Thanks for providing evidence. Your original evidence was purely an appeal to authority: "As someone who knows", and you could have just explained it there. It also appears that your first source (wrapped in diatribe) only explains an area submarines should avoid. The second one does have the information if you read through it, so thanks for that. In case anyone is wondering, the explanation is:
"In the ocean water column, the gradient of pressure, temperature and salinity vary the speed of sound such that there is a level with a distinct minimum. This creates a layer at which sonar waves both above and below that layer will refract away from it. Any sub just below that layer and at a suitable distance cannot be seen by a surface sonar."
FlyingGuy could have just explained it that way, but instead he chose to make it into a game, appeal to authority, and then go into full condescending mode when someone called him out for more information. Unfortunately he chose to end with a Star Wars reference more likely to come from someone living in his parents' basement reading "The Hunt for Red October", rather than an engineer for Electric Boat.
If you knew all this first hand, then you wouldn't be posting it. That means you probably know it second hand, so I'd like to see you cite some evidence. I'm particularly interested in how modern subs can dodge all forms of active sonar.
A group of effective submarines could make a carrier battle group ineffective. In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless unless their air, submarine and missile forces can be neutralized. They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies. WWII Germany called; It wanted its failed naval strategy back.
After WWI, some military strategists concluded that all surface ships were obsolete. Germany took it to heart, and while it did work pretty well early in WWII, the Allies eventually adapted their tactics to counter the threat (the shipping convoy). If Germany had taken aircraft carriers seriously, the outcome of the entire war could well have been different.
The modern carrier battle group has a bunch of fast ships with active sonar (destroyers, etc), making it difficult to sneak up on the carrier itself. After all, we have our own subs to test against in exercises. Attack subs primary goal nowadays is to track missile subs and (in theory) stop them before they launch their missiles during an attack. If you are talking about a nuclear missile attack on a convoy, then the whole thing is moot, since the war will be over soon at that point anyway (in a most unhappy way for all involved parties).
My first point was that it is very widespread now, and my second point is that someone probably thought of it a long time ago. Since it was not based on a news event witnessed by half of the world's population, one could likely assume some sort of normal growth model for that technique. Your example fails on this point. Of course, because it's only "likely", I used the word "guess".
Not really... That argument assumes that all classes teach the same subject: compromising verification systems and covering your tracks. Most classes in CS teach something else, with some examples being computer graphics, machine vision, and game programming. So, how has a computer vision professor failed to teach a student properly, if the student cheats and is caught in his class? At best, that's a computer security problem, which is normally an advanced enough class that cheaters don't make it that far. That weeding out of people who can't actually do the work is one reason why cheating is always most prevalent in introductory classes.
So, while the argument might make some sense in the right situation if you squint enough, it's about as valid as a criminal telling a police officer "You should thank me, because I'm the one keeping you employed." Sure, whatever.
Well, for the class I TA'ed, it was probably available, just not widely popular yet. Of course, cheaters are usually easy to catch, so even simple systems work pretty well. So, in their attempt to save time and effort, cheaters are often are bad at covering up their tracks. Anything that yields possible hits can be verified by human inspection. Why are almost all cheaters so lazy? Because if they weren't, they'd just do the assignment.
Cheaters in my classes tended to: (1) not correct misspellings or bugs in code (2) cheat with former or current project partners (3) hand in the written portion of the assignments directly stacked on each other, which then get graded immediately following each other.
How do you know he was an teaching assistant after 1998? AFAICT Moss wasn't available before then, and didn't seem to become popular until the 2003 paper, and we certainly didn't know about it when I was a TA on the east coast in early 1999. Not that it would have mattered for us, but it's also not compatible with the GPL (non-commercial use only), so you couldn't link it in as part of the rest of your submission system if it used anything GPL, unless you were careful.
So, there are some quite normal reasons, and maybe you should chill.
It's theft of bandwidth, which is a partial denial of service. I'd say that's pretty close to partial blockage.
You've exposed the owner to embarrassment and potential civil and criminal liability - depending on how you have used and abused his connection to the net.
Punish the crime, not the methodology. I really dislike the idea of making things "doubly illegal". Should we have a separate law or clause for people using a wired connection illegally, one for people using a public machine, and one for overriding a bluetooth input device? I don't think so. If they use the connection to do something wrong, then that wrong thing should be illegal. So:
If the freeloader is doing something illegal, then lets punish that crime; its already illegal anyway.
