That theory only works if there were deliberate poisonings of copycats. The distribution was too narrow, and the incidents too spread out to account for all of the poisonings with a single industrial accident. Unless Tylenol committed murder as part of a cover-up.

I'd agree if 99% of exploits weren't one of a basic set of vulnerabilities. "I never though someone would get a Privilege escalation though a buffer overflow from an improperly sanitized input." The threats aren't "bugs" A "bug" is bad code that allows a threat a vector of attack.

Computer security is saying that you secure doors and windows on a house only after each of them has been broken in, and only in the minimum way to prevent the previous attack from working. "Oh, they got in with a credit-card jimmy of the lock? We'll fix that on this window, but the other windows are safe because nobody has tried them yet."

There are lots of places the trouble lies, and whether an author or bad-actor finds bad code first isn't top of the list.

Didn't matter. Well, not a lot. I was tracked to a specific computer in a specific lab more than once (all in good fun). There were so fewcomputers on the Internet then that it wasn't hard to find out who owned that IP, and they were almost all statically assigned, so you could then track it down to a lab, if you talked to the right person with the right questions.

Anonymity on the Internet was fake, then real, now is fake again. I've always used my real name and such, and it's never been a problem. Though I have gotten a few death threats from Slashdotters, it's not like they are actually willing to leave Momma's basement, so I feel safe.

But that's hidden and confusing. Like the subisdy for coal miners health. It's not a direct payment to the mine owners, so it's not like the cash payments around renewables. And the 8B is mostly a lie. If you count Alaska, the oil pumped out of the ground is a "gift" from Alaska to the oil companies, and treated like a subsidy by oil haters. But then taxed by Alaska, and treated like a non-subsidy payment to the government by the oil-lovers.

So every number you see on the situation is a lie. The truth is better or much worse than whoever you are talking to says.

That, and the numbers are all lies.

To make the bottom line look good, the State of Alaska "sells" oil to the oil companies at $0 per barrel removed from the ground. Then the state taxes the "free" oil. BP counts it as a "tax" on their books, which has better benefits to their books than calling it an expense. And the people that bash stupid government moves call the "free" oil a subsidy to the industry. The real subsidy is there, but lost in the accounting. The treatment of the exchange allows BP to claim tax credits, and that's a federal tax credit that's not counted by anyone as it's too complex to describe to the average American.

Hilarious. The SS-hating conservatives tell us daily that SS is a tax for the general federal budget, not a trust fund. But when hating on the poor, the SS taxes are ignored.

If Social Security taxes are taxes, then the poor are taxed. It's a shame that they can't get rebated on the SS tax through income tax.

So requiring all buildings be built to basic safety standards is a tax as well.

I read the question in the title, and answered that. The question is that if you make work A, someone makes a new copyrightable work B as a derivative of A, then you make a derivative work C from B, can you be "infringing" based on your original work?

The answer is "yes". Nobody said A loses copyright on B because it was derivative. But, similarly, B doesn't lose copyright on C.

Though, the details in TFA indicate that C is unrelated to B, so B has no claim on C at all, but the similarities caused people to ask what would have happened.

In most cases, copyrights aren't "issued" and even if they are, that's meaningless to such claims, other than to establish who published first, should that be in dispute.

I never said you could. I just said that it was different enough to allow copyright to be claimed on the derivative work. I discussed solely B to C relationship, and you took some offense to how you think I'd look at the A to B relationship.

I made no such claim, and hold no such views. Work C is copyrighted by both A and B creators. That C's creator is the same as A's has no bearing to B's claim to copyright.

An exact painting of a photograph isn't transformative, but a photograph that's in a frame (generally) is a transformative work. Framing has been recognized as an art, even if the item framed isn't, but the framed whole is a transformative work of the item framed. The description is that the work was "transformed" by being annotated and printed from a screenshot. I have no problem with that. Though, TFA and the summary disagree on whether the exact $90 item is the same as the $9000 item, or just a new transformative work of the original, unrelated to the $9000 item (unrelated meaning copying the style, but not content).

The thing that confuses most people about copyright is that sweat of the brow is unrelated to copyright. A creation that's trivial is a creation. A work that's not creative, but takes 10,000,000 man hours, is not copyrightable.

John sold his copyright, then copied himself. That is a clear and not a problem, though maybe a good warning for people to not sell copyright completely if they plan on continuing to work in the industry.

It's simple, if it's copyrighted, it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter that it's a derivative of your own earlier works. That a screenshot (of someone else's work) is copyrightable is the problem. If you were to copy his method to come to a similar (or even identical) work, you'd be legal, but to copy his exact work, it doesn't matter that it's transformative of your original work.

These issues have been well explored in music, where "borrowing" from others is well known and broadly practiced.

Because SDN isn't real. Alcatel-Lucent is selling SDN that's a router with features. Turn on VPN and configure with a central server? That's SDN.

But don't tell the advocates that's been around for 20+ years. They get angry. SDN is the future, despite being indistinguishable from the stacked switches I worked on 20+ years ago, or the provisioning server that remotely re-configured the entire network in a single keystroke, also 20+ years old.

The "original" SDN was from the early VM days, where you needed a way to control communication between servers, and made a software switch, but that's a new term for an old idea, and so far, I haven't seen anything in SDN that's "new", other than some UI improvements on 20+ year old ideas.

Free is a France startup that is doing really well. Others like OneAccess started in France in the boom, and are still around and growing.