Well, of course... Contingencies are planned for. No one thinks that the "security researchers" looking for exploits to enable jailbreaking just stop looking for exploit vectors once they have root access, do they?
IMHO, Mobile device/OS manufacturers should just give their customers (the end users, not the service providers) root access in an "advanced" menu option... Otherwise it's just a matter of time before some of the "jailbreakers" turn into malware authors...
Don't get me wrong; Including a "Got Root?" option wouldn't keep everyone from searching for exploits, but it would remove a current major motivating factor.
Did you know that due to copyright restrictions of software & games bored Bulgarians began to reverse engineer and crack them. Thus at one point in the 90's Bulgaria was the malware capitol of the world -- Responsible for the most and best of all viruses worldwide.
A similar thing happened for bootleggers of older games for Apple, Amiga, Commodore, and other PCs. In fact, the cracks were rated among their peers according to the duration between a game's release and it's crack date eg: Software cracked only 6 weeks after release was rated as a "42-day crack". It was a competition to the hackers, and sometimes they got a hold of pre-releases just to crack them. If the software was exploited on or before its retail release it was the coveted best rating -- A "Zero-Day" crack!... Somehow the term has changed meaning a bit over the years, along with the term "hacker"; C'est la vie.
Accelerated escape from control due to more constriction. You see this sort of thing happening again and again, it applies to just about everything...
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the faster the spunk will escape from your... fingers.
Good, the more ridiculous the patents get, the quicker something will be done to fix the mess. Personally, I'd like to see this patent granted, and dozens of companies ordered to pay lots of damages to the angelic company that is Kootol.....if only to see the backlash from a thousand juggernauts against the current patent system;)
I agree, however it's going to get far worse for software developers (especially the little guys) before it gets better.
Is there any company in a country that does not recognize software patents that would like to make a deal to be the owner and distributor of new algorithm amalgamations created by those who are researching applied mathematics in the US and other software patent recognizing countries?
I'm sure you would receive copious software ownership assignments if you gave awards to the math scholars and scribes for their discoveries and records; To raise this donation money you could sell access to the "research papers" and even executable mathematical proofs -- Much like other Scientific Journals currently do with other discoveries...
Additionally, I'm also a Free Software developer. The purpose of patents is to get the "inventions" out from behind closed doors and into the public domain while allowing temporary benefits to those who do so. Why is it that patents can prevent free software from being distributed? We've already fully complied with the initial intent of the patent laws' purpose.
Furthermore, to my knowledge, source code and/or software alone may not infringe a patent because the patent claim itself or a translation of it into another language such as French, German, Spanish, Japanese, English or Pseudo-code does not cause infringement. In fact if it were not for the "apparatus" part of "Method and apparatus for ___" then software would not be patentable. Thus, since NO software is an apparatus -- it's merely instructions to be fed into a general purpose computing apparatus -- the only infringers are those who actually run the compiled or interpreted source code in such an apparatus, thus meeting the "Method and Apparatus" requirement.
The infringers are the end users; Not the machine manufacturer who creates blank general purpose computers, or the programmer who may have said: "You mean what I wrote was patented? Neat! To better illustrate your patent's claims I've simply translated them into my native language: Machine Code."
Government only looks out for the good of itself. Which is the simple reason it should be limited and very defined roles. Not the "do it for the children" nanny state we've become.
"Do it for the children" -- Ah you mean the Ministry of Ministry...
Search a URL for quick links & anti-phishing.
on
Facebook Bans Google+ Ads
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I hope that you sir, are a perfect typist and never ever make typographical errors, especially when entering a URL. Thus you will never have to take advantage of the fact that if you enter the incorrect address into a Google search first it will direct you to the correct address and/or warn you of most malicious phishing sites that you may inadvertently visit via your much praised "address bar".
Furthermore, if you use most browser's "address bar" to incorrectly enter a URL and wind up at a phishing site, it will bring you back to the same phishing site automatically when you enter the partial URL via auto-completion search.
However, now Firefox and Chrome (unsure about IE) coordinates with lists of phishing sites in order to bring this functionality to their respective "URL / search bars" (they have no plain "address bar" available, even FF searches your history). Note that this feature most likely provides the anti-phishing provider with a list of every URL you visit online... Conversely, everyone can take advantage of the Google URL search features (including quick links to subsections of the site) regardless of the browser they are using.
Finally, I would also like you to shove your helpful suggestion into the previously recommended place considering that you do not seem qualified to be suggesting either against or for either URL entry technique, and I would recommend that you yourself follow the technique your insightful friend rightfully remains using before you make more uninformed suggestions.
You are now aware that not one but two 'inventors' submitted patent applications within hours of each-other to patent the 'invention' of a telephone. One requirement of patentability is that the 'invention' is not obvious other individuals skilled in the art of whatever field the 'inventor' is working in.
Clearly, the mere fact that we already had electrical lines for the purpose of communication (telegraph), and that we new how to recreate sounds by reproducing their vibrations, and that we use sound via our voices to communicate, and the fact that in was obvious to many that electricity could be used to transmit sounds, and the fact that TWO craftsmen created essentially the same technology separately is enough to prove that the invention of a telephone was an iterative and obvious creation -- something not unique in the mind of a single individual.
What grand new concept has the 'inventor' mentioned in the TFA invented? Do not flying drones already exist? I'm sorry, but duct-taping a knife to a fork handle does not an invention make. You are so very much like the uncreative person that thinks, "I wouldn't have thought of that, so no one could have thought of that -- Grant this Genius a patent!", while all the skilled individuals shake their heads and weep over the broken patent system.
