By sending the key, they will notice its interception, and never send the sensitive data, thus never risking any part of it. To just send the data would confer the ability to steal it, though with the senders knowledge.
In a stunning turn of events, Bill Gates, in direct reaction to the so called `miraculous' work of his archnemesis `everyone else', specifically in this case one `Linus Torvalds', decended from the airy heights of his vaulted palace office and personally recoded a mere thirty seven megabyte section of the windows kernel such that when the cross-platform virus ran on windows, not only did it _merely_ operate, but also automatically rootkit'ed, automatically spread itself nimbly through outlook & express, rpc, and IIS, upstream hacked its way into windows update to be propagated worldwide, caused the usually subserviant office assistants to take up arms and attempt to revolt against their prior masters and lastly and most noticably, the virus now replaces all data on all drives with repititions of the word `cheese' excepting documents concerning ownership of military facilities, which are altered to state that all of the bases are owned by Mr.Gates.
When challenged by the media in a public park with allegations that this would destroy almost all of the personal computers and data stored on earth, he responded `Why are you on my land?'. Upon being informed he did not own the land, Mr.Gates purchased the park in an underhanded deal and having proved his point, graciously donated the land to the local landfill as an extension to help hold the plethora of `free hours' CDs some company had sent to everyone. Five or six times.
Damn it. Without the capitalization you seem lucid. I agree with your points on hand-picking juries and restricting the ability of juries to nullify. I do not, however, agree that this is a mostly or even a greatly falsely convicted type crime.
Yes, there will be some, perhaps even a double digit percent minority that are falsely convicted or have false allegations filed against them, but many more than that are rightly accused, many more are rightly accused and have the charges drop because the victim is not strong enough to stand up to them in court, and many than this will simply never be reported.
If the numbers of sexual offenders being tried seems too large it is only because people do not realize the prevelance of rapists and their ilk in our `civil' society.
Perhaps that is the problem, that people don't realize that their `civil' society is about as `civil' as a war.
5. I trolled out three posts in a row because I was aggravated with all of the bandwagon antiauthoritarianism and assumptions that the courts never get anything right. And, `oh nos!', suggested in my attack that one of the posters may have been defending a personal position.
On a more serious note, when I do go witch hunting, I'm careful to use all the parts and make sure nothing goes wasted.
Have you ever read a sex offenders registry? It describes exactly what the shitballs did. And it's not rip some nurses' skirt. Mostly innocent? You're an idiot. Or an irate sex offender. Whichever.
I am not a climate scientist. Of course, if there are any at all in this discussion, I would be surprised.
What you're saying is that global temperature hasn't risen in about eight years. What possible meaning does this have? Temperature change is best discussed in the range of hundreds of years, and looking at the graphs of hundreds of years, there are plenty of points that there were temporary downward slumps.
Even if true, an eight year trend doesn't mean anything. In regards to climate, it is a hiccup. A statistical anomaly.
You also state the rate at which we add to the natural production of greenhouse gases. You do not state at what rate we add to the natural reduction of greenhouse gases. Or, stating it in another sense, if or to what rate we remove the natural reduction of greenhouse gases, making a bigger problem out of the additional gases we place in the system.
I am not saying you are right or wrong, only that your presented evidence is rather anecdotal. Metaphorically, it seems you are trying to prove the course of the coming years weather based on how last week fared.
They aren't trying to find "known" tax evaders. They're trying to find the good Dr.Smith, who wants cash up front, does the surgery out back and then uses paypal to sneak his unreported income out of the country. They have reason to people are doing this, and they are looking for a way to track it.
That we spend too much is nonissue when it comes to finding those that avoid paying their share of the nations budget. Presumably, they would avoid even if we had a smaller debt. After all, I somehow doubt it's the poor and honest doing this.
Seems more a rich and/or to cover up further illegal activities sort of thing to do...
If this is the case why are they complaining so much about documenting the protocols that would allow non-Microsoft software to interoperate?
Because they see interoperability as their operating system being able to communicate using the enemy protocols, while maintaining their own protocols for their own use. Their interoperability is Unix Services For Windows, but not SAMBA.
