I'm no Sony apologist, I've boycotted them for over a decade; However: Microsoft could have the same sort of breach tomorrow.
Now I'm an XBox live user, I've used the service for years, and have purchased a large collection of indie games from the arcade (All of which I can re-download at no extra charge, btw).
If MS had this level of security breach tomorrow, why THERE'S NO F'ING WAY HACKERS COULD GET MY CREDIT CARD NUMBER. It's not that MS has such awesome security, it's that I do, and MS gave me the tools I need to have that security.
I purchase MS points with cold hard cash, and use them to purchase games; I use the XBL prepaid codes to get XBL access... On the original XBox live network, you had to give them your credit card number to play online -- Guess what? I didn't use that service. I used Hamachi, VPNs and XBox Connect to play "system link" games over the Internet, instead.
You see -- There are much safer ways to transfer money to an online service. If I really must purchase items online I use a reloadable gift/debit card. I keep a couple hundred dollars on the card, and it can be used anywhere a debit / credit card can be used. If an attacker steals my card number, I just empty the card -- If I don't know that my card is stolen, the thief doesn't get access to may actual bank account / credit card.
In fact: I don't even let my real credit cards leave my sight at a restaurant. Fuck that, I barely trust the waiter/waitress to not spit in my food, I'm not giving them my credit card! You must be insane! I use cash or my gift/debit card instead... In fact: my pre-paid debit card actually gives me "points" for free gasoline, like some credit cards do.
Time to face the facts: You need to further segregate access to your financial holdings in order to better limit the risk associated with a more unified, insecure approach.
Being able to compile Windows applications under Linux can make that a lot easier, whereas the fact that Mac applications can only be compiled on Macs is a huge pain...
You are clearly open to tools like Wine. Can't you use a tool like GnuStep to cross-compile to OSX from Linux? It sounds like a huge pain in the ass vs. just having an old headless Mac to run a compiler on, but you could put it together if you wanted to stay purely open source.
Yes, I've got cross compilers -- The problem is testing. I can re-boot nearly all of my x86 and x64 machines into various flavors of either Linux or Windows, or fire up a different OS in a VM to do a quick test or compile. I don't care about having to purchase additional OS licenses to do debugging / testing with! The problem is that IT'S ILLEGAL for me to run Apple's OSX on my hardware.
Therefore, the actual tests in a real working system that I consider essential to the release process, are impossible unless I purchase some inferior Apple hardware. Sorry -- I always tell people that if they want my code to run on Apple's OSX, then feel free to compile it (and resolve the implementation differences) yourself -- No one has done so yet, thus OSX is not an important target, or else my apps are not important for OSX users (why waste the time on a OS port if it's not important?).
I can legally / easily test my Windows vs Linux branches & compare differences on the same hardware, and on a variety of different hardware (this is important esp. with floating point inconsistencies I've uncovered), the same can not be said of OSX (if I only had more expensive Apple machines my code would still have those FPU errors in it). Thus, I produce win and lin and bsd binaries -- If Apple had less OS DRM, I would produce binaries for their OS too.
Note: By implementation differences, I mean things like file opening / locking issues, named pipes & networking issues, and window management -- totally different batches of code in the wrappers for lin vs win, and sometimes bsd vs lin... Without a full OS to test in, there is no feasible work-flow for me. Also note: I've tried Qt and other cross platform frameworks (Java, gtk) -- Same issues, unpredictable applications (added foreign code & complexity == increased surface for bugs to appear), and testing is still a must. "Write Once - Debug Everywhere" (I can't debug my code on a platform == I don't release code for that platform; Thus I do have AMD, Intel and ARM build/test machines). I see no reason to spend more money to get less power, perhaps someday someone will donate a decent Mac, until then, tough luck: Apple seems hostile to devs like me).
what's the point of even going to university if the end result is discovering that your idea has already been patented ages ago.
