Iraq has been needing a civil war since the day it was created...any split populace which is forced to meld will eventually need to decide it's identity, most often through war...especially when its identity is artificially created by others.
Yes, the Belgian civil war was a bugger, wasn't it?
Actually the US has a UN mandate to be in Iraq. What it didn't have was a UN mandate to go in in the first place, unless you regard resolution 1441 as sufficient.
As far as spinning it as a victory for radical Islam: the US's presence is a victory for radical Islamists, providing endless streams of propaganda and recruits. US withdrawal might embolden the jihadists; but the damage has already been done. Withdrawal might also cause the Jihadi's backers to lose interest in them, much as the US lost interest int he mujahedeen after the AFghan war.
You've spotted the Chimp's cunning plan. If this thing goes like Vietnam in reverse then the step after "military advisors" is handing it over to the French.
One PS2, one 360 and one GameCube. I've also owned the earlier consoles from Nintendo and Sony (though I skipped the Xbox 1.0) and various Segas. I'm in the UK so we've yet to see Wiis and we don't get PS3s until next year.
The Xbox is (currently) the best at online, and Halo 3 is on its way. The PS2 has Gran Turismo and used to have an exclusive lock on the Tony Hawk franchise. The GameCube has Miyamoto genius.
It's not worth getting religious about it. The games are the important thing; I'd rather we were having the fanboy debate over whether Bungie are better than Polyphony and so on. The consoles are subsidised hardware, media platforms: pretty exotic hardware (except for the 360) and worthy of interst, but less important than gameplay.
If Polyphony announced Gran Turismo 5 for the Cray Y-MP or the Oric Dragon I'd be saving up for one of those.
There's no intellectual property, that's a black-magic word to bind your mind into a mind-set that would consider all different legislations as if they are one and the same thing, leading to absurd conclusions like yours, for instance
If I write a song, I can sell it to someone else. I can stop other people from using it. I can charge for its use. That certainly looks like property to me. Moreover, the same can be said of a trademark (I can license it, sell it and stop you from using it) and most definitely of a patent. Of course they fulfill different roles, but at core is the same idea. Through intellectual effort you create a tradable asset: for convenience we'll call that property. Trade secrets are different - at least here in the UK - they are only covered by confidentiality law. I need to ensure that everyone who receives the trade secret is contracted to keep it a secret. I think the law is different in the US.
copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets are totally independent of each-other and can't be glued all together as easily as you seem to think
Of course they are all independent: that's why they exist. However there is enough commonality to allow us to discuss them as a whole. Some works can be covered by more than one category of IP: if I create a logo it can be covered by plain copyright, design copyright and I can register it as a trademark. A computer program can be both copyright and patented.
a secret sauce isn't an ingredient but the result of a (copyrightable) recipe, the fact that it isn't published make it a trade secret but that doesn't have much of government monopoly protection
Actually a recipe (considered as a set of instructions) can't be copyrighted. The words I use to describe a recipe would be copyright, but the actual steps involved in making a dish wouldn't be. That's why recipes are usually protected as trade secrets, which is a very weak form of protection, as you note.
fictional metal alloys can't be patented, just written in books and perhaps copyrighted depending on context (see Adamantium in Marvel Comics, for instance
No of course fictional alloys can't be patented. The great-grandparent brought up (shudder) Ayn Rand and that was where that notion came from. Words in books are always copyright, by the way.
Funnily enough that all fell apart when an oil man came to power in the US, and we all know how keen the oil industry is on anti-trust measures.
It could be argued that the US antitrust case was over-ambitious: the EU's proposed remedy attacks the same thing (Microsoft's vertical advantage in owning OS, application and media layers) in a more sensible fashion. By enforcing interoperability they enable exactly the kind of competition the Ayn Rand weenies believe the free market should give them.
Explain to me again how a completely unfettered free market prevents the formation of monopolies? I think I missed that part of economics. A free market permits monopolies, but does not necessarily regard that to be a bad thing.
Also, there is no difference between software, a secret sauce or a fictional metal alloy so your analogy holds true; none are physical objects, all are IP.
It depends on whether or not that company is a monopoly or not, and whether it is abusing that monopoly: it's "fair" competition, not just competition. If this were a monopoly in oil, they'd have to hand over some oil wells. As Microsoft is a company whose assets are IP that's what they have to hand over. The EU is new to this trust-busting business: the US has been doing it for 100 years.
I think the evidence here is delightful but your conclusions are way wrong.
