I call them "Sensationalists" since they enjoy all the sensations life has to offer... Pain releases endorphins, repeated or prolonged pain can cause desensitization or numbness -- Mixed with a bit of pleasure, it's not hard to see how someone may enjoy sex + runner's high == more powerful stimuli.
Emotional pain is part of the sadist/masochist power exchange as well. Being disrespected, dehumanized, used, and abused (emotionally) is also enjoyed by many of the same masochists. This study would actually support this correlation.
And with that comment, you prove that you don't understand what patents are all about. The whole point of patents is to make it easy to re-invent a process/product. Patents are trying to keep us away from the days of guilds--everything is a trade secret, and no-one cooperates. Instead, the inventor gets an economic incentive (17 years of monopoly) in exchange for opening up their work.
Sadly, you have acurately described the proprietary software industry -- yep, despite the bogus patent laws, it's still a "guild" -- Membership dues are patent litigation and/or cross licensing (which can be bought with enough buckets of money).
Now, whether software should be patentable is up for debate, as is a valid length of a software patent, assuming software is patentable (17 years is pretty close to forever in software time). But copyright and patents cover two different things--with copyright, you're protecting a way of expressing an idea, and with patents, you're protecting the idea itself. And if you really think you can "clean room" invent an idea, think about what that means before answering.
I don't think "up for debate" is a good way to put it, unless you know of any patent offices re-evaluating or questioning the validity of software patents; Why would they invalidate them all and lose the revenue stream it affords them?
Should they be invalid, yes. Software is math. Math can not be patented. Somehow we allowed "Math" in a computer machine to be patented because the PTOs were to dumb to realize that the "computing machine" is just an extension of my pencil & paper, or mind. It's a math concept visualizer (like paper), and since you can't patent "Math" on Paper, or in stone or scrawled on the side of a bridge, you shouldn't be able to patent it in a computer. The first "computers" were people -- Building a machine to do what a human does should not prevent humans from being able to do it, yet this is what software patents (Math executed via machine) do.
Allow patents for the math visualizer machines themselves, but not for the math that we feed them.
P.S. Ever hear the term "Paperless" ? How are we to achieve this goal if the new digital medium is patentable where paper was not?
Make one. We have rich tool-sets for compiler development. The specs are all we really need -- Give us the hardware specs (instruction tables, register layouts, etc) and we can build compilers. Having to reverse engineer a processor, and then build firmware for it is a pain in the ass. It would be nice if the MFG just shared their tools & sources with us -- then they could benefit from our improvements, but hey No one ever accused them of being benevolent and customer friendly.
It would be nice if the hardware vendors stopped worrying about software "thieves" so much and got back to making hardware -- Hint: I buy the hardware, it should come with the source code to make it work -- Binary only drivers / firmware is a recipe for vendor-lock-in, artificial obsolescence, and artificial scarcity.
We're talking about on already-general-purpose PCs. Alternative firmware is very useful on artificially limited devices like phones, and apparently routers
...And on graphics cards where they've been known to be artificially limited in order to boost the price of an only slightly better model.
Personally, I won't rest until every last ounce of source-code is available for my machine. Direct Memory Access (DMA) + Firmware Binary Blobs == Unknowable behavior. This is one reason I applaud AMD's support for CoreBoot.
No, I'm not paranoid, but, yes, we probably should be -- I've just been burned too many times by MFGs dropping support for things to enforce artificial obsolescence. I'm buying the hardware not the drivers -- Needlessly tying hardware to a compilation of software is the very definition of creating artificial scarcity...
Our secure tokens are Yubikeys. We use RFID for physical access and the challenge response protocol for authentication.
We didn't like the thought of having to trust a 3rd party with our keys, so we run our own authentication services and use our own "seeds". This way we have one less attack/exploit surface (the MFG) to worry about -- Looks like it paid off for us this time!
Key Lifecycle Management
Re-configuration of YubiKeys by customers
For high security environments, customers may select not to share the
AES key information for their YubiKeys outside of their organization.
Customers may also for other reasons want to be in control of all AES
keys programmed into the Yubikey devices. Yubico therefore supports the
use of a personalization tool to reconfigure the YubiKeys with new AES
keys and meta data.
If RSA has your keys... are they really secure?!?!!