If the freeloader is trying to hide his identity while doing something illicit, that's already illegal.
If the freeloader is trying to impersonate or frame the owner, that's also already illegal or cause for a civil suit.
Anything not covered by the above then assumes the freeloader is not doing something illicit, trying to hide his identity, or frame/embarass the owner. I would bet that 99/100 people freeloading fall into this category. What's left as far as a crime? Theft of bandwidth and a partial DoS. Stop blocking my driveway:)
The analogy of the home with the door left open applies somewhat well here. Well, IMO it's more like peeing in a working toilet that someone installed on their front lawn.
Don't get me wrong; I don't think its right to to steal wireless bandwidth against an owner's wishes, but any punishment more severe than a fine is going too far. You don't get arrested for parking illegally (well, as long as you pay your tickets), and this should be much the same way. Using someone's bandwidth (so that they can't) is a lot like parking where you partially block their driveway.
You make an excellent point that a citation should only occur when an owner complains. Unfortunately I'm not sure that standard is being met in these recent cases.
I agree. It's not the ad that is annoying on some video sites, but the duration. NFL.com now runs 30 second ads, which is way too long to watch a 90 second video. If it were a 10 second ad, it could get most of the point across without being nearly as intrusive. One newspaper I used had the cool feature of running a ~10 second ad AFTER the video. That was not intrusive at all, yet they still get a lot of ad impressions from me, just because you usually aren't always *immediately *clicking to the next video. As for Google, their ads have tended to be pretty innocuous, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Then again, I'm one of those crazy people who doesn't disable non-animated banner ads, since I want to give the site a fair chance at paying for itself.
That's a pretty bold assumption not born out by the overall market, if you define winning the way you have been.
While Linux is doing a lot in the server arena, it has accomplished very little on the desktop, despite efforts like OpenLinux and United Linux to create a standard Linux.
I'd argue that distributions such as Mandrake, Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS have done a lot more for the desktop, but certainly none have taken the overall market by storm.
The kernel may not have forked like Open/Net/FreeBSD, but there's really no difference between forked kernels and forked distros when it comes to fracturing the market.
There's a difference between duplication of effort spent packaging existing software (distros) versus developing kernels and supporting libraries from scratch, with only partial code sharing through the heroic efforts of programmers spanning parts of the BSD family. As time goes on, this is not going to get any easier, while standards such as LSB has made packaging on Linux quite a bit simpler.
There are really no commercial apps for Linux and there is no real market that will ever encourage their development.
On the desktop there are few, but there certainly are a lot of specialized professional apps available for Linux. For everyday use, I'd question how much that matters. Sure gaming is not in a good state, but its not much better on a Mac; Consoles are even beating Windows FWIW.
That leaves Apple's Mac OS as the only viable desktop, and its based on BSD, not Linux.
So, without a commercial software market, a desktop is not viable? I guess you're not really much of an open source person. I must be really good to have been using an unviable desktop exclusively for the last 8 years as a my desktop OS. Or just maybe there's a difference between "viable" and "market leader". As an obvious Mac fanboy, you should know the difference. A 90% market share for Windows hasn't stopped OS-X from being viable, except perhaps for gaming, and (at the whim of Microsoft) office productivity.
It does however share the same POSIX platform, meaning that there's really nothing of unique value in Linux that can't be ported to Mac OS X
So if OS-X sharing Posix is good, how are multiple Linux distributions following LSB fractured and broken? You're not being very consistent.
while there is lots of value associated with Mac OS X that will never make it to Linux: commercial apps, consumer focus, real marketing, retail support and the like.
None of those have anything to do with BSD or the Mac kernel. Commercial apps in Linux are nearly comparible to Mac (but not Windows). Consumer focused distributions exist (just about anyone can use PCLinuxOS or Linspire). Real marketing, well if you consider that an OS technical feature, it's hard to compete with Apple; They are better at marketing than engineering. Retail support exists just fine if you need it; Several Linux vendors are happy to support their products if you buy them.
Here's a value that will never come to Mac OS: Linux is Free. Obviously that doesn't matter to you, since you consider the GPL "an entaglement", and you don't even seem to care about open source (BSD) either, since most of the Mac OS advantages have nothing to do with anything that's open source.
It's not that code associated with Linux isn't a great contribution to technology, it's that it simply won't matter on the desktop.
