on too me.
Also punkuation is importrant, "Come on Frank!" make dfrent senses wid a commer after de "on."
I suspect that is the wrong way to put it; in any event good analog tape with clean heads and good tranport will far surpass human hearing in its highest frequency.
It's just so much cheaper and easier to do this with digital, which in magnetic resonance imaging applications, for example, use analog to digital samplers measured in the *megahertz.* (Most of our hearing goes up to a maximum of 22 KILOHz.)