Was I the only one who read the headline as: New Tool-Shows Would Be Emailers If You're Swamped
and thought the submission was about Internet connected set-top boxes allowing Power-tool infomercials to detect if you're already buried under a ton of messages and then send you a few more emails hoping that you'll click them accidentally?
(Kind of like how Google ads can be camouflaged to look like part of the site's content to snag a few accidental clicks...)
You got so outraged that you apparently missed the next sentence: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Sponsors agree that no change that we make to these Terms of Service will terminate or modify the license granted under paragraph 1 above with respect to any use or implementation of the Schema occurring prior to the date that the change is published.
No, I understood it perfectly to make no sense. Here, big words are used to confuse you... Let me translate:
notwithstanding: in spite of. Irregardless
foregoing: What we said prior to this point.
paragraph 1: The first paragraph "This is a contract... you agree to be bound [by the TOS]."
Irregardless of [Us granting you CC copyright license, and possibly terminating your right to use the schema if we don't agree on a patent license (that we are allowed to assert and charge for) ] we agree that no future changes will nullify any of the rights granted to you in [ the contract between us that you currently agree to ] so long as your use or implementation happened before the changes we plan to make. Also, this means our future changes can screw you over if you keep using our schemas, but don't agree with our license or agree to pay/comply with our patent royalties.
In short: You must agree to everything forever, and we reserve the right to sue you over patents even though we slapped a big happy "Copy Left" license on the deal to make dolts like you feel warm and fuzzy.
This is a contract between you and each of the sponsors of Schema.org: Google, Inc., Yahoo, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively in this agreement as the "Sponsors", "we" or "us"). By using the Schema.org website (the "Website") you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions (the "Terms of Service").
Changes in Website and Terms and Conditions; Change in Schema
We may modify or terminate the Website, for any reason, and without notice. We also reserve the right to modify these Terms of Service from time to time without notice, and you expressly agree to be bound by such modifications when posted on the Website.
This legalese basically says: By using the schema.org website, (esp. their schemas) you agree to whatever we want forever. THE END.
Even Facebook's horrid TOS agreement is better for you than this, at least you can terminate Facebook's agreement.
I for one rebel against our Gigantic Corporate Lawyer-wielding privacy-and-competition-hating overlords. If I can't get past the TOS page, I'll just stick to RDFa. Just added "0.0.0.0 schema.org" to my hosts file just in case I get link-baited into agreeing to that evil evil evil TOS.
Seconded -- The town of Corpus Christi, TX had decent WIFI coverage when I lived there. They got me hooked on using it for free before allowing PDQ, and other "providers" to charge me for the service -- I guess the city sponsored WIFI is "rented" to the "providers" that I then must pay to login. Not sure how that's working out for them, but it can't be too bad since the explosion of portable WIFI enabled Android and iOS devices happened shortly afterward (Making it possible to use these devices in WIFI mode sans 3G/Cellular data plans).
My only beef was that the WIFI was unsecured, so I could play ARP games with others near me (even just requiring a WPA password of "CCTX" would prevent such things -- Take note Starbucks et al. Set a password (post it on a sign), or else; Open/Unsecured WIFI users -- use a VPN or else).
I dearly miss the municipal WIFI -- All cities should have it, if for no other reason than to give police and EMS a WIFI Internet connection.
Yes. Nobel prizes have slowly become more and more about politics instead of achievements or advancements. My GED is a more prestigious award: At least it is proof that someone actually did something.
Note: I dropped out of high school to start a software company (to help support my struggling family), which I was able to do at the age of 17 without any formal instruction only due to the amazing advancements in computing technology; Let me know when a high school drop-out that dabbles in physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, or peace, is able to support a family of 5 by doing so -- Then I'll reconsider giving a damn about the Politico-Nobel Prize.
First off, this is awesome! Secondly, now that the US is "first to file" we could adopt this very system too -- There's no good reason to keep any part of the patent application secret (as similar projects have in the previous US & AU pilots). I mean... Why not give the public a few leads to go on when searching for prior art? We are doing their jobs for them, the PTO might as well give us the tools/information we need to work with (otherwise: Hamstring much?).
The secrecy needs to be barred outright: If a patent is valid, who cares if someone uses your idea sooner; This just means you can make money on it sooner. If the patent is invalid, well, that's the risk you take when you seek a legal monopoly over an idea... Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Since the purported purpose of patents is to get the ideas to the public (for the betterment of society) then this is a win on both accounts.
