“¿Quién no ha recibido un un email en cadena? Seguramente todos los internautas han recibido alguna vez un email procedente de amigos, conocidos, familiares y en él se mostraban el resto de las direcciones. Esta práctica tan común supone multas de 600 euros como mínimo. (…)”
[via ADSL Zone]
L.A. Lakers – Clinched Pacific Division.
Update: L.A. Lakers – Clinched Western Conference. The Lakers capped their remarkable season by clinching home-court advantage throughout the West playoffs.
(…) an article from the NYTimes that casts a glance at a study done in the Czech Republic (natch) on what divides the successful scientists from the duffers.
“Ever since there have been scientists, there have been those who are wildly successful, publishing one well-received paper after another, and those who are not. And since nearly the same time, there have been scholars arguing over what makes the difference. What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another into more of a dud? After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex, and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists — beer.”From the NYTimes’s article:(…) In spite of his study, Dr. Grim, who said he would on occasion enjoy more than 12 beers in a night, is not on a campaign to decrease beer drinking among scientists. Why not? His answer: “I like it.”
Ha, ha :))
Update via slashdot: Beer-Drinking Scientist Debunks Productivity Correlation.
austinpoet writes in with a blog post debunking the theory we discussed a few days back that scientists’ beer consumption is linearly correlated with the quality of their work. Chris Mack, Gentleman Scientist and beer drinker, has analyzed the paper and found it is severely flawed. From his analysis:
“The discovered linear relationship between beer consumption and scientific output had a correlation coefficient (R-squared) of only about 0.5 — not very high by my standards, though I suspect many biologists would be happy to get one that high in their work… Thus, the entire study came down to only one conclusion: the five worst ornithologists in the Czech Republic drank a lot of beer.”
It’s really funny from a non-coder point of view to read -sometimes- some comments… I also say-write very often stupid things. As everyone (do you think that you don’t?) :) So, usually, I only read them and say nothing. But, it can happend that sometimes you couldn’t resist to say something – mainly because it’s… Well, I’ll better shut up and only let you build up your own opinion. My interpretation, as a jurist, it’s not important in this case and it’s not the reason of this post. Whatever it is – and, off course, I have one-. But, as said, this is not the point. The point is that, recently, there are a lot of non-jurist opinions about the so called ‘Misuse of Devices’ – jurist jargon – or, if you want it, ‘black-blue-white hacker tools’ – ‘coders’ jargon. So, just read what follows as an example (there are a lot more):
Comments in: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/157287393/article.pl
After that, read this:
Cybercrime Convention – Council of Europe
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm
(…)
Article 6 – Misuse of devices
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:
a the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:
i a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5;
ii a computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed,
with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5; and
b the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs a.i or ii above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches.
2 This article shall not be interpreted as imposing criminal liability where the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available or possession referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is not for the purpose of committing an offence established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5 of this Convention, such as for the authorised testing or protection of a computer system.
3 Each Party may reserve the right not to apply paragraph 1 of this article, provided that the reservation does not concern the sale, distribution or otherwise making available of the items referred to in paragraph 1 a.ii of this article.
(…)
And the “Explanatory Report”
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/185.htm
“(…)
Misuse of devices (Article 6)
71. This provision establishes as a separate and independent criminal offence the intentional commission of specific illegal acts regarding certain devices or access data to be misused for the purpose of committing the above-described offences against the confidentiality, the integrity and availability of computer systems or data. As the commission of these offences often requires the possession of means of access (“hacker tools”) or other tools, there is a strong incentive to acquire them for criminal purposes which may then lead to the creation of a kind of black market in their production and distribution. To combat such dangers more effectively, the criminal law should prohibit specific potentially dangerous acts at the source, preceding the commission of offences under Articles 2 – 5. In this respect the provision builds upon recent developments inside the Council of Europe (European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access – ETS N° 178) and the European Union (Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access) and relevant provisions in some countries. A similar approach has already been taken in the 1929 Geneva Convention on currency counterfeiting.
72. Paragraph 1(a)1 criminalises the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of a device, including a computer programme, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2-5 of the present Convention. ‘Distribution’ refers to the active act of forwarding data to others, while ‘making available’ refers to the placing online devices for the use of others. This term also intends to cover the creation or compilation of hyperlinks in order to facilitate access to such devices. The inclusion of a ‘computer program’ refers to programs that are for example designed to alter or even destroy data or interfere with the operation of systems, such as virus programs, or programs designed or adapted to gain access to computer systems.
73. The drafters debated at length whether the devices should be restricted to those which are designed exclusively or specifically for committing offences, thereby excluding dual-use devices. This was considered to be too narrow. It could lead to insurmountable difficulties of proof in criminal proceedings, rendering the provision practically inapplicable or only applicable in rare instances. The alternative to include all devices even if they are legally produced and distributed, was also rejected. Only the subjective element of the intent of committing a computer offence would then be decisive for imposing a punishment, an approach which in the area of money counterfeiting also has not been adopted. As a reasonable compromise the Convention restricts its scope to cases where the devices are objectively designed, or adapted, primarily for the purpose of committing an offence. This alone will usually exclude dual-use devices.