I put it to you that necessity is the mother of invention, and given that there are many minds who may take up the task to meet a necessary goal using technology, that none are truly unique enough to warrant the granting of an exclusive monopoly over an idea solely because they met the need first. We harm not only 2nd place, but also all other creators who have spent money on R&D but have not yet completed their project. The net loss is inexcusable.
The fashion industry has no patents or copyrights... How will they ever create a new clothing line without such incentives?! Hint: They will meet the market demand for new products by creating new products, and competitors will compete in terms of nouveau, quality and price giving customers a wide selection. Simply because idea monopolies are extinguished does not mean the markets for new tech will vanish.
R&D will then be money well spent because you will be sure you can at-least produce a device instead of gambling on whether someone else who created something similar first (within the past 20 years) will be able to prevent you from selling the product of your hard work. How is it that you advocate having only one implementation of a solution as a product instead of many? Licensing? AFTER spending your own money to produce a product you pay MORE to be able to use & sell it? For those concerned with secret knowledge being kept, I'm afraid you underestimate the capabilities of the reverse engineers.
The patent system has never worked as intended, the very concept is flawed; Its a burden born by our culture, the weight of which is beginning to exceeding our desire to bear it.
Patents are an expensive and stifling mental restriction system. ESPECIALLY when patents are grated for merely assembling a device that is similar in function to another device. (although the form is different -- I'm sure I can find devices with similar form, yet lacking a few features --::sigh:: El Camino patents.)
What great innovation does this newly patented device bring? What important problem is TFA's alleged 'invention' a solution to that none have been capable of achieving for so long, or that no one else could have invented? Did the 'inventor' not say he simply assembled it from readily available components? Would not anyone who wanted a to create a similar device be capable of doing so easily? (before the patent monopoly was granted...)
Do you not see the invalidity of the patent grant due to our patent system's lack of testing for obviousness?
Furthermore, when a truly important enough problem is solved would it not benefit society as a whole more to have free access to use the idea?
I can think of a few NASA innovations, such as:
Edible toothpaste, Infrared ear thermometers, freeze dried food, scratch resistant and UV blocking eye-glasses, memory metal (flexible) eye-glasses & anti-scalding showers, silver ion bacteria-resistant home water filters/softeners, eco-friendly water treatment plants, carbon monoxide detectors, wireless headsets, air-chambered sole "athletic" footwear, liquid metal/metallic glass (stronger than titanium), temper foam, shock absorbing foam (for helmets, etc), cordless vacuums, high performance solar cells, the list goes on, and on...
I agree -- Wait... You do mean that he tries to get work done without leaving too nasty of a mess everywhere, and that no one really wants to touch the messes that do get left behind?
Even more interesting is that MS submitted code, then the most changes in the 3.0 kernel by an individual were to the MS submitted kernel code by a MS dev in order to bring MS's code up to the Linux standard so it could be included in the kernel...
It makes you wonder about code that MS doesn't have to let anyone else see i.e. their proprietary products.
(Actually, it make me wonder less -- This just confirms that they haven't really changed their coding habits since I last saw the mess that was the leaked Windows source code.)
However useful helper bots may be, clearly you can see that the technology must eventually be -inside- the quadriplegics or otherwise severely injured individuals.
I mean, it's great to have a robot you can use to help take care of yourself, but wouldn't it be better to just be able to take care of yourself sans robot assistant?
I find it very interesting and just a bit ironic that in nearly all the science fiction works the cyborgs are less "human", whereas in reality cybernetics enable those with disabilities to be more human, and lead lives that are more normal.
Patent applications themselves describe a patent. Digital translations of the patent claims into PDF do not infringe patents. Creating pseudo-code implementations of the patent does not infringe the patent, thus an implementation written it any other language such as Lisp, C, assembly or machine specific code does not infringe a software patent.
A software patent can only be granted because of the apparatus mentioned in the "method and apparatus..." of the patent definition.
So, if a blank cell phone would not infringe the software patent, and the software itself can not infringe a patent (otherwise the online patent databases are all infringements), then distributing them separately is non infringing (no need to host the software in Russia).
Software patents should all just be invalidated because without the "apparatus" the software can not be patented. Hardly any software is tied to a specific apparatus, programs all run on general purpose computers, and can be run in virtual machines to simulate any hardware...
If there is no specific apparatus being patented then allowing software patents is just plain wrong! Additionally, I can use graph paper to model any computer, and thus "execute" software using only my mind, a pencil and paper... Ergo, we are allowing the patenting of ideas... Something that should never have happened, except for the "...and apparatus" part of the claim. If we do not require the apparatus to be specific, and limited to that one specified device, then we are truly allowing EVERY apparatus to be an infringing apparatus, even my own mind -- Such subjects are not supposed to be patentable.
Practical Extraction and Reporting Language (PERL), and its regular expressions have been allowing everyone to create prior art as its primary feature since 1987.
Pulling out email addresses, phone numbers, URLs, etc, and presenting me with additional optional actions based on the recognized sub-data within a block of data.
Wait. I want you to do this: Open any text editor and use the 'find' feature ( Press [Ctrl-F] ). Immediately AFTER highlighting text using the Find feature press the delete key or use the cut [Ctrl-X] or copy [Ctrl-C] keys.
Now. Please explain to me how you will defend yourself in court against the patent claim...
they're designed to be so vague and general as to describe wide ranges of utility in terms which make it sound like there's some new invention being described.
I find it VERY INTERESTING that you use the term 'utility'. The Fashion industry has no copyright or patent protections... Why? Clothing is too UTILITARIAN...