I used to believe that the US patent system was fundamentally flawed because they have no test for obviousness (hint: just because no one already patented it doesn't mean it's not obvious), and that they are trying to filter an entire world's prior art via a relatively small number of examiners in a relatively short period of time (the odds of that working out for the benefit of society are inconceivable!).
However, with some of the ridiculous, and outright wrong patents (swinging on swings, duplicate patents, "on-the fly" hash table modifications, etc.) It's apparent that the applications aren't even being read (esp. not by anyone who's even remotely "skilled in the arts").
I seriously hope this pilot project becomes permanent, and that the World adopts a similar public standard test (though 90 days is a bit short, esp. when granting monopolies that could destroy entire markets). Then, we could be sure that the patent filings will actually have a chance of being read by people other than those who have a vested interest in granting more patents...
P.S. If this practice were made permanent it would cause me to release more of my code as FLOSS just to provide more proof of prior art (another win for the claimed mission patents serve) -- currently I've been close sourcing a few things because my code being open makes it too easy for patent trolls...
The answer to this kind of attack is to hash passwords using hash functions that take a bit more time to compute.
Not just "slower" but also algorithms that require larger memory pools. SHAs take so little memory hundreds of state instances can be cached on most chips -- Big memory pool hashes are harder to parallelize since you run into caching barriers, RAM limits, and transfer speed limits.
Even key stretching with a general purpose (read: fast) hash only leverages processor power. Why not use a more memory consumptive hash (like bcrypt), and leverage RAM limits too?
TL;DNL: Length matters -- long easy to remember sections + short "secure" sections.
P.S. Disallowed "special" chars or limited length == service is not hashing your password (I don't use such services that my PW schemes don't work with).
Hmmm... well, most hash algorithms are made to be fast. This is unfortunately the wrong thing to do for passwords. The SHA family of algorithms process many megabytes of data per second -- they have to, they are general purpose. The hash algorithm that I use for passwords generates 4 per second on a fast server. The CPU strain only occurs during authentication, and those are time delayed anyhow (to avoid timing/side channel attacks). For a brute force attack this means cracking even one password is significantly more difficult.
Instead of the SHA family use a function that is computationally intensive AND RAM intensive (like bcrypt). Any hash algo that requires a significant amount of memory to operate is much less feasible to run in parallel. The SHA family of hashes require little memory even when key stretching is used. Ergo, the number of hashes that can be computed at once relys primarily on your processing power. Even a 4K pool significantly increases the memory requirements of a hash -- effectively tying the hash to RAM size as well as CPU/GPU power. System memory to GPU is a slow transfer, GPUs typically have less RAM than main system memory -- use this to your advantage, there is really no reason not to.
Also note: do not use a single salt for every hash in the DB -- use a different salt for each PW. This completely defeats "Imma build a rainbow table" based attacks.
This isn't "Free as in Freedom" it's "Free as in Promotional".
FTFA:
Printed books will continue to be available for purchase through the NAP website and traditional channels. The free PDFs are available exclusively from the NAP’s website, http://www.nap.edu/, and remain subject to copyright laws. PDF versions exist for the vast majority of NAP books. Exceptions include some books that were published before the advent of PDFs; books from the Joseph Henry Press imprint; and in cases where contractually prohibited, such as reference books in the Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals series.
So, you can download them to your computer, but you can't (legally) make a copy for your friend... This isn't the free as in "land of the free" that I grew up learning about... seems like a trap to me. "How did you know that without ever buying our book or downloading our PDF? You must be a sea faring rapist and murderous theif!"
Let me know when it's released under a CC license, then I'll think about downloading it.
We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else.
Look. I know how this stuff goes. You can't exactly say that you did, but if you have, just give us a signal -- Maybe just cough twice (er, no -- something electronic...) OK just cause a few server errors -- that'll be the signal.
I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the mechanics of eclipses, but I never realized that solar eclipses would particularly occur at arctic latitudes more than others.
Rereading the sentence, I think it just means "possible at any time, as opposed to just during the day time, since day is 24 hours long". As opposed to my initial reading, "it makes solar eclipses particularly probable". That's not correct, right? And did anybody else read it that way, or am I just exposing my ignorance (again)?
Particularly probable in that region. Perhaps, because the region does not experience an obstruction of the Sun by the Earth. Thus, a solar eclipse may occur at "any time" -- This doubles the chance of observing Solar eclipses.