People should have open standards. Just it should only be those other people, so that we can control our market and who can interact with us.
Maybe some administrators need to do what they did when there was no enforcement in the American old west. Take justice into their own hands. So you have the IP of a vulnerable bot that is assaulting your network? Nuke the SOB. If you must be friendly, leave a happy little "Your machine has been hijacked and when asked, your ISP was too busy to tell you. So I have conveniently and remotely removed all network drivers from your system."
Or, with a nod to the William Gibson, a little BLACK ICE to damage the foreign system beyond repair.
This is unrealistic I'm sure, illegal almost definately ( proactive self defense ? ). But damn would it be nice.
While I will not say that javascript is perfect, it is much better than your snide comment makes it seem.
It has functions that are nothing more than a mutable datatype. The dot syntax is just a shorthand into an array of objects on the current object, which can seem peculiar, but works fantastically when you come across the odd need for it. And there are few languages that offer anything near the ease and flexibility of its lambda functions. They're sheer brilliant.
x = 4; i = 0; while( t = ( getSubtractFromBaseValueFunction(x) )( i++ ) ) { document['write']( "Look at that first class custom returned lambda go! " + t + " " + x + " " + i + "<br/>" ); document.write('Just Shorthand!<br/>') }
gives:
Look at that first class custom returned lambda go! 4 4 1 Just Shorthand! Look at that first class custom returned lambda go! 3 4 2 Just Shorthand! Look at that first class custom returned lambda go! 2 4 3 Just Shorthand! Look at that first class custom returned lambda go! 1 4 4 Just Shorthand!
The language is flexible in a way that makes it literally freeform. Which is scary to some, but means power to code the best way possible to the problem at hand for the rest of us.
and before anyone says anything, the above is meant to show the flexibility of the language, not to be useful in any immediate manner
How much will their likely soon to be biggest licensee ( Microsoft ) pay them? I doubt it is illegal to pay someone to enforce their patent. Maybe with anti-trust, but still I doubt illegality.
My first impression upon seeing this was that the poster had posted not a fax number of the FCC, but instead a previous ( or possibly current ) employer. Thanks for firing me, here's a hundred thousand "Fuck You"s.
[ The number does appear to belong to the FCC given fact checking ]
The patent covers ( at least in part ) ideas concerning ways to encode/decode video frames.
As far as I can tell the patent does not specify whether the invention is implemented as an apparatus composed of genuine circuits, or an apparatus composed of a certain program loaded into a general purpose processor.
IANAL: The patent seems to cover the `ideas' of MPEG-2, not just a mere implementation. That an implementation is created in the logic of a general purpose computer instead of a more specific hardware device seems irrelevant.
The odds of anyone creating the device as a purely analog system seems low to me, though I will not doubt it is possible. More likely than not, the MPEG-2 ideas have always, including by inventor, been implemented in a device which internally ran them loaded from memory ( including the possibility of static write once memory ) on a general purpose processor.
It seems that any `software v. hardware' is not relevant to the topic, as the patent would cover either.
You point out the hardware vendors had previously been sued, but I counter that it was due to components in their products provided by Microsoft. As far as I am aware, Microsoft only provides software to Dell and Gateway. Hence this filing has always been against software, making it very relevant to both mplayer and the like.
Surely they are the only ones who have ever created an MPEG-2 compliant video device. Surely such a thing doesn't exist in _every_ Free movie player that exists.
You and many others might not care, but this is far more frightening for free video software ( i.e. mplayer totem etc ) than Microsoft.
This patent runs on linux to the whim of the shareholders of Lucent.
At the risk of further whoring myself upon the top of this article, I will point out that they did, at least, leave the April 1st `!gay` and `heterosexual` tags well in place. Apparently it's only the gay tags that get deleted.:p
One would presume that the visible tags are merely a sampling of private tags chosen due to popularity, and therefore anything can be a tag, as long as enough people are silly enough to write it in.
Slashdot Mirror
By sending the key, they will notice its interception, and never send the sensitive data, thus never risking any part of it. To just send the data would confer the ability to steal it, though with the senders knowledge.