There MAY have been a time when (mobile) computing devices, and the software that executes in them was not largely utilitarian, but today is not such a time. I would have been hard-pressed to obtain a physical copy of my FEDERAL INCOME TAX FORMS without computing devices and software to decode and print the PDFs available online. In past years these forms were available via my local library, this past tax season even the designated local distributor of such forms ran out; I routinely have to UTILIZE my computer and its operating system and application software in order to perform very utilitarian tasks such as: Record keeping, personal correspondence, real time two-way speech simulation, numeric calculation, and even WORK.
On the same grounds that the Car design or Fashion industries do not have copyright or patent protections (yet somehow -- defying all pro-copyright & pro-patent logic -- both account for larger market segments than industries having those protections), I move that software and computers are so utilitarian that only video-games and other such recreational focused art forms be susceptible to copyright and patent protections.
How are we to function in the information age if the information of ideas is so restricted? Do we not rule this planet only because of our superior capability to share knowledge, ideas, and culture? Were this the stone or bronze age, I would simply smite my opponents with earth and metal until all agreed to accept the fact that the new technology must not be wielded by only the few, that any who may smelt ore or chip stone be allowed to do so... Surely none would agree to only use flint spears when facing a metallurgically advanced opponent.
As it turns out, information can now be wielded just as dangerously as bronze or flint. Expect more conflict and "warfare" using our new-found information sharing technologies. Until we all agree that the conveyance of Knowledge and Information is a Sacred inalienable right, I shall not rest.
Neither does DNA. DNA proves that your DNA was at the scene, not you, but try convincing an ignorant judge and jury of this... Think about this next time you toss a disposable coffee cup into the trash, or scratch your head in public... Is there someone in that room with you that matches your basic physical description?
Might I not be collecting your DNA, and/or your wireless signatures (via my laptop -- Hint: GSM & CDMA are cracked) so that I can place you at the scene of my next crime?
Sure: "What are the chances -- Tinfoil hat!" That's EXACTLY how I want you to think, and how much of the public does think -- Surely no-one would exploit this fact...
Let's just hope all criminals are just dumb, and won't think to commit a crime when they know you won't have an alibi, and that when the cops "like you" as a prime suspect due to DNA and digital evidence that they take several other suspects to court as well-- Wait, what's that you say? They only try ONE person via trial? Oh, that's right, because if they prosecuted several at once, and the courts found TWO suspects guilty of the same crime... It would totally undermine the public's faith in the justice system!
Bwa-Ha-HAHAHA... Hahahaha... Oh, oh--damn, Haha-ha--- ha, heh, heh, HAHAHA!
However, as you note, we really do need more terminal elements, and that is one of the main things I want to do for version 2.
o_O Stop.
I'm sorry, perhaps I took the above statement to mean you would, in fact, be changing the output of Vash in a future version...
Let's face it -- The visuals do need to be improved, do so significantly, then stop.
Perhaps I'm totally off base here, and the currently released version of Vash isn't actually considered a version that your future versions of Vash will have their output compared against... (In which case I'd like to apologize for our discrepancy in versioning terminologies)
Alternatively, I may have incorrectly assumed that the images produced will be improved... (In which case I'd like to apologize for my lack of interest in any future or current version of Vash).
Note: I'd be a fool to use Vash in production now: The visuals need improvement, thus I'll have to keep track of which version of Vash each user is expecting to see the output from.
Random elements (like position and color) are only a very small part of the algorithm.
Tell me more of these non deterministic "random" elements; How exactly can you produce a deterministic resulting image?
Might I suggest you use pseudo-random elements instead? Additionally, I suggest that you take a look at turtle graphics -- You can then easily produce distinct shapes with wildly different "spiro-graph like" images...
Finally, I would suggest creating many significant improvements and then stopping. You know what makes Cryptographic Hashing functions useful? The fact that, given the same inputs, version 0.9alpha and version 99-nonnillion point oh of a SHA-512 implementation will always generate the same results.
::yawn:: Actually, I'm only posting to remove an accidental "redundant" moderation... Carry on, newb.
The one thing I worry about is people becoming reliant on the technology to warn them of danger and becoming less observant. Sort of like when my brother couldn't figure out which way was West until the GPS told him despite many very obvious indicators (mountains, sun, etc.).
You might get phony alerts, but this doesn't take control of the car. You're still driving it. Bored teenage "hackerz" might break the system, cause it to cry wolf too often, but you're still the one operating the car and presumably won't follow instructions to drive into another car.
So, I spoof my location data, and all of a sudden your carputer takes control to avoid the accident you apparently didn't see coming. I'll LOVE it. Finally, I'll be able to get that tailgating asshole off my 6 without having to break-check 'em.
The tech that takes over and slams on the brakes is already in cars today. Hooking it up to a wireless network will be buckets of fun for everyone!
Why would it "wipe out the bulk of the human race"? We encounter new viruses every year and our immune systems adapt. The workers in question didn't die either. How do you make the leap from a simple virus in an ape jumping to a few isolated humans to it wiping out the human race? Been watching too many movies? How would this be different than say, avian or swine flu? Somehow because it comes from an ape suddenly we're all doomed? Grow up.
Though I agree this particular virus is not a serious threat, I would like for you to imagine for a moment the consequences of HIV were it an airborne pathogen. There is no cure, and we have not developed a resistance for it; Much like Herpes.
There are many viruses that other species have become resistant towards, and that we have no resistance against. Viruses mutate, and that their battle to survive within their hosts can make them more vicious. Some viruses are terminally incurable. Some diseases now spreading among humans initially only infected other species. Some diseases cause the extinction of a species.
Your chauvinism is the illogical product of an ignorant mind.