It may not matter on your desktop, but it matters on mine (and works just fine). I use Linux at home, on my laptop, and at work. That's relevant enough for me. Unlike some, I do not value my OS software based solely on how many other people are using it (how unfashionable!). I would like to see Linux used widely, but I don't feel it has "failed" unles
Well, yes, it's difficult to grow rapidly when you're valued at over 1/400th of the gross world product. Pick a bigger planet next time, perhaps? Well, after Google earth, they did expand to the Moon.
I wonder if Mars in next... it seems to have a lot of free ad space.
No Linus wrote Linux as a reimplementation of BSD Actually Linus started out rewriting Minix as a hobby, and it just so happened he chose the right license and was good an getting people to work with him. It amazes me that after all this time there are still people who don't understand why Linux succeeded... it was by building a better community, not technical superiority. BSD has had a great technical history, but quite a few community problems, leading to community splits and forks. Linus, as a good manager, has managed to hold Linux together, which is an achievement in itself. Of course, with open source "win" and "lose" isn't that meaningful; Linux and *BSD are healthy and continuing in their development. Who cares if your community is the biggest, if your community develops the software you need.
during the period that AT&T sued to stop the distribution of BSD. Had BSD not been held up in court, there would have been no need to rewrite BSD from scratch using inferior networking code. So, with the SCO suit, BSD was able to make a comeback, right? Or, maybe you are overestimating the impact of the lawsuit. Also, if the BSDs could not stick together, what makes you think all the Linux people could work with them? Theo and Linus sharing the same CVS repository?... I doubt it.
When Novell bought AT&T's Unix labs it ended the frivilous lawsuit against BSD, but by that time, Linux had gained so much marketing buzz that it overwhelmed both commercial Unix and the free BSD, serving to water down any hope for either of the candidates to prevent the expansion of Micorsoft's DOS and the promise of NT and Cairo. Except that the "frivolous" lawsuit actually did find offending code. The only thing that saved BSD is that AT&T/USL had stolen even more code. You can call the lawsuit stupid, annoying, or disrespectful, but there was an element of truth to it. The community should have policed itself a little bit better. To this day we still here software companies decrying open source's disrespect for copyright and properly policing the code; which IMNSHO is fallout from the original attitude taken when BSD was being developed. I like open source too, but the way to go about it isn't by ignoring the licenses for code, no matter how small or insignificant the amount. Hindsight is 20/20, but that was an important lesson.
By the end of the 90s, Unix vendors had mainly squabbled amongst themselves, BSD had been largely overlooked, and Linux had expended millions of dollars in efforts to reinvent a perfectly good wheel. That allowed Microsoft to take over the desktop. This makes no sense to blame on Linux. The BSD license allowed commercial forks, so they happened, while BSD failed to market itself and grow its development community (instead it forked). Meanwhile Linux was doing its own thing, but was it "wrong" for not spending its funds on supporting BSD instead? If you look at all the money ever spent developing Linux, its probably less than what was spent on one of the major commercial Unixes. Why is this ok in the business world, but not in the open source world? Also, keep in mind a lot of recent investment in Linux is precisely because of the GPL; IBM would not support development of BSD code, as that might help its competitors closed-source products.
Meanwhile, Microsoft successfully marketed a desktop, and took over a market many feel a free Unix could have occupied. Of course, in that case you should blame X-Windows and the slow development of broadly supported GUI toolkits. Both of those run on both Linux and BSD, so I don't see why this should be blamed on Linux. I guess Linus should have written a BSD-licensed version of KDE to make you happy?
Once again, technical superiority is not the only thing that matters. It isn't true in business, and it isn't true in the open source world. Building a healthy community and a working development process is just as important for long term success. And, like in business, sometimes a little competition helps, as it spurs development that might not happen in a pure monopoly.
It may be a slam, but its true. SVN had a very careful design that they put a lot of effort into -- unfortunately they chose the wrong model to start from, which severely limited what they could do compared to distributed version control systems.
Re:Social Networking Site
on
Fox Hacks Fark
·
· Score: 1
Clearly what you are missing is a "motive". But that's so obvious that I like won't state it here. Yeah.
I think I'll go use my company's computers to hack into an AT&T file server to steal the Sys5 source code, so I can launch my own competing OS!
Why does the Department of Homeland Security vote on computer document standards? Do they have some special expertise in the area or what? Well, since they voted for approval, obviously they don't.