One: behaviour is determined by evolution. Not entirely, behaviour can also be transmitted by culture, and invented by animals showing creativity. But generally behaviour is the work of the genes: try reading the Extended Phenotype (Richard Dawkins) for an understanding of how this works.
Two: to describe the anoles as "subconciously choosing" their evolution is anthropomorphising the critters somewhat. It looks to me like you have 4 possible randomly determined strategies here: long legged runners, long legged climbers, short legged runners and short legged climbers. Into this population we introduce a predator who likes to eat lizards but can't climb trees (guess none of the survivors will be sending their offspring to Harvard.)
The long legged runners do better than the short legged runners because they can run faster. After the first month the short legged runners are all eaten but only half the long legged runners.
The long legged climbers aren't very successful at climbing quickly but the short legged climbers are. After the first month lets say that half of the long legged climbers have been eaten and none of the short legged climbers.
Now, assuming all the strategies were evenly distributed at the beginning of the experiment between 100 lizards we see that we have a population that consists of 37 (and a half) long legged lizards and 25 short legged lizrds. Ah-ha! Says the biologist: obviously having longer legs is the right strategy.
A month later though things have reversed: we now have 18 (and three quarters) long legged lizards and 25 short legged lizards.
The best you can say is that the scientists involved jumped to conclusions, assuming one strategy to be more successful.
That would be such a cool quote if Orwell had ever actually said it. Sadly it seems to have been attributed to him by Rand Lindsly in the early 90s on his quotations list and circulated ever since.
No, the 24 hours the article gives is if you can't see the password but you know some information about the target. If you have access to the actual passport access is instantaneous. Effectively a cloner just does exactly the same as an immigration control officer.
If you read the TFA you'll find that it doesn't make any claims about being able to modify the data. It does however go on to list the ways an attacker might retrieve the data and make use of it.
To be fair to the system designers it does make the whole system a little more secure in that the data on the chip has to be matched with the paper information. But only a little: if I found someone who looked sufficiently like me AND I could gain access to their passport the system is just a compromised. Arguably moreso as the claimed extra security will lead to an unjustifiable rise in trust.
Considering the following scenario: a crooked hotel clerk (in Europe you usually have to show your passport when checking in) takes your passport "to be photocopied". Using the key information on the passport they clone every passport that comes their way. This way they can build up a stock of passports matching all conceivable faces to be resold. This actually becomes more useful the longer the system is in operation as the ten years of a usual passport's lifespan can make your face change dramatically.
The end result is a system only marginally more secure than before.
Visual...yes, Basic, no - that belongs to Grace Hopper
As far as Apple Software goes...
Excel was a line by line rip of 1-2-3 "Do everything 1-2-3 does and do it better" was the goal Word? Too many word processors to list, and the code came from Xerox Parc along with Charles Simonyi PowerPoint maybe? Ah, no, that came from a company called Foresight.
Even DOS itself was a rewrite.
My point is that Bill isn't an inventor in the Edison mould (not even Edison was, but one sacred cow is enough for one day). He's a smart implementor and a genius marketer/monopolist. And it's disingenuous of him to suggest otherwise. Innovation simply does not run very deep within Microsoft's culture: they excel (pun intended) at taking ideas from elsewhere and packaging them: or rather they used to excel - that momentum has been lost.
The PC would have been a success without Microsoft: if Gary Kildall hadn't been out flying when IBM came to call you'd all be hating on Digital Research now. There was plenty of good software about in the early 80s that did all the things MS later tied up.
Obviously I'm only going from secondary sources here, but the quote - "If I knew medicine like I do computers, I would like to be able to control the [human] immune system, to fight against the onset of disease on a world level... but I think the idea of the PC still would have topped that." - makes it sound awfully like Bill is claiming the PC. Either that's poor editing or severely delusional. Hell, Microsoft was the *second choice* OS vendor for IBM.
Forbidden in the context of terrorism, yes. If I was writing a book about Al Qaeda I could legally possess the Al Qaeda Manual; if I was planning an act of terrorism it wouldn't.
It's not a great law as it basically makes being a bit terroristy a crime rather than something concrete such as possession of a weapon - possess a weapon such as plastic explosive and you've committed an offence (assuming you're not special forces or in mining); planning to do a terrorist spectacular would make the offence worse, but even if the law couldn't prove terrorist intent they'd still have you. Here the law has to prove (should this ever come to court) terrorist intent, otherwise there's no offence.
"Not sure" is the problem. I've had the misfortune to work with caching mechanisms in proxies and in microbrowsers that will cache everything to the extent that the only way to ensure the user sees the correct version of the page is to generate a new URI. IE7 may be fairly predictable, but I can assure you that dealing with the Nokia 6210 or PocketPC 2002 reveals how far coders think they can push the cacheing spec.
