Funny you choose that analogy. Pretty much everyone who wants to already knows how to crack the locks of any car and drive away with it. It's a good thing we know about that so we can make sure to be insured and take precautions.
You know, it's possible to disclose that a vulnerability exists without disclosing how to exploit it. The letter from the lawyer also states that the firm is interested in discussing this further but was rebuffed by the "researcher". How are they supposed to know if the exploit is real or not if the "researcher" in question refuses to disclose the PoC to their lawyer. I'm pretty certain that a single phone call resolved the "are you working on their behalf" question. At that point (verification) he should have simply given the vendor the PoC and a few more days before putting people at risk.
Had the vendor shown any actual interest in addressing the issue rather than burying it, they probably could have gotten an extension. Instead, they chose to squash any inclination to good will by prattling on with vague DMCA threats.
If the nature of the attack isn't released in detail, how does anyone learn from the mistake? As for the details, what good does it do to tell the lawyers? Might as well tell the mailroom guy. If they were serious about learning from their mistake, they would want him to discuss it with an engineer. Perhaps if the disclosure is public, one of the engineers might hear about it in a coherent enough form to actually fix something.
They made specific claims about their security product that have been determined to be untrue, what's your solution? Let them keep selling weak security to high security facilities?
Amusingly, fortnight is a well defined term still in reasonably common use in many English speaking countries. There is no ambiguity.
I suppose that's an apt analogy since the judge wrote the ruling in contemporary English as well with an equal lack of ambiguity.
Considering the number of archaic words one finds in some legal documents, you might be hard-pressed to notice that your contract was re-written into Ye Olde English.
Some believe that if the shaman curses them and points at them with a particular bone representing his power, they will die.
Sure enough, if the shaman does exactly that, *they* will die. So, is it true then? At least in some sense it seems to be.
A $100 bill is a piece of paper with printing on it. It carries very little intrinsic value. Among those who *BELIEVE* it has value, you can offer it in exchange for goods and services. It is true in the same sense as the shaman's curse.
I'll bet I couldn't get you to put in hours of hard work in exchange for an animal's tail, but in some places you'll get a lot more for it than you will for that $100.
I think the answer is in there somewhere. At one time, the answer to your question was YES! 1000 times YES! Those two lines make the difference between the program fitting in memory and completing by the deadline and failure. At that time, the bar to successful programming was much higher than now. There may have been merely average programmers but their programs didn't fit into RAM. Besides that, the machines were very expensive and so was runtime on them. Much too expensive to burn on a merely average program.
No. It came out earlier that their "evidence" was nowhere near sufficient to show infringement. It was a straight up extortion play.
Because the likely embarrassing nature of the titles is in itself a further extortion.
Lawyers can't use being hired help as a defense. They are officers of the court first, so it is their duty to refuse to behave unethically no matter who pays how much. Vigorous representation does not include illegal acts.
Considering that the company listed an unwilling and unassociated person as an officer, it may well not even exist legally. No company, no protection. Beyond that, the corporate veil isn't quite blanket immunity, particularly when the company is small enough that the officers can't claim to not know about the illegal activity. There is no reason at all to not expect personal criminal liability to attach.
If you can't understand what he said, even if you have never seen nor heard of Star Trek in any form, you are not an English speaker at all.
As for the judge, it's called being a human being. We could use more of that throughout the judicial system.
The circuits that generate the sine wave from the clock already exist. That's what an inverter is. The ability to invert DC off grid really is just a matter of adding an internal clock to replace referencing the grid and a relay to disconnect the grid for safety reasons.
There is additional logic and circuitry to do battery management and charging, of course. It is expected to be more expensive, but there is no technical reason it should be 4x more expensive.
No. A theism means without a belief in a god. That doesn't exclude other myths an atheist might believe in.
Even where the intent is to believe no falsehoods, cultural myths are everywhere and often taught as fast. They're insidious. Some are harmless. Others actually helpful if only to provide cohesiveness to the culture. Some are actually harmful, intended to preserve power structures unworthy of preservation.
That is exactly the problem with modern web design.
I used GWBASIC a few times. It was a good BASIC interpreter but it didn't really stand out against others. By the time GWBASIC came out, the micro world was moving to C. Very soon after, Turbo C bacame the compiler of choice.
A real innovation (for micros) was Desqview. It brought quality muntitasking and even IPC to the DOS world. That was quite a feat considering that DOS was very much designed and programmed as a single threaded "OS". All on a CPU that was only mostly suitable for multitasking.
Bad designers think their design is far far more important than the information they are supposed to present, so they get fanatic about preventing even a single pixel being displaced, especially at the explicit request of the unsophisticated swine reading the page.
If you didn't do the math, I was doing Fortran on a mainframe at 10 years old. I did grow up with computers.Ben-Yehuda was already grown up when he got into Hebrew and Knuth was grown up when he got into algorithms.