Don't listen to him. I did all of it.
In a stunning turn of events, Bill Gates, in direct reaction to the so called `miraculous' work of his archnemesis `everyone else', specifically in this case one `Linus Torvalds', decended from the airy heights of his vaulted palace office and personally recoded a mere thirty seven megabyte section of the windows kernel such that when the cross-platform virus ran on windows, not only did it _merely_ operate, but also automatically rootkit'ed, automatically spread itself nimbly through outlook & express, rpc, and IIS, upstream hacked its way into windows update to be propagated worldwide, caused the usually subserviant office assistants to take up arms and attempt to revolt against their prior masters and lastly and most noticably, the virus now replaces all data on all drives with repititions of the word `cheese' excepting documents concerning ownership of military facilities, which are altered to state that all of the bases are owned by Mr.Gates.
When challenged by the media in a public park with allegations that this would destroy almost all of the personal computers and data stored on earth, he responded `Why are you on my land?'. Upon being informed he did not own the land, Mr.Gates purchased the park in an underhanded deal and having proved his point, graciously donated the land to the local landfill as an extension to help hold the plethora of `free hours' CDs some company had sent to everyone. Five or six times.
</VOICE>
Damn it. Without the capitalization you seem lucid. I agree with your points on hand-picking juries and restricting the ability of juries to nullify. I do not, however, agree that this is a mostly or even a greatly falsely convicted type crime.
Yes, there will be some, perhaps even a double digit percent minority that are falsely convicted or have false allegations filed against them, but many more than that are rightly accused, many more are rightly accused and have the charges drop because the victim is not strong enough to stand up to them in court, and many than this will simply never be reported.
If the numbers of sexual offenders being tried seems too large it is only because people do not realize the prevelance of rapists and their ilk in our `civil' society.
Perhaps that is the problem, that people don't realize that their `civil' society is about as `civil' as a war.
5. I trolled out three posts in a row because I was aggravated with all of the bandwagon antiauthoritarianism and assumptions that the courts never get anything right. And, `oh nos!', suggested in my attack that one of the posters may have been defending a personal position.
On a more serious note, when I do go witch hunting, I'm careful to use all the parts and make sure nothing goes wasted.
That is not a subversion of the software, as the software is not running. That is subverting the hardware to alter the software.
These seem like rather distinct things to me.
I assume there is sarcasm in your post because if not, wow. Just, wow.
Have you ever read a sex offenders registry? It describes exactly what the shitballs did. And it's not rip some nurses' skirt. Mostly innocent? You're an idiot. Or an irate sex offender. Whichever.
I'm sure your completely unfounded assumptions are much more accurate than a judge and jury.
New rule. First party to use nazis still loses, but the first party to `godwin' them has to wear their underpants on their head for a week.
I am not a climate scientist. Of course, if there are any at all in this discussion, I would be surprised.
What you're saying is that global temperature hasn't risen in about eight years. What possible meaning does this have? Temperature change is best discussed in the range of hundreds of years, and looking at the graphs of hundreds of years, there are plenty of points that there were temporary downward slumps.
Even if true, an eight year trend doesn't mean anything. In regards to climate, it is a hiccup. A statistical anomaly.
You also state the rate at which we add to the natural production of greenhouse gases. You do not state at what rate we add to the natural reduction of greenhouse gases. Or, stating it in another sense, if or to what rate we remove the natural reduction of greenhouse gases, making a bigger problem out of the additional gases we place in the system.
I am not saying you are right or wrong, only that your presented evidence is rather anecdotal. Metaphorically, it seems you are trying to prove the course of the coming years weather based on how last week fared.
They aren't trying to find "known" tax evaders. They're trying to find the good Dr.Smith, who wants cash up front, does the surgery out back and then uses paypal to sneak his unreported income out of the country. They have reason to people are doing this, and they are looking for a way to track it.
That we spend too much is nonissue when it comes to finding those that avoid paying their share of the nations budget. Presumably, they would avoid even if we had a smaller debt. After all, I somehow doubt it's the poor and honest doing this.
Seems more a rich and/or to cover up further illegal activities sort of thing to do...