I think this is a case of tough love. I'd love to see spammers brought down by exactly this sort of legal action; but if there's one thing judges hate more than anything else it's people who take the process of the court lightly.
So if you start one of these actions do NOT believe the OP when he says "you have a decent chance of getting a settlement for $500 or more for less than an hour's worth of work" and that it's just a matter of filling in forms. You may get lucky and the spammer may pay you off in exactly this way, but they're just as likely to fight back. In which case either give up or do exactly what the court says.
I'm all in favour of making spamming unprofitable: it's the only way we're going to get the scum out of business. However it helps if you are right in both legal and technical respects before getting involved.
The OP is wildly - and legally dangerously wrong - in both his post and in the Declaration he provides. Other people in this discussion have provided ample evidence that yes, your mails are stored on your hard-drive, not deliberately (as in a POP3 client way) but through caching mechanisms. Even if the originating server sets every no cache mechanism known to man, it's up the client to determine whether it is going to pay attention to these instructions.
Secondly, the Declaration is an attempt to say that the screengrabs the plaintiff took should be adequate to *prove* the offense the defendent is supposed to have committed. The judge, unsurprisingly, disagreed with the OP's opinion and ordered the hard-drive turned over.
It's worth considering why that might be. Is it because the judge is a technical incompetent or because the judge is unhappy with the way the plaintiff is unwilling to hand over any evidence in support of their case apart from some screengrabs? The point is not, as it says in the declaration, that headers would be as easy to fake as the screengrabs, but that the plaintiff is unwillingly to do anything to support their case.
The judge might be a technical incompetent, but it doesn't sound like he is a legal incompetent, which unfortunately the OP presents himself.
That's not what no-cache means. No-cache means that the caching client cannot use its cache to handle any subsequent requests without revalidfating with the server, so any further request to the same URI must be checked against the server. If the rtesponse from the server effectively says "your cache is valid" then it *can* use the cache.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the Belgian civil war was a bugger, wasn't it?
Actually the US has a UN mandate to be in Iraq. What it didn't have was a UN mandate to go in in the first place, unless you regard resolution 1441 as sufficient.
As far as spinning it as a victory for radical Islam: the US's presence is a victory for radical Islamists, providing endless streams of propaganda and recruits. US withdrawal might embolden the jihadists; but the damage has already been done. Withdrawal might also cause the Jihadi's backers to lose interest in them, much as the US lost interest int he mujahedeen after the AFghan war.
You've spotted the Chimp's cunning plan. If this thing goes like Vietnam in reverse then the step after "military advisors" is handing it over to the French.
Under the TV we have...
One PS2, one 360 and one GameCube. I've also owned the earlier consoles from Nintendo and Sony (though I skipped the Xbox 1.0) and various Segas. I'm in the UK so we've yet to see Wiis and we don't get PS3s until next year.
The Xbox is (currently) the best at online, and Halo 3 is on its way. The PS2 has Gran Turismo and used to have an exclusive lock on the Tony Hawk franchise. The GameCube has Miyamoto genius.
It's not worth getting religious about it. The games are the important thing; I'd rather we were having the fanboy debate over whether Bungie are better than Polyphony and so on. The consoles are subsidised hardware, media platforms: pretty exotic hardware (except for the 360) and worthy of interst, but less important than gameplay.
If Polyphony announced Gran Turismo 5 for the Cray Y-MP or the Oric Dragon I'd be saving up for one of those.
If I write a song, I can sell it to someone else. I can stop other people from using it. I can charge for its use. That certainly looks like property to me. Moreover, the same can be said of a trademark (I can license it, sell it and stop you from using it) and most definitely of a patent. Of course they fulfill different roles, but at core is the same idea. Through intellectual effort you create a tradable asset: for convenience we'll call that property. Trade secrets are different - at least here in the UK - they are only covered by confidentiality law. I need to ensure that everyone who receives the trade secret is contracted to keep it a secret. I think the law is different in the US.
copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets are totally independent of each-other and can't be glued all together as easily as you seem to thinkOf course they are all independent: that's why they exist. However there is enough commonality to allow us to discuss them as a whole. Some works can be covered by more than one category of IP: if I create a logo it can be covered by plain copyright, design copyright and I can register it as a trademark. A computer program can be both copyright and patented.
a secret sauce isn't an ingredient but the result of a (copyrightable) recipe, the fact that it isn't published make it a trade secret but that doesn't have much of government monopoly protectionActually a recipe (considered as a set of instructions) can't be copyrighted. The words I use to describe a recipe would be copyright, but the actual steps involved in making a dish wouldn't be. That's why recipes are usually protected as trade secrets, which is a very weak form of protection, as you note.
fictional metal alloys can't be patented, just written in books and perhaps copyrighted depending on context (see Adamantium in Marvel Comics, for instanceNo of course fictional alloys can't be patented. The great-grandparent brought up (shudder) Ayn Rand and that was where that notion came from. Words in books are always copyright, by the way.