If you completely disregard the cautionary warning or fail to grasp the severity of the implications GP alluded to, or if you think that monkeys were a critical component in their statement, then you are truly a fool.
While you keep your head buried firmly in the sand, please take this opportunity to study the fossil record found therein which contains many extinct species; Some of which are extinct because of other lifeforms...
Note: Part of growing up is realizing that you can not know everything, thus it is important to heed others; Another part is being respectful. Clearly it is you who has not yet matured enough. The fact that you rationalized this immature act afterwards is even more proof of your own mental immaturity. Please, do not apply for a job handling bio-hazardous materials until you have attained maturity yourself.
Here is a bit of wisdom that may help you in your quest for mental maturity:
It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Also: A fool learns from his mistakes; A wise man learns from the mistakes of others. I put it to you that a wiser man need not wait for foolish mistakes to occur at all.
However, if we can't convince the USA to switch to the metric system, how can we ever hope to force the complete world to switch?
The USA does use the metric system. Their military, scientists and medical practitioners do. (Hint: "Click = Kilometer")
It's only the general populous that is forced into using antiquated and difficult to convert between standards by the USA's school system, and thus parents as well (being that they were taught to use those units too).
According to the American Central Intelligence Agency's Factbook, the International System of Units is the official system of measurement for all nations in the world except for Burma, Liberia and the United States.
It seems the USA is deliberately hindering the populous with their obsolete units of measure. Considering that it is the corporations that control Capitalist America via limitless campaign contributions and lobyists, I think it's safe to say they have an interest in keeping the people of America confused; If it was easy to convert between units the people would be better equipped to be more intelligent shoppers -- "This is $3.99 per pound, but the no-name store-brand is $7.89 for 40oz -- I bet the products are made in the same plant; How much of what dollar ounce pound?! [conversion error -- select familiar name brand to continue shopping]"
Note: Tinfoil hats can not be made from Aluminum Foil; They've made fools of us all!
hell I wouldn't be surprised if the crap can't parse.TXT!
Sounds like your crappy proprietary indexing system is shit. I wouldn't blame OO/LO for incompatibilities if PDF or.TXT (UTF-8) doesn't work.
IRL if you are lucky they will ask you to re submit as a.doc for their software, if you aren't lucky they will just toss your PDF and move on. I've also seen handouts at the local college for various classes and they ALL demand.doc for their anti-cheating software.
...
try it yourself, go to the government websites and find some of their.docs, then open in LO and save back as a.doc and you'll find a mangled word salad...
Then you would be insane to trust LO's MS Office compatibility.
Let me introduce a radical new way to save documents. HTMutherfuckingL. That's right, the format that EVERY DAMN DEVICE can render is now available to YOU (see: File -> Save As).
Seems to me you are dealing with crap "standards". It's not the document format that's at fault if a "PROFESSOR" can't open a.RTF or.HTML document... In all honesty, I would ask for my money back if they refused one of the documents I sent them. If they refused a refund I would sue in small claims court, and win -- Accepting that there is no such statement that says: "Microsoft Certified Software is REQUIRED for this course."
How can a professorprofess to being proficient at opening documents if they can't open the most wide spread and open of documentation formats? Truly, heads would roll were I in charge.
You are now aware that it costs professors $0.00 to install the free and open source software that is required to open the document formats you are recommending against using. If my professor said: "DERP! I can't open this document!?!?! Ima give U an F." I would have that bastard's entrails on a silver platter for breakfast due to their incompetence.
Here's a hint: Unless I'm taking a Microsoft Certification course -- I shouldn't be REQUIRED to use Microsoft products. There is no excuse; Take it up with the next level -- Your "teachers" need to be taught a lesson.
I would say this is an iterative innovation that would be obvious to any individual skilled in the art of 2D coordinate spaces, and touch interfaces given that they are tasked with determining when to rotate the screen / touch coordinates IN RESPONSE TO MOVEMENT, and have a choice of current motion sensing tech.
You're the type of person that would not cry "INFRINGEMENT" on a mouse having 666 buttons given that a patent on mice with a 665 buttons already exists, but would allow the 666 button mouse patent if said buttons were made to glow as the fires of hell, and smell of brimstone. Citing that no other mice have had those beneficial features to date.
I suppose you've never heard of the term OBVIOUS before? I mean, clearly, any SKILLED INDIVIDUAL tasked with creating a rotating screen, that is also SKILLED IN THE ART of both screens and accelerometers WOULD NEVER agree that using the accelerometer to detect when to rotate the screen is OBVIOUS.
The real problem is that there is a non-obviousness requirement for patents, however, such tests for obviousness are not conducted. It would really be quite simple: This patent covers using an accelerometer for detecting when to switch from portrait to landscape. Let's higher a few skilled individuals for a few hours to come up with some ideas on how to switch from portrait to landscape. We'll only give them the hardware specs of the device (which includes an accelerometer) and see if they can figure it out in, say, less than 2 days. (Too expensive? CHARGE THE APPLICANT! Failure to submit fees == NO PATENT)
Otherwise, WTF -- All patents should be invalidated because the non-obviousness clause is not being upheld.
Everyone knows that, although not impossible to create, there's no such thing as a 100% secure system because the cost to create one is too high, especially in the consumer sector -- their lust for the "nouveau" and the competitive time-sensitive markets virtually ensure that us hackers can Crack Everything Forever!
--That is, until we have AI that can write & test software for us we won't be able to fully trust the system security (... wait, what?!)
Slashdot Mirror
it's been jailbroken: http://gizmodo.com/5821905/ios-434-has-been-jailbroken
Well, of course... Contingencies are planned for. No one thinks that the "security researchers" looking for exploits to enable jailbreaking just stop looking for exploit vectors once they have root access, do they?