I guess DOHS is just there to serve as a counter to the intelligent decisions made by NIST and the DoD.
Note that I didn't claim that Xerox invented those technologies; They were simply the first large company to use them AFAICT. In the world of patents, that is unfortunately all that matters. The concept of the lone inventor getting a patent, and getting rich licensing it, is only a dream in the current state of affairs.
When a hacker finds some flaw and announces it with a zero-day exploit, some want us to call that "security research". So, when an immigration official finds a way to keep a hacker out of the country using existing laws (which apply equally to everyone), shouldn't that just be called "legal research"?
So, a hacker got owned; I for one think that is pretty funny. Just like a hacker might say to regular programmers, "next time he should be more careful."
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for providing evidence. Your original evidence was purely an appeal to authority: "As someone who knows", and you could have just explained it there. It also appears that your first source (wrapped in diatribe) only explains an area submarines should avoid. The second one does have the information if you read through it, so thanks for that. In case anyone is wondering, the explanation is:
"In the ocean water column, the gradient of pressure, temperature and salinity vary the speed of sound such that there is a level with a distinct minimum. This creates a layer at which sonar waves both above and below that layer will refract away from it. Any sub just below that layer and at a suitable distance cannot be seen by a surface sonar."
FlyingGuy could have just explained it that way, but instead he chose to make it into a game, appeal to authority, and then go into full condescending mode when someone called him out for more information. Unfortunately he chose to end with a Star Wars reference more likely to come from someone living in his parents' basement reading "The Hunt for Red October", rather than an engineer for Electric Boat.
If you knew all this first hand, then you wouldn't be posting it. That means you probably know it second hand, so I'd like to see you cite some evidence. I'm particularly interested in how modern subs can dodge all forms of active sonar.
After WWI, some military strategists concluded that all surface ships were obsolete. Germany took it to heart, and while it did work pretty well early in WWII, the Allies eventually adapted their tactics to counter the threat (the shipping convoy). If Germany had taken aircraft carriers seriously, the outcome of the entire war could well have been different.
The modern carrier battle group has a bunch of fast ships with active sonar (destroyers, etc), making it difficult to sneak up on the carrier itself. After all, we have our own subs to test against in exercises. Attack subs primary goal nowadays is to track missile subs and (in theory) stop them before they launch their missiles during an attack. If you are talking about a nuclear missile attack on a convoy, then the whole thing is moot, since the war will be over soon at that point anyway (in a most unhappy way for all involved parties).
My first point was that it is very widespread now, and my second point is that someone probably thought of it a long time ago. Since it was not based on a news event witnessed by half of the world's population, one could likely assume some sort of normal growth model for that technique. Your example fails on this point. Of course, because it's only "likely", I used the word "guess".
Googling "unsubscribe in the body of the message" gets 533,000 hits. I would guess that even in 1997, it was > 0
Not really... That argument assumes that all classes teach the same subject: compromising verification systems and covering your tracks. Most classes in CS teach something else, with some examples being computer graphics, machine vision, and game programming. So, how has a computer vision professor failed to teach a student properly, if the student cheats and is caught in his class? At best, that's a computer security problem, which is normally an advanced enough class that cheaters don't make it that far. That weeding out of people who can't actually do the work is one reason why cheating is always most prevalent in introductory classes.
So, while the argument might make some sense in the right situation if you squint enough, it's about as valid as a criminal telling a police officer "You should thank me, because I'm the one keeping you employed." Sure, whatever.
Well, for the class I TA'ed, it was probably available, just not widely popular yet. Of course, cheaters are usually easy to catch, so even simple systems work pretty well. So, in their attempt to save time and effort, cheaters are often are bad at covering up their tracks. Anything that yields possible hits can be verified by human inspection. Why are almost all cheaters so lazy? Because if they weren't, they'd just do the assignment.
Cheaters in my classes tended to: (1) not correct misspellings or bugs in code (2) cheat with former or current project partners (3) hand in the written portion of the assignments directly stacked on each other, which then get graded immediately following each other.
How do you know he was an teaching assistant after 1998? AFAICT Moss wasn't available before then, and didn't seem to become popular until the 2003 paper, and we certainly didn't know about it when I was a TA on the east coast in early 1999. Not that it would have mattered for us, but it's also not compatible with the GPL (non-commercial use only), so you couldn't link it in as part of the rest of your submission system if it used anything GPL, unless you were careful.
So, there are some quite normal reasons, and maybe you should chill.