Well, if your goal is to create innovative new work, I imagine the point of going to university is learning what has been done before.
On the other hand, if you enroll in an undergraduate program with an amazing, brilliant idea in your head, only to discover that it had already been patented ages ago, maybe it's a wake-up call that you aren't the most brilliant person ever born, after all, and that you still have some studying to do.
On the other hand, If your goal is to create your own software using your own ideas while ignoring the whole field of CS research, prior art and patents as their information is not accessible to you, and it matters not if wheels get re-invented because you are inventing them to learn how they work: The patent system can and will prevent you from profiting from your original works.
I was exposed to computers at a young age (7?) I taught myself BASIC on the Apple IIe, and on an IBM 386. Learning things by doing, I had needed more functionality and therefore learned Assembly and C by the age of 12. To solve a problem I would just think, how would I ___ in C? Then write an outline, and code it... I had no access to any other source code, or even higher mathematics.
EG: In Junior high -- age 13, having been taught about algebra and line slopes ratios I was able to render lines. For a vector graphics space battle game, I actually "invented" the unit circle, and sin/cos tables (I called them angle tables) by realizing line slopes could be used to roughly determine the degree of angle between two lines. I built a table of all 5.625 degree increments to line slopes, and interpolated between the line slopes to derive my "decentAngle()" function. Three years later the American public school system introduced me to trigonometry, and I told the teacher, "Gee, that Pythagoras guy wasn't that much of a genius, anyone can figure this out..." while showing her my sin() approximation functions and distance theorem... Oh, so that's called a "hypotenuse"?
Yes, the C library had a sin() function, but I didn't know what to use it for -- The compiler manual didn't teach trig...
As a teenager I built my first interpretor and virtual machine, without ever hearing those terms (I needed command language for my Doom.WAD (map) editor to build stairs, align textures across "curved" walls, etc.)
I had an expensive Borland C compiler, it's manual, a book on QBasic, and a book on x86/x87 Assembly. Understanding that a C compiler must somehow generate assembly like language in order to make.COMs &.EXEs, I wrote my first compiler by reverse engineering complied assembly instructions -- A "command to machine code table" was used to directly piece together an executable... it was ugly, but it worked, and I know better now (thanks to the existence of the Internet).
At age 16 I realized I could make money selling my programs. I distributed my software as share-ware and trial-ware for free on BSS systems -- after a the trial period a pass-code was needed to unlock the program. It was easily bypassed by re-installing or setting back the system clock, but was just enough of a deterrent that people would pay to get an unlock code. Hey, I would have released it as source code, but I needed $$$; Dating girls, driving cars and buying new compilers for MS OSs isn't cheap (besides, few others would likely compile the source, and if people asked I would show them how I achieved things).
Almost exactly 2 years after I started selling MY software I received my first cease and desist notice. I didn't have the money to dispute the claim in court (and neither did my family), so I stopped distributing the application. My simple CAD program was apparently infringing
I never got the allure of open hardware. Pretty much all the benefits from open source is that you can change it easily,...
I'm sure RMS will buy one, but I can almost guarantee that I will not. But if there are enough people like RMS out there, feel free.
Purchase Windows 9! The most secure OS line just got even more secure! W9 now implements both Intel CodeCrypt and AMD Secure Ops, giving you security from the application level all the way to the encrypted processor instructions!
Currently, I can open up "closed source" binaries in a hex editor and see EXACTLY what it's telling my hardware to do. This may not be possible in the near future with chips that support public key encryption at the instruction level.
Once this is possible, it's a simple matter to require licenses for any and all software development -- Its not too far fetched to imagine a law being passed that requires all software that uses the Internet or other Government controlled root-authority signed communication mediums to be licensed and encrypted / signed / tracked / etc. "Think of the children!" no? ok, then: "Only terrorists don't want security!"