An eclipse of the Sun occurs when the Moon passes between the Sun and the Earth (Solar Eclipse).
During a Solar Eclipse a Lunar eclipse is less likely to be visible...
An eclipse of the Moon occurs when the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun (Lunar Eclipse).
During a Lunar Eclipse, a Solar eclipse is less likely to be visible...
An eclipse of the Earth occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and the Earth (Night).
During a Night, a Solar eclipse is less likely to be visible...
An eclipse of the Earth can also occur when your hands pass between the Earth and your Face (Face-palm).
During a Face-Palm, all other eclipses are less likely to be visible...
The only known "cause" of cancer is a genetically deformed cell. The older you get the more your cells have divided. Cellular damage also causes more cells to divide. Nervous lip chewers (that chew their inner mouth tissues frequently) have the same approx amount of mouth cancer as snuff dippers (tobacco chewers). The more times a cell splits the more chance it will mutate and become a cancer. Cells that have split more times have a higher chance.
Then, Cancer causes more of itself.
Does exposure to EMF increase the chances of cancer? Do you think that adding energy to a chemical reaction may have a factor in the result? (DNA duplication == chemical reaction) Microwaves are non ionizing, but they still contribute heat, and last I checked, so did a Bunsen burner.
Do foreign substances increase the chances of cancer? Do you think that adding more chemicals to a chemical reaction may have a factor in the result?
IMHO, we should put more effort into researching a cure than trying to figure out what causes (read: increases the chance of) cancer. There is no way to prevent genetic deformations of cells, but perhaps we can find a way to combat those that occur, (or use them to our advantage), and make the whole argument pointless.
Just a quick note -- that low specked desktop (sans monitor) cost me $0.00 -- It was being tossed in a dumpster. I halted the janitor & said -- "Hey, these should be taken to the electronics recyclers they have toxic components -- I'll take them there for you..." On a whim I fired up a few and found that they all worked well -- no data on the drives, but definitely not trash.
If you're really strapped for cash, ask around -- In my city we have a non-profit refurbishment center that gives away computers to the poor. I volunteer there twice a month now, right now the average spec computer leaving is a 3Ghz (single core) w/ 1.5GB Ram -- Seems that labor to "upgrade" the hardware of today costs almost as much as a whole new system...
humorous and insightful but also serving to underscore the problem. When you trust a group of people to pick and choose your good and bad guys for you, and that group has no accountability...
Ah, a group like say, your own government?
FYI -- Anonymous is the anti-thesis of the "group" of which you speak. They can't choose a bad guy for you, they can't even choose a bad guy for themselves. What they can do is cooperate with each other if&when the individuals' ideas of who the bad guys are happen to be aligned.
The fact that so many individuals attempt to hide behind the name Anonymous in order to make trouble for the traditional groups who decide your bad guys for you is very telling indeed.
it's like distributing loaded guns in your local preschool then telling the preschoolers to all work together in picking out the bad guys before anyone pulls the trigger. Sometimes, they'll get it right.
Yes. Invariably, if you hand them guns they'll shoot the ones that molest and abuse them. A few accidental deaths may occur, because they are too inexperienced -- but the others would quickly take note of the consequences.
Additionally -- this is a bad analogy, because a single member of Anonymous has very little power, much less than a child with a gun. It would be more like giving them small stones and sticks. Alone the child can not truly harm the adult abusers, but in numbers they can -- Hint: the number of children that lash out are proportional to the number of children, friends, and family that have been abused.
I prefer editors to ask personally for content so I can ensure its going where I want it to.
Oh, that's nice of you to prefer that... As a FPS creator I would prefer it if you asked me permission before you devalued my product by overlaying your vapid comments over the clips you took from my games.
o_O
-- or by simply not buying it in the first place... The number of people willing to "circumvent" DRM and other such anti-user features instead of simply not buying into them in the first place is staggering.
Perhaps the camera then will not record pictures if it can't see the IR light that it itself emits during a photograph.
Additionally, to those who would spoof it with their own emitters: The signal will likely use a protocol with a time and/or public/private encryption based authenticator.
Jammers would also be made illegal (as RF jammers already are).
I'm sure the MPAA would love to be able to disable any camera phones in a movie theater too.