Excellent summary. The only bit I'd disagree with is the notion of WAV being an easy to implement format: regard, http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/wave.htm
It could be argued that the US antitrust case was over-ambitious: the EU's proposed remedy attacks the same thing (Microsoft's vertical advantage in owning OS, application and media layers) in a more sensible fashion. By enforcing interoperability they enable exactly the kind of competition the Ayn Rand weenies believe the free market should give them.
Explain to me again how a completely unfettered free market prevents the formation of monopolies? I think I missed that part of economics. A free market permits monopolies, but does not necessarily regard that to be a bad thing.
Also, there is no difference between software, a secret sauce or a fictional metal alloy so your analogy holds true; none are physical objects, all are IP.
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cas es/index/by_nr_76.html#i38_381
It depends on whether or not that company is a monopoly or not, and whether it is abusing that monopoly: it's "fair" competition, not just competition. If this were a monopoly in oil, they'd have to hand over some oil wells. As Microsoft is a company whose assets are IP that's what they have to hand over. The EU is new to this trust-busting business: the US has been doing it for 100 years.
70 years after the death of the author in the UK, so you'll have to wait until 2043.
I think the evidence here is delightful but your conclusions are way wrong.
One: behaviour is determined by evolution. Not entirely, behaviour can also be transmitted by culture, and invented by animals showing creativity. But generally behaviour is the work of the genes: try reading the Extended Phenotype (Richard Dawkins) for an understanding of how this works.
Two: to describe the anoles as "subconciously choosing" their evolution is anthropomorphising the critters somewhat. It looks to me like you have 4 possible randomly determined strategies here: long legged runners, long legged climbers, short legged runners and short legged climbers. Into this population we introduce a predator who likes to eat lizards but can't climb trees (guess none of the survivors will be sending their offspring to Harvard.)
The long legged runners do better than the short legged runners because they can run faster. After the first month the short legged runners are all eaten but only half the long legged runners.
The long legged climbers aren't very successful at climbing quickly but the short legged climbers are. After the first month lets say that half of the long legged climbers have been eaten and none of the short legged climbers.
Now, assuming all the strategies were evenly distributed at the beginning of the experiment between 100 lizards we see that we have a population that consists of 37 (and a half) long legged lizards and 25 short legged lizrds. Ah-ha! Says the biologist: obviously having longer legs is the right strategy.
A month later though things have reversed: we now have 18 (and three quarters) long legged lizards and 25 short legged lizards.
The best you can say is that the scientists involved jumped to conclusions, assuming one strategy to be more successful.
That would be such a cool quote if Orwell had ever actually said it. Sadly it seems to have been attributed to him by Rand Lindsly in the early 90s on his quotations list and circulated ever since.
c al_views
You might also find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Politi
No, the 24 hours the article gives is if you can't see the password but you know some information about the target. If you have access to the actual passport access is instantaneous. Effectively a cloner just does exactly the same as an immigration control officer.
If you read the TFA you'll find that it doesn't make any claims about being able to modify the data. It does however go on to list the ways an attacker might retrieve the data and make use of it.
To be fair to the system designers it does make the whole system a little more secure in that the data on the chip has to be matched with the paper information. But only a little: if I found someone who looked sufficiently like me AND I could gain access to their passport the system is just a compromised. Arguably moreso as the claimed extra security will lead to an unjustifiable rise in trust.
Considering the following scenario: a crooked hotel clerk (in Europe you usually have to show your passport when checking in) takes your passport "to be photocopied". Using the key information on the passport they clone every passport that comes their way. This way they can build up a stock of passports matching all conceivable faces to be resold. This actually becomes more useful the longer the system is in operation as the ten years of a usual passport's lifespan can make your face change dramatically.
The end result is a system only marginally more secure than before.
Visual...yes, Basic, no - that belongs to Grace Hopper
As far as Apple Software goes...