You may call folk like me paranoid and over-zealous, but it's people like me that actually get stirred up and help protect the rights of the more apathetic and/or ignorant. Don't you agree that most people don't communicate with / participate in their government enough? Who do you think picks up a bit of the slack? The over-zealous help combat the over apathetic...
I assure you that projects like these do need to exist -- In the future, they may be the only thing that enables people like me to keep doing what we do, even if our right to do so has been eroded out from under us...
This is Stallmanism as its worst--"freedom" for freedom's sake without regard to functionality or practicality
All I will say about this is it is rather shocking to hear this statement being cast in a negative light.
I couldn't agree more. Additionally, Chip makers like Intel adding encryption capabilities to to their chips is offensive at best. Everyone knows that if an attacker has physical access, all bets are off -- even with encrypted chips... The only thing this does is prevent the end users from being able to tell what their CPU is doing.
In no other industry do people purchase items that they can not be sure of their contents and function: Food has ingredient lists, cars have opening hoods, clothing lists fabric types, etc. Currently even closed source software plainly lists its machine instructions. This may not always be the case once CPUs have public key cryptography embedded....
I think we need projects like these now more than ever, you can invoke "freedom" and "RMS" to imply over zealous freedom advocacy, yet I can point to current customer privacy concerns, government corruption, and major corporations with bad business practices such as "cutting off a competitor's air supply", "overselling services", and generally abusive behavior towards their own customers (lawsuits, etc).
Clearly some people do value their freedoms more than other's.
Come on, you can get much better than those specs for $300 bucks or less in a FULL notebook PC. Sans monitor and other peripherals, you can get an even faster consumer grade computer.
You probably already have one at home...
Bring notebook to work. Clone MAC address of shite PC, plug in Ethernet / keyboard / mouse / monitor to notebook -- Tada" Faster workstation" on the cheap.
Security preventing your new hardware from accessing the system? Bring a USB or CD with Linux and image your workstation hard drive -- run your workstation OS in your notebook via Virtual machine software -- I've done this before, however, you'll also want to put in a resume at another company...
Think about it: If they can't afford a one time $300 CPU purchase, how much do you cost them monthly? If they can afford the hardware, but can't cut the red tape to get you decent hardware, or if management is so inept they hire workers they can't utilize, or expect results from workers that are so ill-equipped they can't do their jobs: Just imagine what the rest of your time there will be like................... see? Now, update that resume.
Consent is implied by each individual user's web browser. Cookie Censorship need not apply, we already have the tools to manage our own cookie states (visitor discretion is not just advised, it's mandatory).
Much like the way no one can force you to visit their website, websites can not force your browser to accept a cookie -- And, last time I checked both IE & Firefox by default alerted me that a website was requesting to set a cookie, and the default action was to "[x] remember my decision" -- I opted to not have to answer yes each time, and instead opted to set my cookies to be cleared on each exit...
I am in no way prevented from disallowing all cookies... I remember writing web login systems before cookies were widespread -- URL MUNGING -- UHG! Hell, we even used the HTTP-REFERER (sic) header to transfer logins across domains (it contains your last visited URL -- the one before the current page request).
While I do like to know what the little opaque tokens are being used for, there is no reason to mandate their purposes be posted somewhere. Cookies are DESIGNED to track some user specific state information. Cookies track users. End Of Discussion. We know what they are for! Guess what else tracks users? Their IP ADDRESS; This, combined with URL munging == cookies. Netscape just wanted a formalized and more flexible way to do things...
I can imagine requiring a user to click yet another security dialog each time I add a bit of info or change the way a cookie operates -- To get around this one or both of the following WILL occur:
1. URL Munging, CSS style color hacks, and other tricks (like decoding a cached.PNG with client side JS) will be used instead of cookies for more user state preservation purposes.
2. The users will be given a "[x] Remember my decision" option, and we're right back to where we are now!
Ignorant fools -- When will we mandate that you must pass a technology test before voting for or against said technology related laws? EG: Score a 100% on the "Web Cookie" tech test, and you're fully qualified to vote -- score a 25% and your vote would be worth 25% of a vote since you don't know shit about what you're voting for or against....
