"Cisco has owned the trademark for the name [iPhone] since 1996 - before Apple even started putting the letter "i" in front of its products - and thus has always had full rights to the name. As for why it took Cisco this long to make use of the name, the only possible explanations could be either it never reached an agreement for the sale of the trademark, or it chose to capitalize on the name now that it's the buzzword of the tech circles".
So, Cisco is using iPhone because products starting with "i" are hot, because Apple is selling the iPod. But Cisco is suing Apple because Apple is selling an iPhone.
Apple lawyers immediately trademarked the name "iRony".
... and be awarded damages of? The cost of the fax, phone calls, and email? Not worth it.
The business has to try to claim their lost revenue due to losing the knowledge carried by this employee to a competitor. An employment agreement spells this out, but why couldn't they claim an implicit agreement exists? The widespread use of employment agreements shows that there is an expectation of the terms claimed within them. It's like if you live with a woman long enough she can claim a common-law marriage exists even without a marriage certificate.
What about aligning the display with the touch input?
What about making sure totals aren't added twice?
What about making sure totals aren't skipped?
What about preventing people from voting twice?
Anyway, it's about time we got rid of the fiction of "one person, one vote". Just put the candidates on eBay and let people bid on them. Give every voter a certain amount of toy money to select the candidates they want. They can either put $10 on every candidate they like, or put it all on the presidential candidate, or split it any way they want. When the auctions close, the highest bid candidate in each race wins. This makes the most sense in a capitalist, market-driven society like the US.
Economists have long had a method of measuring "expected value" which is the sum over all outcomes of the probability of that outcome times it's value.
So in this case the value of the security software is:
(1 - Pb) * 0 + Pb * VA
Where:
Pb = probability that it saves you from getting broken into
0 = value if you don't get broken into
VA = value of your ass
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg decided this in 1996, even for an EULA that was not visible at the time of purchase. Great when the store won't accept returns of software that has been opened.
You could be right. Laptops have some strange hardware and the kernel developers only seem to be testing on the mainline, new desktop systems. It might take more knowledge and hacking then you want to make a working kernel for your system.
So just fire up a live CD with a recent kernel and try it out. You don't have to upgrade if it doesn't work. Hardware drivers are in the kernel, so just testing the right kernel on your system will tell you whether it works (mostly).
"According to Thomas, the agent replied that he had multi-million-dollar cases on his desk and wasn't going to waste time on a lousy $50,000 internet scam."
It was nice of the FBI to tell us this limit. Now we know how much we can go for without attracting Sculley and Mulder.
Easy: A designer is the one that hands a developer a 30 MB background image, 16 1MB panels and 100 33K widgets and asks why it takes so long for the page to load.
"We only allow reputable sources in Wikipedia, but reputable sources are frequently mistaken {{fact}}.
Virtually every peer-reviewed paper in mathematics contains some mistakes {{fact}}, and it wouldn't be difficult to enter all sorts of incorrect mathematical theorems into Wikipedia, carefully sourcing every single one of them with a peer-reviewed paper by an established research mathematician{{fact}}. Text books contain even more mistakes{{fact}}, and they are also considered reputable.
Results reported in the scientific literature are often later overturned or invalidated, for example if the experimental results cannot be independently reproduced or fraud is discovered. Such a discredited source clearly does not support the claims made, but the average reader without broad knowledge of the literature in the field will not be able to distinguish reputable from discredited articles{{fact}}. For example, most people still believe that unprotected intercourse is to be avoided because of the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, unaware of the fact that the anti-depressant properties of semen have been known for several years[logic error].[1] Similarly, most laymen are not aware of the fact that the wearing of bras contributes to breast cancer[logic error].[2][3]"
{{fact}} - you would need to cite something to convince me of any of these.
[logic error] - might be true statements, but they do not support the conclusions you draw from them.
Which leads to the main problem with Wikipedia - not inaccuracy, but unsourced articles. The tendency is that if you "know" something, you can just write it down. I've seen articles on there that authoritatively claim "the first one was built at..." with no dates and no citation. It may even be true, but there's no way to check. I just throw {{fact}} on those.
This isn't a Win vs. Lin issue. Stunnel is available for Windows, too. What happens when you think you are on a free network, you try to Stunnel to your server, and you get the error:
WARNING: DSA key found for host ftp.initech.org in/home/intron/.ssh/known_hosts:35 DSA key fingerprint 67:12:6f:2c:cd:a1:67:8b:ea:86:c8:b8:8b:c3:9d:34.
The authenticity of host 'ftp.initech.org (206.246.226.45)' can't be established, but keys of different type are already known for this host. RSA key fingerprint is 02:a9:63:fe:6f:2e:ae:f4:53:4c:9c:8b:8b:7d:5c:8e.
Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?
Do you say "I must be the victim of a man-in-the-middle attack?" or do you say "Someone must have updated the key on the server"
Lots of people will hit yes and continue, cause they really need to log in and download that confidential financial report with all of the account numbers and passwords in it. Then they're hosed.
Why do you think it "works" when your server has to scan and reject 700+ emails/day?
Personally, I think that email should have a button that you can press if you don't like the email that adds a 0.1V charge to the sending PC. If one person presses it, the charge won't be noticeable, but if 1,000,000 press it...
I did read the article. Why do people always put "if you read the article" in their replies? That's really condescending. I also looked at Form 477 - an Excel spreadsheet which is the disputed information.
There are no trade secrets in the form.
There is no confidential information in the form.
There is no competitive advantage to anyone from releasing the data, since they would be releasing it for everybody.
The idea that companies will mine FCC data to figure out where their competititors are spending their marketing dollars is absurd. They can just turn on the TV.
