And usually towards the end of his lifetime.
It is possible to use accounts that contribute to the line (threshold accounts) as a key to encrypt other account credentials (thresholdless account). So an attacker can know any number of those thresholdless accounts and cannot crack other thresholdless account or the threshold accounts.
Can somebody please reexplain this in a way that a dumb child would understand?
A curious thing is that the last contact with the pilots was a handover from one ATC to another. The Malaysian ATC told them to contact Vietnamese ATC, which they acknowledged but never did. Normally, you'd do that right away (I think).
Granted, you may be right about the very start of these fields, but that's a pretty pointless question. If we go with the very start of a field, it would probably be almost entirely academic.
The reason why the very start of a field is important to this debate is that this is where innovation happens, and the main argument for software patents is that it allegedly fosters innovation. That's also why the very first origins of httpd matter when it's being used as an example. Those things that originate in academia are usually not patented, since academia has a culture of publishing without patenting.
The important thing here is not the number of users or developers of a product, but its degree of innovation. As mentioned earlier, innovation also happens on a smaller scale within projects all the time, but if open source is to prove that software innovation doesn't need software patents, as the brief claims, then it should be possible to find widely known examples of innovative open source software. Maybe CMS is one, in which case it should have been mentioned in the brief instead of projects that are knock-offs of various patented and government-funded work.
software patents were practically non-existent before the 90s.
That is evidence that software innovation can happen without software patents. The success of open source (at least as far as it has been exemplified thus far) is not.
Regarding the claim that most fields start off as proprietary, I would disagree
Which fields have started off as open source? You mention CMS and web servers. Web servers started out open source, but since that work was government-funded it's a bit tangent to a debate about software patents. I don't know the history of CMS. Maybe that's a good example.
On the other hand, the argument that patents cause innovation is also false, if based only on the observation that innovations (and many things that aren't) nowadays tend to be patented.
I agree that GNU/Linux are high-quality pieces of software and that innovation takes place in large and small ways within every project, open source or not. My observation, which I think you will agree with, is that historically, most software categories (say, word processors, database servers, operating systems etc) start out as proprietary and often patented programs. Usually, several proprietary versions get produced before the FOSS versions start to come along. This is just an observation, and it doesn't mean that truly new software wouldn't get created without patents. The point is merely that you can't just point to some successful FOSS projects as proof that patents are useless, since the proponents of software patents will shoot down that proof unless the FOSS projects in question are truly new and original.
Better examples to support the argument could possibly be found by looking at software innovation done in parts of the world where software patents are not allowed, like pretty much everywhere except in the USA. Unfortunately, most examples of software innovation that comes to my mind are from the USA.
As to my claims about government funded web servers and browsers, I had httpd from CERN and NCSA's Mosaic in mind.
There are good arguments against software patents, but "the overwhelming success of open source in the software industry" is not a very compelling proof, IMHO.