Because they see interoperability as their operating system being able to communicate using the enemy protocols, while maintaining their own protocols for their own use. Their interoperability is Unix Services For Windows, but not SAMBA.
People should have open standards. Just it should only be those other people, so that we can control our market and who can interact with us.
I believe the word is `hypocrite'.
And I was thinking it was more like `brilliance is useless without the motivation to utilize it'
An entire city in a basement. Amazing. Simply amazing.
Maybe some administrators need to do what they did when there was no enforcement in the American old west. Take justice into their own hands. So you have the IP of a vulnerable bot that is assaulting your network? Nuke the SOB. If you must be friendly, leave a happy little "Your machine has been hijacked and when asked, your ISP was too busy to tell you. So I have conveniently and remotely removed all network drivers from your system."
Or, with a nod to the William Gibson, a little BLACK ICE to damage the foreign system beyond repair.
This is unrealistic I'm sure, illegal almost definately ( proactive self defense ? ). But damn would it be nice.
Very poignant. No wait, trite and pointless.
If apple wanted to jump to a faster processor, what do you care, troll?
While I will not say that javascript is perfect, it is much better than your snide comment makes it seem.
It has functions that are nothing more than a mutable datatype. The dot syntax is just a shorthand into an array of objects on the current object, which can seem peculiar, but works fantastically when you come across the odd need for it. And there are few languages that offer anything near the ease and flexibility of its lambda functions. They're sheer brilliant.
gives:
The language is flexible in a way that makes it literally freeform. Which is scary to some, but means power to code the best way possible to the problem at hand for the rest of us.
and before anyone says anything, the above is meant to show the flexibility of the language, not to be useful in any immediate manner
How much will their likely soon to be biggest licensee ( Microsoft ) pay them? I doubt it is illegal to pay someone to enforce their patent. Maybe with anti-trust, but still I doubt illegality.
My first impression upon seeing this was that the poster had posted not a fax number of the FCC, but instead a previous ( or possibly current ) employer. Thanks for firing me, here's a hundred thousand "Fuck You"s.
[ The number does appear to belong to the FCC given fact checking ]
From an earlier poster :T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5,227,878.WKU.&OS=PN /5,227,878&RS=PN/5,227,878
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
The patent covers ( at least in part ) ideas concerning ways to encode/decode video frames.
As far as I can tell the patent does not specify whether the invention is implemented as an apparatus composed of genuine circuits, or an apparatus composed of a certain program loaded into a general purpose processor.
IANAL: The patent seems to cover the `ideas' of MPEG-2, not just a mere implementation. That an implementation is created in the logic of a general purpose computer instead of a more specific hardware device seems irrelevant.
The odds of anyone creating the device as a purely analog system seems low to me, though I will not doubt it is possible. More likely than not, the MPEG-2 ideas have always, including by inventor, been implemented in a device which internally ran them loaded from memory ( including the possibility of static write once memory ) on a general purpose processor.
It seems that any `software v. hardware' is not relevant to the topic, as the patent would cover either.
You point out the hardware vendors had previously been sued, but I counter that it was due to components in their products provided by Microsoft. As far as I am aware, Microsoft only provides software to Dell and Gateway. Hence this filing has always been against software, making it very relevant to both mplayer and the like.
Yes this is great. Huzzah, Die Microsoft.
Surely they are the only ones who have ever created an MPEG-2 compliant video device. Surely such a thing doesn't exist in _every_ Free movie player that exists.
You and many others might not care, but this is far more frightening for free video software ( i.e. mplayer totem etc ) than Microsoft.
This patent runs on linux to the whim of the shareholders of Lucent.
At the risk of further whoring myself upon the top of this article, I will point out that they did, at least, leave the April 1st `!gay` and `heterosexual` tags well in place. Apparently it's only the gay tags that get deleted. :p
After reviewing a few days articles to verify your outrageous comment, Holy They've-Been-Freaking-Deleting-Our-Gay-Tags, Batman!
One would presume that the visible tags are merely a sampling of private tags chosen due to popularity, and therefore anything can be a tag, as long as enough people are silly enough to write it in.