IMHO, Mobile device/OS manufacturers should just give their customers (the end users, not the service providers) root access in an "advanced" menu option... Otherwise it's just a matter of time before some of the "jailbreakers" turn into malware authors...
Don't get me wrong; Including a "Got Root?" option wouldn't keep everyone from searching for exploits, but it would remove a current major motivating factor.
Did you know that due to copyright restrictions of software & games bored Bulgarians began to reverse engineer and crack them. Thus at one point in the 90's Bulgaria was the malware capitol of the world -- Responsible for the most and best of all viruses worldwide.
A similar thing happened for bootleggers of older games for Apple, Amiga, Commodore, and other PCs. In fact, the cracks were rated among their peers according to the duration between a game's release and it's crack date eg: Software cracked only 6 weeks after release was rated as a "42-day crack". It was a competition to the hackers, and sometimes they got a hold of pre-releases just to crack them. If the software was exploited on or before its retail release it was the coveted best rating -- A "Zero-Day" crack!... Somehow the term has changed meaning a bit over the years, along with the term "hacker"; C'est la vie.
Accelerated escape from control due to more constriction. You see this sort of thing happening again and again, it applies to just about everything...
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the faster the spunk will escape from your... fingers.
Good, the more ridiculous the patents get, the quicker something will be done to fix the mess. Personally, I'd like to see this patent granted, and dozens of companies ordered to pay lots of damages to the angelic company that is Kootol. ....if only to see the backlash from a thousand juggernauts against the current patent system ;)
I agree, however it's going to get far worse for software developers (especially the little guys) before it gets better.
Is there any company in a country that does not recognize software patents that would like to make a deal to be the owner and distributor of new algorithm amalgamations created by those who are researching applied mathematics in the US and other software patent recognizing countries?
I'm sure you would receive copious software ownership assignments if you gave awards to the math scholars and scribes for their discoveries and records; To raise this donation money you could sell access to the "research papers" and even executable mathematical proofs -- Much like other Scientific Journals currently do with other discoveries...
Additionally, I'm also a Free Software developer. The purpose of patents is to get the "inventions" out from behind closed doors and into the public domain while allowing temporary benefits to those who do so. Why is it that patents can prevent free software from being distributed? We've already fully complied with the initial intent of the patent laws' purpose.
Furthermore, to my knowledge, source code and/or software alone may not infringe a patent because the patent claim itself or a translation of it into another language such as French, German, Spanish, Japanese, English or Pseudo-code does not cause infringement. In fact if it were not for the "apparatus" part of "Method and apparatus for ___" then software would not be patentable. Thus, since NO software is an apparatus -- it's merely instructions to be fed into a general purpose computing apparatus -- the only infringers are those who actually run the compiled or interpreted source code in such an apparatus, thus meeting the "Method and Apparatus" requirement.
The infringers are the end users; Not the machine manufacturer who creates blank general purpose computers, or the programmer who may have said: "You mean what I wrote was patented? Neat! To better illustrate your patent's claims I've simply translated them into my native language: Machine Code."
Government only looks out for the good of itself. Which is the simple reason it should be limited and very defined roles. Not the "do it for the children" nanny state we've become.
"Do it for the children" -- Ah you mean the Ministry of Ministry...
I hope that you sir, are a perfect typist and never ever make typographical errors, especially when entering a URL. Thus you will never have to take advantage of the fact that if you enter the incorrect address into a Google search first it will direct you to the correct address and/or warn you of most malicious phishing sites that you may inadvertently visit via your much praised "address bar".
Furthermore, if you use most browser's "address bar" to incorrectly enter a URL and wind up at a phishing site, it will bring you back to the same phishing site automatically when you enter the partial URL via auto-completion search.
However, now Firefox and Chrome (unsure about IE) coordinates with lists of phishing sites in order to bring this functionality to their respective "URL / search bars" (they have no plain "address bar" available, even FF searches your history). Note that this feature most likely provides the anti-phishing provider with a list of every URL you visit online... Conversely, everyone can take advantage of the Google URL search features (including quick links to subsections of the site) regardless of the browser they are using.
Finally, I would also like you to shove your helpful suggestion into the previously recommended place considering that you do not seem qualified to be suggesting either against or for either URL entry technique, and I would recommend that you yourself follow the technique your insightful friend rightfully remains using before you make more uninformed suggestions.
You are now aware that not one but two 'inventors' submitted patent applications within hours of each-other to patent the 'invention' of a telephone. One requirement of patentability is that the 'invention' is not obvious other individuals skilled in the art of whatever field the 'inventor' is working in.
Clearly, the mere fact that we already had electrical lines for the purpose of communication (telegraph), and that we new how to recreate sounds by reproducing their vibrations, and that we use sound via our voices to communicate, and the fact that in was obvious to many that electricity could be used to transmit sounds, and the fact that TWO craftsmen created essentially the same technology separately is enough to prove that the invention of a telephone was an iterative and obvious creation -- something not unique in the mind of a single individual.
What grand new concept has the 'inventor' mentioned in the TFA invented? Do not flying drones already exist? I'm sorry, but duct-taping a knife to a fork handle does not an invention make. You are so very much like the uncreative person that thinks, "I wouldn't have thought of that, so no one could have thought of that -- Grant this Genius a patent!", while all the skilled individuals shake their heads and weep over the broken patent system.
I put it to you that necessity is the mother of invention, and given that there are many minds who may take up the task to meet a necessary goal using technology, that none are truly unique enough to warrant the granting of an exclusive monopoly over an idea solely because they met the need first. We harm not only 2nd place, but also all other creators who have spent money on R&D but have not yet completed their project. The net loss is inexcusable.