Slashdot Mirror
I call them "Sensationalists" since they enjoy all the sensations life has to offer... Pain releases endorphins, repeated or prolonged pain can cause desensitization or numbness -- Mixed with a bit of pleasure, it's not hard to see how someone may enjoy sex + runner's high == more powerful stimuli.
Emotional pain is part of the sadist/masochist power exchange as well. Being disrespected, dehumanized, used, and abused (emotionally) is also enjoyed by many of the same masochists. This study would actually support this correlation.
It should.
And with that comment, you prove that you don't understand what patents are all about. The whole point of patents is to make it easy to re-invent a process/product. Patents are trying to keep us away from the days of guilds--everything is a trade secret, and no-one cooperates. Instead, the inventor gets an economic incentive (17 years of monopoly) in exchange for opening up their work.
Sadly, you have acurately described the proprietary software industry -- yep, despite the bogus patent laws, it's still a "guild" -- Membership dues are patent litigation and/or cross licensing (which can be bought with enough buckets of money).
Now, whether software should be patentable is up for debate, as is a valid length of a software patent, assuming software is patentable (17 years is pretty close to forever in software time). But copyright and patents cover two different things--with copyright, you're protecting a way of expressing an idea, and with patents, you're protecting the idea itself. And if you really think you can "clean room" invent an idea, think about what that means before answering.
I don't think "up for debate" is a good way to put it, unless you know of any patent offices re-evaluating or questioning the validity of software patents; Why would they invalidate them all and lose the revenue stream it affords them?
Should they be invalid, yes. Software is math. Math can not be patented. Somehow we allowed "Math" in a computer machine to be patented because the PTOs were to dumb to realize that the "computing machine" is just an extension of my pencil & paper, or mind. It's a math concept visualizer (like paper), and since you can't patent "Math" on Paper, or in stone or scrawled on the side of a bridge, you shouldn't be able to patent it in a computer. The first "computers" were people -- Building a machine to do what a human does should not prevent humans from being able to do it, yet this is what software patents (Math executed via machine) do.
Allow patents for the math visualizer machines themselves, but not for the math that we feed them.
P.S. Ever hear the term "Paperless" ? How are we to achieve this goal if the new digital medium is patentable where paper was not?
Make one. We have rich tool-sets for compiler development. The specs are all we really need -- Give us the hardware specs (instruction tables, register layouts, etc) and we can build compilers. Having to reverse engineer a processor, and then build firmware for it is a pain in the ass. It would be nice if the MFG just shared their tools & sources with us -- then they could benefit from our improvements, but hey No one ever accused them of being benevolent and customer friendly.
It would be nice if the hardware vendors stopped worrying about software "thieves" so much and got back to making hardware -- Hint: I buy the hardware, it should come with the source code to make it work -- Binary only drivers / firmware is a recipe for vendor-lock-in, artificial obsolescence, and artificial scarcity.
We're talking about on already-general-purpose PCs. Alternative firmware is very useful on artificially limited devices like phones, and apparently routers
Personally, I won't rest until every last ounce of source-code is available for my machine. Direct Memory Access (DMA) + Firmware Binary Blobs == Unknowable behavior. This is one reason I applaud AMD's support for CoreBoot.
No, I'm not paranoid, but, yes, we probably should be -- I've just been burned too many times by MFGs dropping support for things to enforce artificial obsolescence. I'm buying the hardware not the drivers -- Needlessly tying hardware to a compilation of software is the very definition of creating artificial scarcity...
Our secure tokens are Yubikeys. We use RFID for physical access and the challenge response protocol for authentication.
We didn't like the thought of having to trust a 3rd party with our keys, so we run our own authentication services and use our own "seeds". This way we have one less attack/exploit surface (the MFG) to worry about -- Looks like it paid off for us this time!
Key Lifecycle Management
Re-configuration of YubiKeys by customers
If RSA has your keys... are they really secure?!?!!
Was I the only one who read the headline as:
New Tool-Shows Would Be Emailers If You're Swamped
and thought the submission was about Internet connected set-top boxes allowing Power-tool infomercials to detect if you're already buried under a ton of messages and then send you a few more emails hoping that you'll click them accidentally?
(Kind of like how Google ads can be camouflaged to look like part of the site's content to snag a few accidental clicks...)
You got so outraged that you apparently missed the next sentence: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Sponsors agree that no change that we make to these Terms of Service will terminate or modify the license granted under paragraph 1 above with respect to any use or implementation of the Schema occurring prior to the date that the change is published.