Until then we'll keep having people who don't know shit pass ignorant laws based on "feelings" instead of "facts".
I visited my mother over easter, and she showed me her AT&T bill while I was browsing the Internet using her DSL / Wifi connections.
When I looked at the price line-item for her DSL service I was ASTOUNDED!
The bill said: "Canceled as of [mid March] -- Fee: $10.23 (prorated)"
I looked at my laptop -- refreshed the Firefox page, then said, "Mom, did you finally switch to Verizon?" "No," she said, "We're waiting for your little brother's phone contract to expire first" I scratched my head, "You didn't cancel your Internet service?"
In fact, it was just a "billing error" When I called the AT&T support to get make sure it got fixed, and not cut off the sales rep told me: "We've had our technicians in your area installing the new U-Verse system. It shows here that one of them got your line crossed with a faster U-Verse line, that's why there was a billing issue."
I called bullshit: "Woah, U-Verse is a Cable modem, We're using DSL, so that scenario COULDN'T happen, besides there has been no service interruption -- The DSL is just fine... I don't appreciate being lied to. How would crossed wires cause a Billing Issue anyway?"
They'll tell you anything to get you off the phone -- I guess those calls really aren't recorded for quality assurance purposes: I told the twerp's manager to review the tape, and she said she was unable to...
As I understand it, you have to buy a PC with Windows to develop for Windows Phone 7. Or you have to buy a retail copy of Windows to run in dual-boot or virtualization, which is as expensive as just buying an entry-level PC due to deep OEM discounts. (Once in Best Buy, I've seen a retail copy of Windows Home Premium for $200 and an ION nettop PC with included Windows Home Premium for $200.)
::Sigh:: Or, you can build a faster machine for cheaper yourself... Avoid the OEM all together. You still have to purchase Windows to develop WP7 (& Windows apps, but I use Linux + Wine to cross compile some of my Win apps sans VM or dual-boot), but at least YOU CAN.
The problem for me is that I have hardware that is faster than anything that Apple sells right now, and I purchased it for less than 2/3rds the price of Apple's most comparable systems... I saw that I can purchase the Mac Box Set with Snow Leopard for $169.00, but IT REFUSES TO RUN ON MY HARDWARE.
That, my friend, is why I don't develop for iOS or other Apple OSs.
You may attempt a rebuttal claiming that Apple doesn't want to support any unsanctioned hardware, and go on about "complete experience", but I'll shoot you down immediately because I install ALL of my O.S.s in a virtual machine -- there is no "hardware differences" that Apple's software would have to support except the lack of a hardware DRM system that Apple uses to prevent me from installing their inferior OS on my superior hardware. Besides, OSX runs on the same Intel brand CPU that I purchased... and, in fact, I have an illegal VM image (Hackintosh) that runs just fine, so OSX Can and Does run under this environment -- But I refuse to use it to develop software since it's illegal.
The problem isn't that I can't afford to purchase Apple hardware, it's that I have to have a special build environment just for their over priced hardware and software DRM solution to operate legally... That, and I've already purchased better hardware than they sell...
When people ask why my apps run on Windows and Linux but not Mac I always reply: Because Apple's DRM makes it illegal to use OSX on my hardware, neither Linux or Windows does. Apple would rather lock things down than let me compile my code on my hardware with their OS.
Well then, you must certainly recognize that all the features that you mentioned about Silverlight were specifically designed so that it would be simpler to make Silverlight a back-end for a "pointy-clicky" front end language "studio" (IDE).
Come on... being familiar with other languages you must be able to see this -- right? I mean... "XAML, templates, styles, and data-bindings." All designed from the ground up to be easily representable in an IDE that already uses those concepts to perform refactoring....