The fashion industry has no patents or copyrights... How will they ever create a new clothing line without such incentives?! Hint: They will meet the market demand for new products by creating new products, and competitors will compete in terms of nouveau, quality and price giving customers a wide selection. Simply because idea monopolies are extinguished does not mean the markets for new tech will vanish.
R&D will then be money well spent because you will be sure you can at-least produce a device instead of gambling on whether someone else who created something similar first (within the past 20 years) will be able to prevent you from selling the product of your hard work. How is it that you advocate having only one implementation of a solution as a product instead of many? Licensing? AFTER spending your own money to produce a product you pay MORE to be able to use & sell it? For those concerned with secret knowledge being kept, I'm afraid you underestimate the capabilities of the reverse engineers.
The patent system has never worked as intended, the very concept is flawed; Its a burden born by our culture, the weight of which is beginning to exceeding our desire to bear it.
Patents are an expensive and stifling mental restriction system. ESPECIALLY when patents are grated for merely assembling a device that is similar in function to another device. (although the form is different -- I'm sure I can find devices with similar form, yet lacking a few features -- ::sigh:: El Camino patents.)
What great innovation does this newly patented device bring? What important problem is TFA's alleged 'invention' a solution to that none have been capable of achieving for so long, or that no one else could have invented? Did the 'inventor' not say he simply assembled it from readily available components? Would not anyone who wanted a to create a similar device be capable of doing so easily? (before the patent monopoly was granted...)
Do you not see the invalidity of the patent grant due to our patent system's lack of testing for obviousness?
Furthermore, when a truly important enough problem is solved would it not benefit society as a whole more to have free access to use the idea?
I can think of a few NASA innovations, such as:
Edible toothpaste, Infrared ear thermometers, freeze dried food, scratch resistant and UV blocking eye-glasses, memory metal (flexible) eye-glasses & anti-scalding showers, silver ion bacteria-resistant home water filters/softeners, eco-friendly water treatment plants, carbon monoxide detectors, wireless headsets, air-chambered sole "athletic" footwear, liquid metal/metallic glass (stronger than titanium), temper foam, shock absorbing foam (for helmets, etc), cordless vacuums, high performance solar cells, the list goes on, and on...
He's like a well oiled machine.
I agree -- Wait... You do mean that he tries to get work done without leaving too nasty of a mess everywhere, and that no one really wants to touch the messes that do get left behind?
Even more interesting is that MS submitted code, then the most changes in the 3.0 kernel by an individual were to the MS submitted kernel code by a MS dev in order to bring MS's code up to the Linux standard so it could be included in the kernel...
It makes you wonder about code that MS doesn't have to let anyone else see i.e. their proprietary products.
(Actually, it make me wonder less -- This just confirms that they haven't really changed their coding habits since I last saw the mess that was the leaked Windows source code.)
However useful helper bots may be, clearly you can see that the technology must eventually be -inside- the quadriplegics or otherwise severely injured individuals.
I mean, it's great to have a robot you can use to help take care of yourself, but wouldn't it be better to just be able to take care of yourself sans robot assistant?
I find it very interesting and just a bit ironic that in nearly all the science fiction works the cyborgs are less "human", whereas in reality cybernetics enable those with disabilities to be more human, and lead lives that are more normal.
Patent applications themselves describe a patent. Digital translations of the patent claims into PDF do not infringe patents. Creating pseudo-code implementations of the patent does not infringe the patent, thus an implementation written it any other language such as Lisp, C, assembly or machine specific code does not infringe a software patent.
A software patent can only be granted because of the apparatus mentioned in the "method and apparatus ..." of the patent definition.
So, if a blank cell phone would not infringe the software patent, and the software itself can not infringe a patent (otherwise the online patent databases are all infringements), then distributing them separately is non infringing (no need to host the software in Russia).
Software patents should all just be invalidated because without the "apparatus" the software can not be patented. Hardly any software is tied to a specific apparatus, programs all run on general purpose computers, and can be run in virtual machines to simulate any hardware...
If there is no specific apparatus being patented then allowing software patents is just plain wrong! Additionally, I can use graph paper to model any computer, and thus "execute" software using only my mind, a pencil and paper... Ergo, we are allowing the patenting of ideas... Something that should never have happened, except for the "...and apparatus" part of the claim. If we do not require the apparatus to be specific, and limited to that one specified device, then we are truly allowing EVERY apparatus to be an infringing apparatus, even my own mind -- Such subjects are not supposed to be patentable.
Practical Extraction and Reporting Language (PERL), and its regular expressions have been allowing everyone to create prior art as its primary feature since 1987.
Pulling out email addresses, phone numbers, URLs, etc, and presenting me with additional optional actions based on the recognized sub-data within a block of data.
Wait. I want you to do this: Open any text editor and use the 'find' feature ( Press [Ctrl-F] ). Immediately AFTER highlighting text using the Find feature press the delete key or use the cut [Ctrl-X] or copy [Ctrl-C] keys.
Now. Please explain to me how you will defend yourself in court against the patent claim...
they're designed to be so vague and general as to describe wide ranges of utility in terms which make it sound like there's some new invention being described.
I find it VERY INTERESTING that you use the term 'utility'. The Fashion industry has no copyright or patent protections... Why? Clothing is too UTILITARIAN...