No, I understood it perfectly to make no sense. Here, big words are used to confuse you... Let me translate: notwithstanding: in spite of. Irregardless ... you agree to be bound [by the TOS]."
foregoing: What we said prior to this point.
paragraph 1: The first paragraph "This is a contract
Irregardless of [Us granting you CC copyright license, and possibly terminating your right to use the schema if we don't agree on a patent license (that we are allowed to assert and charge for) ] we agree that no future changes will nullify any of the rights granted to you in [ the contract between us that you currently agree to ] so long as your use or implementation happened before the changes we plan to make. Also, this means our future changes can screw you over if you keep using our schemas, but don't agree with our license or agree to pay/comply with our patent royalties.
In short: You must agree to everything forever, and we reserve the right to sue you over patents even though we slapped a big happy "Copy Left" license on the deal to make dolts like you feel warm and fuzzy.
Terms of service
This is a contract between you and each of the sponsors of Schema.org: Google, Inc., Yahoo, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (referred to collectively in this agreement as the "Sponsors", "we" or "us"). By using the Schema.org website (the "Website") you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions (the "Terms of Service").
Changes in Website and Terms and Conditions; Change in Schema
We may modify or terminate the Website, for any reason, and without notice. We also reserve the right to modify these Terms of Service from time to time without notice, and you expressly agree to be bound by such modifications when posted on the Website.
This legalese basically says: By using the schema.org website, (esp. their schemas) you agree to whatever we want forever. THE END.
Even Facebook's horrid TOS agreement is better for you than this, at least you can terminate Facebook's agreement.
I for one rebel against our Gigantic Corporate Lawyer-wielding privacy-and-competition-hating overlords. If I can't get past the TOS page, I'll just stick to RDFa. Just added "0.0.0.0 schema.org" to my hosts file just in case I get link-baited into agreeing to that evil evil evil TOS.
Wouldn't it be ironic if they used a root kit? Or would that be poetic justice?
it would be ironic if the rootkit was already in place before lulzsec came along...
I think it would be ironic if it was made of iron...
Seconded -- The town of Corpus Christi, TX had decent WIFI coverage when I lived there. They got me hooked on using it for free before allowing PDQ, and other "providers" to charge me for the service -- I guess the city sponsored WIFI is "rented" to the "providers" that I then must pay to login. Not sure how that's working out for them, but it can't be too bad since the explosion of portable WIFI enabled Android and iOS devices happened shortly afterward (Making it possible to use these devices in WIFI mode sans 3G/Cellular data plans).
My only beef was that the WIFI was unsecured, so I could play ARP games with others near me (even just requiring a WPA password of "CCTX" would prevent such things -- Take note Starbucks et al. Set a password (post it on a sign), or else; Open/Unsecured WIFI users -- use a VPN or else).
I dearly miss the municipal WIFI -- All cities should have it, if for no other reason than to give police and EMS a WIFI Internet connection.
"First to File" doesn't remove "no prior art" requirement.
Yes. Nobel prizes have slowly become more and more about politics instead of achievements or advancements. My GED is a more prestigious award: At least it is proof that someone actually did something.
Note: I dropped out of high school to start a software company (to help support my struggling family), which I was able to do at the age of 17 without any formal instruction only due to the amazing advancements in computing technology; Let me know when a high school drop-out that dabbles in physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, or peace, is able to support a family of 5 by doing so -- Then I'll reconsider giving a damn about the Politico-Nobel Prize.
First off, this is awesome! Secondly, now that the US is "first to file" we could adopt this very system too -- There's no good reason to keep any part of the patent application secret (as similar projects have in the previous US & AU pilots). I mean... Why not give the public a few leads to go on when searching for prior art? We are doing their jobs for them, the PTO might as well give us the tools/information we need to work with (otherwise: Hamstring much?).
The secrecy needs to be barred outright: If a patent is valid, who cares if someone uses your idea sooner; This just means you can make money on it sooner. If the patent is invalid, well, that's the risk you take when you seek a legal monopoly over an idea... Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Since the purported purpose of patents is to get the ideas to the public (for the betterment of society) then this is a win on both accounts.
I used to believe that the US patent system was fundamentally flawed because they have no test for obviousness (hint: just because no one already patented it doesn't mean it's not obvious), and that they are trying to filter an entire world's prior art via a relatively small number of examiners in a relatively short period of time (the odds of that working out for the benefit of society are inconceivable!).