You sound like someone who got caught. Bitter?
It's theft of bandwidth, which is a partial denial of service. I'd say that's pretty close to partial blockage.
You've exposed the owner to embarrassment and potential civil and criminal liability - depending on how you have used and abused his connection to the net.Punish the crime, not the methodology. I really dislike the idea of making things "doubly illegal". Should we have a separate law or clause for people using a wired connection illegally, one for people using a public machine, and one for overriding a bluetooth input device? I don't think so. If they use the connection to do something wrong, then that wrong thing should be illegal. So:
- If the freeloader is doing something illegal, then lets punish that crime; its already illegal anyway.
- If the freeloader is trying to hide his identity while doing something illicit, that's already illegal.
- If the freeloader is trying to impersonate or frame the owner, that's also already illegal or cause for a civil suit.
Anything not covered by the above then assumes the freeloader is not doing something illicit, trying to hide his identity, or frame/embarass the owner. I would bet that 99/100 people freeloading fall into this category. What's left as far as a crime? Theft of bandwidth and a partial DoS. Stop blocking my drivewayTrue, but right now any real applications are still vaporware, or as I like to say, imaginary light.
Don't get me wrong; I don't think its right to to steal wireless bandwidth against an owner's wishes, but any punishment more severe than a fine is going too far. You don't get arrested for parking illegally (well, as long as you pay your tickets), and this should be much the same way. Using someone's bandwidth (so that they can't) is a lot like parking where you partially block their driveway.
You make an excellent point that a citation should only occur when an owner complains. Unfortunately I'm not sure that standard is being met in these recent cases.
I agree. It's not the ad that is annoying on some video sites, but the duration. NFL.com now runs 30 second ads, which is way too long to watch a 90 second video. If it were a 10 second ad, it could get most of the point across without being nearly as intrusive. One newspaper I used had the cool feature of running a ~10 second ad AFTER the video. That was not intrusive at all, yet they still get a lot of ad impressions from me, just because you usually aren't always *immediately *clicking to the next video. As for Google, their ads have tended to be pretty innocuous, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Then again, I'm one of those crazy people who doesn't disable non-animated banner ads, since I want to give the site a fair chance at paying for itself.
When you're looking for off-Earth market share, you take what you can get, even if it isn't quite what you were hoping for.
Just don't bring up the planetary status of Pluto, unless you want to start another flame war.
Technical superiority did win in BSD's case.
That's a pretty bold assumption not born out by the overall market, if you define winning the way you have been.
While Linux is doing a lot in the server arena, it has accomplished very little on the desktop, despite efforts like OpenLinux and United Linux to create a standard Linux.
I'd argue that distributions such as Mandrake, Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS have done a lot more for the desktop, but certainly none have taken the overall market by storm.
The kernel may not have forked like Open/Net/FreeBSD, but there's really no difference between forked kernels and forked distros when it comes to fracturing the market.
There's a difference between duplication of effort spent packaging existing software (distros) versus developing kernels and supporting libraries from scratch, with only partial code sharing through the heroic efforts of programmers spanning parts of the BSD family. As time goes on, this is not going to get any easier, while standards such as LSB has made packaging on Linux quite a bit simpler.
There are really no commercial apps for Linux and there is no real market that will ever encourage their development.
On the desktop there are few, but there certainly are a lot of specialized professional apps available for Linux. For everyday use, I'd question how much that matters. Sure gaming is not in a good state, but its not much better on a Mac; Consoles are even beating Windows FWIW.
That leaves Apple's Mac OS as the only viable desktop, and its based on BSD, not Linux.
So, without a commercial software market, a desktop is not viable? I guess you're not really much of an open source person. I must be really good to have been using an unviable desktop exclusively for the last 8 years as a my desktop OS. Or just maybe there's a difference between "viable" and "market leader". As an obvious Mac fanboy, you should know the difference. A 90% market share for Windows hasn't stopped OS-X from being viable, except perhaps for gaming, and (at the whim of Microsoft) office productivity.
It does however share the same POSIX platform, meaning that there's really nothing of unique value in Linux that can't be ported to Mac OS X
So if OS-X sharing Posix is good, how are multiple Linux distributions following LSB fractured and broken? You're not being very consistent.
while there is lots of value associated with Mac OS X that will never make it to Linux: commercial apps, consumer focus, real marketing, retail support and the like.