There MAY have been a time when (mobile) computing devices, and the software that executes in them was not largely utilitarian, but today is not such a time. I would have been hard-pressed to obtain a physical copy of my FEDERAL INCOME TAX FORMS without computing devices and software to decode and print the PDFs available online. In past years these forms were available via my local library, this past tax season even the designated local distributor of such forms ran out; I routinely have to UTILIZE my computer and its operating system and application software in order to perform very utilitarian tasks such as: Record keeping, personal correspondence, real time two-way speech simulation, numeric calculation, and even WORK.
On the same grounds that the Car design or Fashion industries do not have copyright or patent protections (yet somehow -- defying all pro-copyright & pro-patent logic -- both account for larger market segments than industries having those protections), I move that software and computers are so utilitarian that only video-games and other such recreational focused art forms be susceptible to copyright and patent protections.
How are we to function in the information age if the information of ideas is so restricted? Do we not rule this planet only because of our superior capability to share knowledge, ideas, and culture? Were this the stone or bronze age, I would simply smite my opponents with earth and metal until all agreed to accept the fact that the new technology must not be wielded by only the few, that any who may smelt ore or chip stone be allowed to do so... Surely none would agree to only use flint spears when facing a metallurgically advanced opponent.
As it turns out, information can now be wielded just as dangerously as bronze or flint. Expect more conflict and "warfare" using our new-found information sharing technologies. Until we all agree that the conveyance of Knowledge and Information is a Sacred inalienable right, I shall not rest.
Think about this next time you toss a disposable coffee cup into the trash, or scratch your head in public... Is there someone in that room with you that matches your basic physical description?
Might I not be collecting your DNA, and/or your wireless signatures (via my laptop -- Hint: GSM & CDMA are cracked) so that I can place you at the scene of my next crime?
Sure: "What are the chances -- Tinfoil hat!"
That's EXACTLY how I want you to think, and how much of the public does think -- Surely no-one would exploit this fact...
Let's just hope all criminals are just dumb, and won't think to commit a crime when they know you won't have an alibi, and that when the cops "like you" as a prime suspect due to DNA and digital evidence that they take several other suspects to court as well-- Wait, what's that you say? They only try ONE person via trial? Oh, that's right, because if they prosecuted several at once, and the courts found TWO suspects guilty of the same crime... It would totally undermine the public's faith in the justice system!
Bwa-Ha-HAHAHA... Hahahaha... Oh, oh--damn, Haha-ha--- ha, heh, heh, HAHAHA!
What? People play Doom all the time...
However, as you note, we really do need more terminal elements, and that is one of the main things I want to do for version 2.
o_O Stop.
I'm sorry, perhaps I took the above statement to mean you would, in fact, be changing the output of Vash in a future version...
Let's face it -- The visuals do need to be improved, do so significantly, then stop.
Perhaps I'm totally off base here, and the currently released version of Vash isn't actually considered a version that your future versions of Vash will have their output compared against... (In which case I'd like to apologize for our discrepancy in versioning terminologies)
Alternatively, I may have incorrectly assumed that the images produced will be improved... (In which case I'd like to apologize for my lack of interest in any future or current version of Vash).
Note: I'd be a fool to use Vash in production now: The visuals need improvement, thus I'll have to keep track of which version of Vash each user is expecting to see the output from.
Random elements (like position and color) are only a very small part of the algorithm.
Tell me more of these non deterministic "random" elements; How exactly can you produce a deterministic resulting image?
Might I suggest you use pseudo-random elements instead? Additionally, I suggest that you take a look at turtle graphics -- You can then easily produce distinct shapes with wildly different "spiro-graph like" images...
Finally, I would suggest creating many significant improvements and then stopping. You know what makes Cryptographic Hashing functions useful? The fact that, given the same inputs, version 0.9alpha and version 99-nonnillion point oh of a SHA-512 implementation will always generate the same results.
The one thing I worry about is people becoming reliant on the technology to warn them of danger and becoming less observant. Sort of like when my brother couldn't figure out which way was West until the GPS told him despite many very obvious indicators (mountains, sun, etc.).
You might get phony alerts, but this doesn't take control of the car. You're still driving it. Bored teenage "hackerz" might break the system, cause it to cry wolf too often, but you're still the one operating the car and presumably won't follow instructions to drive into another car.
So, I spoof my location data, and all of a sudden your carputer takes control to avoid the accident you apparently didn't see coming. I'll LOVE it. Finally, I'll be able to get that tailgating asshole off my 6 without having to break-check 'em.
The tech that takes over and slams on the brakes is already in cars today. Hooking it up to a wireless network will be buckets of fun for everyone!
Why would it "wipe out the bulk of the human race"? We encounter new viruses every year and our immune systems adapt. The workers in question didn't die either. How do you make the leap from a simple virus in an ape jumping to a few isolated humans to it wiping out the human race? Been watching too many movies? How would this be different than say, avian or swine flu? Somehow because it comes from an ape suddenly we're all doomed? Grow up.
Though I agree this particular virus is not a serious threat, I would like for you to imagine for a moment the consequences of HIV were it an airborne pathogen. There is no cure, and we have not developed a resistance for it; Much like Herpes.
Great Caution MUST be exercised when dealing with infectious agents. If you do not think an entire species can be wiped out quickly by a single parasite I would like you to purchase an American Chestnut for "roasting over an open fire." Jack frost is not the only one who is nipping at your nose -- Ask the Native Americans about foreign diseases.
There are many viruses that other species have become resistant towards, and that we have no resistance against. Viruses mutate, and that their battle to survive within their hosts can make them more vicious. Some viruses are terminally incurable. Some diseases now spreading among humans initially only infected other species. Some diseases cause the extinction of a species.
Your chauvinism is the illogical product of an ignorant mind.