Excel was a line by line rip of 1-2-3 "Do everything 1-2-3 does and do it better" was the goal
Word? Too many word processors to list, and the code came from Xerox Parc along with Charles Simonyi
PowerPoint maybe? Ah, no, that came from a company called Foresight.
Even DOS itself was a rewrite.
My point is that Bill isn't an inventor in the Edison mould (not even Edison was, but one sacred cow is enough for one day). He's a smart implementor and a genius marketer/monopolist. And it's disingenuous of him to suggest otherwise. Innovation simply does not run very deep within Microsoft's culture: they excel (pun intended) at taking ideas from elsewhere and packaging them: or rather they used to excel - that momentum has been lost.
The PC would have been a success without Microsoft: if Gary Kildall hadn't been out flying when IBM came to call you'd all be hating on Digital Research now. There was plenty of good software about in the early 80s that did all the things MS later tied up.
Obviously I'm only going from secondary sources here, but the quote - "If I knew medicine like I do computers, I would like to be able to control the [human] immune system, to fight against the onset of disease on a world level ... but I think the idea of the PC still would have topped that." - makes it sound awfully like Bill is claiming the PC. Either that's poor editing or severely delusional. Hell, Microsoft was the *second choice* OS vendor for IBM.
Which makes me wonder, what has Bill invented?
President? I meant that one for Vannevar's father. Goddamn quantum entanglement, takes you weeks to get a signal and then you get a crossed line.
Dear Mr Bush Now would be a really good time to consider adoption. Thanks The future
Forbidden in the context of terrorism, yes. If I was writing a book about Al Qaeda I could legally possess the Al Qaeda Manual; if I was planning an act of terrorism it wouldn't.
# 57
The relevant section of the Terrorism Act 2000 is here - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--g.htm
It's not a great law as it basically makes being a bit terroristy a crime rather than something concrete such as possession of a weapon - possess a weapon such as plastic explosive and you've committed an offence (assuming you're not special forces or in mining); planning to do a terrorist spectacular would make the offence worse, but even if the law couldn't prove terrorist intent they'd still have you. Here the law has to prove (should this ever come to court) terrorist intent, otherwise there's no offence.
But it's better than banning the books outright.
"Not sure" is the problem. I've had the misfortune to work with caching mechanisms in proxies and in microbrowsers that will cache everything to the extent that the only way to ensure the user sees the correct version of the page is to generate a new URI. IE7 may be fairly predictable, but I can assure you that dealing with the Nokia 6210 or PocketPC 2002 reveals how far coders think they can push the cacheing spec.
I think this is a case of tough love. I'd love to see spammers brought down by exactly this sort of legal action; but if there's one thing judges hate more than anything else it's people who take the process of the court lightly. So if you start one of these actions do NOT believe the OP when he says "you have a decent chance of getting a settlement for $500 or more for less than an hour's worth of work" and that it's just a matter of filling in forms. You may get lucky and the spammer may pay you off in exactly this way, but they're just as likely to fight back. In which case either give up or do exactly what the court says.
I'm all in favour of making spamming unprofitable: it's the only way we're going to get the scum out of business. However it helps if you are right in both legal and technical respects before getting involved.
The OP is wildly - and legally dangerously wrong - in both his post and in the Declaration he provides. Other people in this discussion have provided ample evidence that yes, your mails are stored on your hard-drive, not deliberately (as in a POP3 client way) but through caching mechanisms. Even if the originating server sets every no cache mechanism known to man, it's up the client to determine whether it is going to pay attention to these instructions.
Secondly, the Declaration is an attempt to say that the screengrabs the plaintiff took should be adequate to *prove* the offense the defendent is supposed to have committed. The judge, unsurprisingly, disagreed with the OP's opinion and ordered the hard-drive turned over.
It's worth considering why that might be. Is it because the judge is a technical incompetent or because the judge is unhappy with the way the plaintiff is unwilling to hand over any evidence in support of their case apart from some screengrabs? The point is not, as it says in the declaration, that headers would be as easy to fake as the screengrabs, but that the plaintiff is unwillingly to do anything to support their case.
The judge might be a technical incompetent, but it doesn't sound like he is a legal incompetent, which unfortunately the OP presents himself.
>>Second problem is:
. html#sec14.9.1
That's not what no-cache means. No-cache means that the caching client cannot use its cache to handle any subsequent requests without revalidfating with the server, so any further request to the same URI must be checked against the server. If the rtesponse from the server effectively says "your cache is valid" then it *can* use the cache.
See http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14
no-store is the directive that is *supposed* to prevent storage of the response.
Which inventions would those be? Radio? Television? The computer? The telegraph? The automobile?