However, with some of the ridiculous, and outright wrong patents (swinging on swings, duplicate patents, "on-the fly" hash table modifications, etc.) It's apparent that the applications aren't even being read (esp. not by anyone who's even remotely "skilled in the arts").
I seriously hope this pilot project becomes permanent, and that the World adopts a similar public standard test (though 90 days is a bit short, esp. when granting monopolies that could destroy entire markets). Then, we could be sure that the patent filings will actually have a chance of being read by people other than those who have a vested interest in granting more patents...
P.S. If this practice were made permanent it would cause me to release more of my code as FLOSS just to provide more proof of prior art (another win for the claimed mission patents serve) -- currently I've been close sourcing a few things because my code being open makes it too easy for patent trolls...
The answer to this kind of attack is to hash passwords using hash functions that take a bit more time to compute.
Not just "slower" but also algorithms that require larger memory pools. SHAs take so little memory hundreds of state instances can be cached on most chips -- Big memory pool hashes are harder to parallelize since you run into caching barriers, RAM limits, and transfer speed limits.
Even key stretching with a general purpose (read: fast) hash only leverages processor power. Why not use a more memory consumptive hash (like bcrypt), and leverage RAM limits too?
eg:
vC!#/.-.-.-.-.-.-!#/e-mail-place
vC!#/.-.-.-.-.-.-!#/routing-thing
TL;DNL: Length matters -- long easy to remember sections + short "secure" sections.
P.S. Disallowed "special" chars or limited length == service is not hashing your password (I don't use such services that my PW schemes don't work with).
Hmmm... well, most hash algorithms are made to be fast. This is unfortunately the wrong thing to do for passwords. The SHA family of algorithms process many megabytes of data per second -- they have to, they are general purpose. The hash algorithm that I use for passwords generates 4 per second on a fast server. The CPU strain only occurs during authentication, and those are time delayed anyhow (to avoid timing/side channel attacks). For a brute force attack this means cracking even one password is significantly more difficult.
Instead of the SHA family use a function that is computationally intensive AND RAM intensive (like bcrypt). Any hash algo that requires a significant amount of memory to operate is much less feasible to run in parallel. The SHA family of hashes require little memory even when key stretching is used. Ergo, the number of hashes that can be computed at once relys primarily on your processing power. Even a 4K pool significantly increases the memory requirements of a hash -- effectively tying the hash to RAM size as well as CPU/GPU power. System memory to GPU is a slow transfer, GPUs typically have less RAM than main system memory -- use this to your advantage, there is really no reason not to.
Also note: do not use a single salt for every hash in the DB -- use a different salt for each PW. This completely defeats "Imma build a rainbow table" based attacks.
This isn't "Free as in Freedom" it's "Free as in Promotional".
FTFA:
Printed books will continue to be available for purchase through the NAP website and traditional channels. The free PDFs are available exclusively from the NAP’s website, http://www.nap.edu/, and remain subject to copyright laws. PDF versions exist for the vast majority of NAP books. Exceptions include some books that were published before the advent of PDFs; books from the Joseph Henry Press imprint; and in cases where contractually prohibited, such as reference books in the Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals series.
So, you can download them to your computer, but you can't (legally) make a copy for your friend... This isn't the free as in "land of the free" that I grew up learning about... seems like a trap to me. "How did you know that without ever buying our book or downloading our PDF? You must be a sea faring rapist and murderous theif!"
Let me know when it's released under a CC license, then I'll think about downloading it.
We haven't received any such requests since I've been working here, so no, nothing's been turned over to the Feds or anybody else.
Look. I know how this stuff goes. You can't exactly say that you did, but if you have, just give us a signal -- Maybe just cough twice (er, no -- something electronic...) OK just cause a few server errors -- that'll be the signal.
I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the mechanics of eclipses, but I never realized that solar eclipses would particularly occur at arctic latitudes more than others.
Rereading the sentence, I think it just means "possible at any time, as opposed to just during the day time, since day is 24 hours long". As opposed to my initial reading, "it makes solar eclipses particularly probable". That's not correct, right? And did anybody else read it that way, or am I just exposing my ignorance (again)?