If you completely disregard the cautionary warning or fail to grasp the severity of the implications GP alluded to, or if you think that monkeys were a critical component in their statement, then you are truly a fool.
While you keep your head buried firmly in the sand, please take this opportunity to study the fossil record found therein which contains many extinct species; Some of which are extinct because of other lifeforms...
Note: Part of growing up is realizing that you can not know everything, thus it is important to heed others; Another part is being respectful. Clearly it is you who has not yet matured enough. The fact that you rationalized this immature act afterwards is even more proof of your own mental immaturity. Please, do not apply for a job handling bio-hazardous materials until you have attained maturity yourself.
Here is a bit of wisdom that may help you in your quest for mental maturity:
It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Also: A fool learns from his mistakes; A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.
I put it to you that a wiser man need not wait for foolish mistakes to occur at all.
However, if we can't convince the USA to switch to the metric system, how can we ever hope to force the complete world to switch?
The USA does use the metric system. Their military, scientists and medical practitioners do. (Hint: "Click = Kilometer")
It's only the general populous that is forced into using antiquated and difficult to convert between standards by the USA's school system, and thus parents as well (being that they were taught to use those units too).
FTWA
It seems the USA is deliberately hindering the populous with their obsolete units of measure. Considering that it is the corporations that control Capitalist America via limitless campaign contributions and lobyists, I think it's safe to say they have an interest in keeping the people of America confused; If it was easy to convert between units the people would be better equipped to be more intelligent shoppers -- "This is $3.99 per pound, but the no-name store-brand is $7.89 for 40oz -- I bet the products are made in the same plant; How much of what dollar ounce pound?! [conversion error -- select familiar name brand to continue shopping]"
Note: Tinfoil hats can not be made from Aluminum Foil; They've made fools of us all!
hell I wouldn't be surprised if the crap can't parse .TXT!
Sounds like your crappy proprietary indexing system is shit. I wouldn't blame OO/LO for incompatibilities if PDF or .TXT (UTF-8) doesn't work.
IRL if you are lucky they will ask you to re submit as a .doc for their software, if you aren't lucky they will just toss your PDF and move on. I've also seen handouts at the local college for various classes and they ALL demand .doc for their anti-cheating software.
.docs, then open in LO and save back as a .doc and you'll find a mangled word salad ...
...
try it yourself, go to the government websites and find some of their
Then you would be insane to trust LO's MS Office compatibility.
Let me introduce a radical new way to save documents. HTMutherfuckingL. That's right, the format that EVERY DAMN DEVICE can render is now available to YOU (see: File -> Save As).
Seems to me you are dealing with crap "standards". It's not the document format that's at fault if a "PROFESSOR" can't open a .RTF or .HTML document... In all honesty, I would ask for my money back if they refused one of the documents I sent them. If they refused a refund I would sue in small claims court, and win -- Accepting that there is no such statement that says: "Microsoft Certified Software is REQUIRED for this course."
How can a professor profess to being proficient at opening documents if they can't open the most wide spread and open of documentation formats? Truly, heads would roll were I in charge.
You are now aware that it costs professors $0.00 to install the free and open source software that is required to open the document formats you are recommending against using. If my professor said: "DERP! I can't open this document!?!?! Ima give U an F." I would have that bastard's entrails on a silver platter for breakfast due to their incompetence.
Here's a hint: Unless I'm taking a Microsoft Certification course -- I shouldn't be REQUIRED to use Microsoft products. There is no excuse; Take it up with the next level -- Your "teachers" need to be taught a lesson.
I would say this is an iterative innovation that would be obvious to any individual skilled in the art of 2D coordinate spaces, and touch interfaces given that they are tasked with determining when to rotate the screen / touch coordinates IN RESPONSE TO MOVEMENT, and have a choice of current motion sensing tech.
You're the type of person that would not cry "INFRINGEMENT" on a mouse having 666 buttons given that a patent on mice with a 665 buttons already exists, but would allow the 666 button mouse patent if said buttons were made to glow as the fires of hell, and smell of brimstone. Citing that no other mice have had those beneficial features to date.
I suppose you've never heard of the term OBVIOUS before? I mean, clearly, any SKILLED INDIVIDUAL tasked with creating a rotating screen, that is also SKILLED IN THE ART of both screens and accelerometers WOULD NEVER agree that using the accelerometer to detect when to rotate the screen is OBVIOUS.
The real problem is that there is a non-obviousness requirement for patents, however, such tests for obviousness are not conducted. It would really be quite simple: This patent covers using an accelerometer for detecting when to switch from portrait to landscape. Let's higher a few skilled individuals for a few hours to come up with some ideas on how to switch from portrait to landscape. We'll only give them the hardware specs of the device (which includes an accelerometer) and see if they can figure it out in, say, less than 2 days. (Too expensive? CHARGE THE APPLICANT! Failure to submit fees == NO PATENT)
Otherwise, WTF -- All patents should be invalidated because the non-obviousness clause is not being upheld.
SHHHH!!!
You'll spoil all the fun!
Everyone knows that, although not impossible to create, there's no such thing as a 100% secure system because the cost to create one is too high, especially in the consumer sector -- their lust for the "nouveau" and the competitive time-sensitive markets virtually ensure that us hackers can Crack Everything Forever!
--That is, until we have AI that can write & test software for us we won't be able to fully trust the system security (... wait, what?!)
does not say anything about driverless vehicles. That's what the priority should be
After driverless, we'll discover that cars that can link-up with each-other physically are even more efficient.
Next, we'll realize that specialized tracks can provide power to the vehicles enabling long trips without refueling.
Finally, we'll be able to use trains again.