74. Paragraph 1(a)2 criminalises the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of a computer password, access code or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed.
75. Paragraph 1(b) creates the offence of possessing the items set out in paragraph 1(a)1 or 1(a)2. Parties are permitted, by the last phrase of paragraph 1(b), to require by law that a number of such items be possessed. The number of items possessed goes directly to proving criminal intent. It is up to each Party to decide the number of items required before criminal liability attaches.
76. The offence requires that it be committed intentionally and without right. In order to avoid the danger of overcriminalisation where devices are produced and put on the market for legitimate purposes, e.g. to counter-attacks against computer systems, further elements are added to restrict the offence. Apart from the general intent requirement, there must be the specific (i.e. direct) intent that the device is used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2-5 of the Convention.
77. Paragraph 2 sets out clearly that those tools created for the authorised testing or the protection of a computer system are not covered by the provision. This concept is already contained in the expression ‘without right’. For example, test-devices (‘cracking-devices’) and network analysis devices designed by industry to control the reliability of their information technology products or to test system security are produced for legitimate purposes, and would be considered to be ‘with right’.
78. Due to different assessments of the need to apply the offence of “Misuse of Devices” to all of the different kinds of computer offences in Articles 2 – 5, paragraph 3 allows, on the basis of a reservation (cf. Article 42), to restrict the offence in domestic law. Each Party is, however, obliged to criminalise at least the sale, distribution or making available of a computer password or access data as described in paragraph 1 (a) 2.”
(…)
And, NOW, take your own conclusions, even if you are a non-jurist :)
PS:
§ 202c Vorbereiten des Ausspähens und Abfangens von Daten
(1) Wer eine Straftat nach § 202a oder § 202b vorbereitet, indem er
1. Passwörter oder sonstige Sicherungscodes, die den Zugang zu Daten (§ 202a Abs. 2) ermöglichen, oder
2. Computerprogramme, deren Zweck die Begehung einer solchen Tat ist,
herstellt, sich oder einem anderen verschafft, verkauft, einem anderen überlässt, verbreitet oder sonst zugänglich macht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe
bestraft.
(2) § 149 Abs. 2 und 3 gilt entsprechend.
Info: Extracts from Apple docs:
SysServices.pdf
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/SysServices/index.html
appservices.pdf
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Carbon/Conceptual/appservices/intro/chapter_1_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000993-CH204
(…) “A service can be offered as part of an application,” (…) “or as a standalone service —one without a user interface that is intended for use only in the Services menu. Applications that offer services should be built with the .app extension and installed in the /Applications folder. A standalone service should be built with the .service extension and stored in the /Library/Services folder.
When a user logs in, Mac OS X searches the /Applications and /Library/Services folders in the four file-system domains—System, Network, Local, and User. (See Inside Mac OS X: System Overview for details on file-system domains.) The system examines the information property list for each bundle in these locations and assembles a list of available services (see “Services Properties”). It uses this information to populate the items in the Services menu.” (…)
(…) “Once the system knows what data types” the (…) “application can handle, it enables the appropriate services. At that point, the user can choose” the Application> appropriate service “from the Services menu. Figuring out the data types and enabling the appropriate items in the Services menu happens quite rapidly. In fact, to the user, items should appear in the Services menu instantaneously.”…
–
After reading the docs, it seems to me that the basic things I needed to know are the following:
- At the end it’s all about “intercommunicability” between apps. A service gives you features in apps without the need to fully implement these features into every app. This saves code, programatically gives a better user experience, facilities and so on…
- This have restrictions, though. Each service can handle different “kinds of data”. So, you can not expect that every selected data could be passed via “pasteboard(s)” or… to every service from the Service Menu -and submenus. Each of the them are only able to “accept” inputs of some kinds of data -the appropriate kind of data. That is the only way they can understand one each other -as if they were speaking the same language. That seems pretty normal. When this doesn’t happens properly, i.e., when you pass a kind of data that can not be understood for a given service, this service has to be deemed, not enabled or whatever (actually, I don’t ‘really’ know it; well, actually I don’t ‘really’ know anything about coding; that is).
The above said is what I have understood -’filtered’ from my absolutely lack of coding skills and from my limited english as well. So, sorry in advance if I have said something not exactly enough or probably even wrong. But, in fact, it’s the usual process of learning -trial and error.
The question you may ask yourself now is why I’m talking about things that even I say I can’t ‘really’ understand. Easy. Because trying to be somewhat helpful in some forum I said things there that are -fast all- wrong. I can maybe only save from my post the NSServices related comments. So, how I always feel the need of learning a bit more -I like to learn, even knowing the inherent limits of doing it in fields where I’m not an expert- and I also always try to be honest… I have read these docs and, as a natural result, I think that I have to say that I was not only WRONG but also not cautious enough… But, well, at least, I was not rude at all…
As always, any help is really welcome!!
Alas, my vacation -and most of my free time- is over…
“One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important.” – Bertrand Russell
“Our principles:
(…)
We will be respectful and honest. Developers and users have the right to be treated with respect. We do not make ad hominem attacks, and we encourage constructive criticism. Our commitment to civil discourse allows new users and contributors with contrarian ideas an opportunity to be heard without intimidation. (…)”