None of those have anything to do with BSD or the Mac kernel. Commercial apps in Linux are nearly comparible to Mac (but not Windows). Consumer focused distributions exist (just about anyone can use PCLinuxOS or Linspire). Real marketing, well if you consider that an OS technical feature, it's hard to compete with Apple; They are better at marketing than engineering. Retail support exists just fine if you need it; Several Linux vendors are happy to support their products if you buy them.
Here's a value that will never come to Mac OS: Linux is Free. Obviously that doesn't matter to you, since you consider the GPL "an entaglement", and you don't even seem to care about open source (BSD) either, since most of the Mac OS advantages have nothing to do with anything that's open source.
It's not that code associated with Linux isn't a great contribution to technology, it's that it simply won't matter on the desktop.
It may not matter on your desktop, but it matters on mine (and works just fine). I use Linux at home, on my laptop, and at work. That's relevant enough for me. Unlike some, I do not value my OS software based solely on how many other people are using it (how unfashionable!). I would like to see Linux used widely, but I don't feel it has "failed" unles
I wonder if Mars in next... it seems to have a lot of free ad space.
the promise of NT and Cairo. Except that the "frivolous" lawsuit actually did find offending code. The only thing that saved BSD is that AT&T/USL had stolen even more code. You can call the lawsuit stupid, annoying, or disrespectful, but there was an element of truth to it. The community should have policed itself a little bit better. To this day we still here software companies decrying open source's disrespect for copyright and properly policing the code; which IMNSHO is fallout from the original attitude taken when BSD was being developed. I like open source too, but the way to go about it isn't by ignoring the licenses for code, no matter how small or insignificant the amount. Hindsight is 20/20, but that was an important lesson. By the end of the 90s, Unix vendors had mainly squabbled amongst themselves, BSD had been largely overlooked, and Linux had expended millions of dollars in efforts to reinvent a perfectly good wheel. That allowed Microsoft to take over the desktop. This makes no sense to blame on Linux. The BSD license allowed commercial forks, so they happened, while BSD failed to market itself and grow its development community (instead it forked). Meanwhile Linux was doing its own thing, but was it "wrong" for not spending its funds on supporting BSD instead? If you look at all the money ever spent developing Linux, its probably less than what was spent on one of the major commercial Unixes. Why is this ok in the business world, but not in the open source world? Also, keep in mind a lot of recent investment in Linux is precisely because of the GPL; IBM would not support development of BSD code, as that might help its competitors closed-source products.
Meanwhile, Microsoft successfully marketed a desktop, and took over a market many feel a free Unix could have occupied. Of course, in that case you should blame X-Windows and the slow development of broadly supported GUI toolkits. Both of those run on both Linux and BSD, so I don't see why this should be blamed on Linux. I guess Linus should have written a BSD-licensed version of KDE to make you happy?
Once again, technical superiority is not the only thing that matters. It isn't true in business, and it isn't true in the open source world. Building a healthy community and a working development process is just as important for long term success. And, like in business, sometimes a little competition helps, as it spurs development that might not happen in a pure monopoly.
It may be a slam, but its true. SVN had a very careful design that they put a lot of effort into -- unfortunately they chose the wrong model to start from, which severely limited what they could do compared to distributed version control systems.
Clearly what you are missing is a "motive". But that's so obvious that I like won't state it here. Yeah.
I think I'll go use my company's computers to hack into an AT&T file server to steal the Sys5 source code, so I can launch my own competing OS!
I guess DOHS is just there to serve as a counter to the intelligent decisions made by NIST and the DoD.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, tired old meme regurgitates formula on you!
Note that I didn't claim that Xerox invented those technologies; They were simply the first large company to use them AFAICT. In the world of patents, that is unfortunately all that matters. The concept of the lone inventor getting a patent, and getting rich licensing it, is only a dream in the current state of affairs.
Apple ought to patent "A method and apparatus for installing Linux on a Macintosh computer". That should take care of traitors like you...
And if Xerox had taken the same view, we wouldn't be using mice or GUIs at all; They'd still be locked up as some research project that got patented.
When a hacker finds some flaw and announces it with a zero-day exploit, some want us to call that "security research". So, when an immigration official finds a way to keep a hacker out of the country using existing laws (which apply equally to everyone), shouldn't that just be called "legal research"?
So, a hacker got owned; I for one think that is pretty funny. Just like a hacker might say to regular programmers, "next time he should be more careful."