Particularly probable in that region. Perhaps, because the region does not experience an obstruction of the Sun by the Earth. Thus, a solar eclipse may occur at "any time" -- This doubles the chance of observing Solar eclipses.
An eclipse of the Sun occurs when the Moon passes between the Sun and the Earth (Solar Eclipse).
During a Solar Eclipse a Lunar eclipse is less likely to be visible...
An eclipse of the Moon occurs when the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun (Lunar Eclipse).
During a Lunar Eclipse, a Solar eclipse is less likely to be visible...
An eclipse of the Earth occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and the Earth (Night). During a Night, a Solar eclipse is less likely to be visible...
An eclipse of the Earth can also occur when your hands pass between the Earth and your Face (Face-palm).
During a Face-Palm, all other eclipses are less likely to be visible...
The only known "cause" of cancer is a genetically deformed cell. The older you get the more your cells have divided. Cellular damage also causes more cells to divide. Nervous lip chewers (that chew their inner mouth tissues frequently) have the same approx amount of mouth cancer as snuff dippers (tobacco chewers). The more times a cell splits the more chance it will mutate and become a cancer. Cells that have split more times have a higher chance.
Then, Cancer causes more of itself.
Does exposure to EMF increase the chances of cancer? Do you think that adding energy to a chemical reaction may have a factor in the result? (DNA duplication == chemical reaction) Microwaves are non ionizing, but they still contribute heat, and last I checked, so did a Bunsen burner.
Do foreign substances increase the chances of cancer? Do you think that adding more chemicals to a chemical reaction may have a factor in the result?
IMHO, we should put more effort into researching a cure than trying to figure out what causes (read: increases the chance of) cancer. There is no way to prevent genetic deformations of cells, but perhaps we can find a way to combat those that occur, (or use them to our advantage), and make the whole argument pointless.
Just a quick note -- that low specked desktop (sans monitor) cost me $0.00 -- It was being tossed in a dumpster. I halted the janitor & said -- "Hey, these should be taken to the electronics recyclers they have toxic components -- I'll take them there for you..." On a whim I fired up a few and found that they all worked well -- no data on the drives, but definitely not trash.
If you're really strapped for cash, ask around -- In my city we have a non-profit refurbishment center that gives away computers to the poor. I volunteer there twice a month now, right now the average spec computer leaving is a 3Ghz (single core) w/ 1.5GB Ram -- Seems that labor to "upgrade" the hardware of today costs almost as much as a whole new system...
humorous and insightful but also serving to underscore the problem. When you trust a group of people to pick and choose your good and bad guys for you, and that group has no accountability...
Ah, a group like say, your own government?
FYI -- Anonymous is the anti-thesis of the "group" of which you speak. They can't choose a bad guy for you, they can't even choose a bad guy for themselves. What they can do is cooperate with each other if&when the individuals' ideas of who the bad guys are happen to be aligned.
The fact that so many individuals attempt to hide behind the name Anonymous in order to make trouble for the traditional groups who decide your bad guys for you is very telling indeed.
it's like distributing loaded guns in your local preschool then telling the preschoolers to all work together in picking out the bad guys before anyone pulls the trigger. Sometimes, they'll get it right.
Yes. Invariably, if you hand them guns they'll shoot the ones that molest and abuse them. A few accidental deaths may occur, because they are too inexperienced -- but the others would quickly take note of the consequences.
Additionally -- this is a bad analogy, because a single member of Anonymous has very little power, much less than a child with a gun. It would be more like giving them small stones and sticks. Alone the child can not truly harm the adult abusers, but in numbers they can -- Hint: the number of children that lash out are proportional to the number of children, friends, and family that have been abused.
I prefer editors to ask personally for content so I can ensure its going where I want it to.
Oh, that's nice of you to prefer that... As a FPS creator I would prefer it if you asked me permission before you devalued my product by overlaying your vapid comments over the clips you took from my games.
I see that "fair use" is a one way street to you!
o_O
-- or by simply not buying it in the first place... The number of people willing to "circumvent" DRM and other such anti-user features instead of simply not buying into them in the first place is staggering.
Perhaps the camera then will not record pictures if it can't see the IR light that it itself emits during a photograph.
Additionally, to those who would spoof it with their own emitters: The signal will likely use a protocol with a time and/or public/private encryption based authenticator.
Jammers would also be made illegal (as RF jammers already are).
I'm sure the MPAA would love to be able to disable any camera phones in a movie theater too.