Slashdot Mirror
I would demand a full refund for this free service.
"Cisco has owned the trademark for the name [iPhone] since 1996 - before Apple even started putting the letter "i" in front of its products - and thus has always had full rights to the name. As for why it took Cisco this long to make use of the name, the only possible explanations could be either it never reached an agreement for the sale of the trademark, or it chose to capitalize on the name now that it's the buzzword of the tech circles".
So, Cisco is using iPhone because products starting with "i" are hot, because Apple is selling the iPod. But Cisco is suing Apple because Apple is selling an iPhone.
Apple lawyers immediately trademarked the name "iRony".
... and be awarded damages of? The cost of the fax, phone calls, and email? Not worth it.
The business has to try to claim their lost revenue due to losing the knowledge carried by this employee to a competitor. An employment agreement spells this out, but why couldn't they claim an implicit agreement exists? The widespread use of employment agreements shows that there is an expectation of the terms claimed within them. It's like if you live with a woman long enough she can claim a common-law marriage exists even without a marriage certificate.
Anyway, it's about time we got rid of the fiction of "one person, one vote". Just put the candidates on eBay and let people bid on them. Give every voter a certain amount of toy money to select the candidates they want. They can either put $10 on every candidate they like, or put it all on the presidential candidate, or split it any way they want. When the auctions close, the highest bid candidate in each race wins. This makes the most sense in a capitalist, market-driven society like the US.
Flushed Away was crap.
Anyway, the spent over $100M on it, and it only made 30-40M back.
It's called "Yellow River" by Great Relief.
ISTR that in Canada, contract law varies by province.
Economists have long had a method of measuring "expected value" which is the sum over all outcomes of the probability of that outcome times it's value.
So in this case the value of the security software is:
(1 - Pb) * 0 + Pb * VA
Where:
Pb = probability that it saves you from getting broken into
0 = value if you don't get broken into
VA = value of your ass
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg decided this in 1996, even for an EULA that was not visible at the time of purchase. Great when the store won't accept returns of software that has been opened.
You could be right. Laptops have some strange hardware and the kernel developers only seem to be testing on the mainline, new desktop systems. It might take more knowledge and hacking then you want to make a working kernel for your system.
Nobody who still has a stack of 8" floppies is reminiscing about those newfangled 5.25" floppies.
ITYM
(-1, Insertful)
So just fire up a live CD with a recent kernel and try it out. You don't have to upgrade if it doesn't work. Hardware drivers are in the kernel, so just testing the right kernel on your system will tell you whether it works (mostly).
FC3 uses kernel 2.6.9
FC6 uses kernel 2.6.18
"According to Thomas, the agent replied that he had multi-million-dollar cases on his desk and wasn't going to waste time on a lousy $50,000 internet scam."
It was nice of the FBI to tell us this limit. Now we know how much we can go for without attracting Sculley and Mulder.
Easy: A designer is the one that hands a developer a 30 MB background image, 16 1MB panels and 100 33K widgets and asks why it takes so long for the page to load.
Here's the link to what you need.
Your take:
"We only allow reputable sources in Wikipedia, but reputable sources are frequently mistaken {{fact}}.
Virtually every peer-reviewed paper in mathematics contains some mistakes {{fact}}, and it wouldn't be difficult to enter all sorts of incorrect mathematical theorems into Wikipedia, carefully sourcing every single one of them with a peer-reviewed paper by an established research mathematician{{fact}}. Text books contain even more mistakes{{fact}}, and they are also considered reputable.
Results reported in the scientific literature are often later overturned or invalidated, for example if the experimental results cannot be independently reproduced or fraud is discovered. Such a discredited source clearly does not support the claims made, but the average reader without broad knowledge of the literature in the field will not be able to distinguish reputable from discredited articles{{fact}}. For example, most people still believe that unprotected intercourse is to be avoided because of the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, unaware of the fact that the anti-depressant properties of semen have been known for several years[logic error].[1] Similarly, most laymen are not aware of the fact that the wearing of bras contributes to breast cancer[logic error].[2][3]"
{{fact}} - you would need to cite something to convince me of any of these.
[logic error] - might be true statements, but they do not support the conclusions you draw from them.
That's odd. There was no ban on citing websites when I was in High School. (late 60's)
Which leads to the main problem with Wikipedia - not inaccuracy, but unsourced articles. The tendency is that if you "know" something, you can just write it down. I've seen articles on there that authoritatively claim "the first one was built at..." with no dates and no citation. It may even be true, but there's no way to check. I just throw {{fact}} on those.
Lots of people will hit yes and continue, cause they really need to log in and download that confidential financial report with all of the account numbers and passwords in it. Then they're hosed.
Why do you think it "works" when your server has to scan and reject 700+ emails/day?
Personally, I think that email should have a button that you can press if you don't like the email that adds a 0.1V charge to the sending PC. If one person presses it, the charge won't be noticeable, but if 1,000,000 press it...
I did read the article. Why do people always put "if you read the article" in their replies? That's really condescending. I also looked at Form 477 - an Excel spreadsheet which is the disputed information.
There are no trade secrets in the form.
There is no confidential information in the form.
There is no competitive advantage to anyone from releasing the data, since they would be releasing it for everybody.
The idea that companies will mine FCC data to figure out where their competititors are spending their marketing dollars is absurd. They can just turn on the TV.
http://www.fcc.gov/foia/#typesnot
This lists the 9 exemptions allowed for refusing FOIA requests. Bureaucratic obstinance doesn't seem to be on the list.
I tried firing hundreds of cats through two narrow slits and I didn't get interference patterns.