The fact that MS Visual Studio only recently got a plug-in for Silverlight doesn't mean that they hadn't planned on adding it all along. It also doesn't mean that they didn't reuse some of their existing "language agnostic" IDE codebase to implement the features in Silverlight... Or, maybe I'm wrong, and you're right: Maybe the left hand of MS really doesn't ever know what the right hand is doing...
The fact that you said the language wasn't "pointy-clicky" then listed all the features that specifically enable it to be so was humorous to me. Honestly, I thought it was a clever bit of irony on your part... It seems I've overestimating your sense of humor.
Also note: I can create Silverlight applications, but I don't claim to be a Silverlight programmer... It just feels so far removed from programming -- more like web design ( sort of like (X)HTML + JavaScript -- except that both of those can be used completely independently of each other ).
Silverlight is not "pointy clicky development". It is a clean Reactive Programming model that [blah blah blah, heh, funny buzzword soup, LMAO]
I do not wish to offend, but you may not know much about Silverlight. Up until a couple of versions ago it did not even have a visual plugin for Visual Studio...
Oh, shiiii--! You weren't making a joke? That wasn't supposed to be funny?!
I'm sorry... it's just that I'm an ASM/C/C++/Java/Perl/Ruby/OCAML/Haskel/JavaScript programmer... and I've tried Silverlight...
Unless, of course, your guerillas also weigh 800 pounds. Sumo guerillas, anyone?
No no.. A guerrilla should never be weighed in pounds -- That's a currency unit you dolt. They can cost 800 pounds, but no gorilla or guerrilla is worth it's weight in pounds!
The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is that this saying depends on the current exchange rate for gorillas, eh? I can never figure out if that saying refers to an expensive, cheap, or reasonably priced ape. What's the going exchange rate for gorillas these days in Loonies?
No, its from a technical perspective.
From the linked/. article
Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java and why it was invented, and an explanation of terms such as bytecode, compiler, class library and machine-readable code. The tutorial was to prepare him for a claim construction conference in two weeks, where he'll have to sort out disputes between the two sides about how language in Oracle's Java patents should be interpreted. At one point an attorney for Google, Scott Weingaertner, described how a typical computer is made up of applications, an OS and the hardware underneath. 'I understand that much,' Alsup said, asking him to move on. But he had to ask several questions to grasp some aspects of Java, including the concept of Java class libraries. 'Coming into today's hearing, I couldn't understand what was meant by a class,' he admitted."
Not only is it a good idea in general to know what you're talking about, I posit that it should be made illegal to preside over a case unless you understand the basics of what is disputed... As in cases such as this, a brief crash course can be given. A simple quiz about the subject could be given to judges and jurors alike to deem if they are fit to pass judgment.
Additionally, I think the patent system should also apply this methodology to their examiners. Clearly, the examiner that allowed the "swinging on swing sideways" patent application to be granted in 2002 was not properly educated about the common use of swings in general... A bit of education in this respect could have saved lots of tax payer dollars spent on the re-examination and subsequent invalidation of the bogus "business method" patent.
If you accidentally stumble across child pornography, do not report it to the authorities. You can be and likely will be prosecuted if you do so.
Possession is considered a serious crime, and criminal intent is not considered relevant.
If you stumble across child pornography, immediately clear out your browser history, do whatever you can to clean up your hard drive - and hope to ghod that the site wasn't an FBI honey pot that just got your IP address.
There is no defense.
However, if you are malicious and have access to HTML display of a website (your own or via SQL-injection, etc.), please DO document the URL, and use the following HTML in all of the pages you can post to in order to ensure that unsuspecting web visitors download the child porn without even being alerted to its presence:
Thus allowing you to, if prosecuted, claim that the download happened without your control -- Point to the thousands of others that have downloaded the image without realizing it, and claim you are one of them.
You see: There is no way to even know that you accidentally downloaded child porn just by looking at the web site. You must check your web browser's image cache...
Note: If a browser disallows negative positioning, simply work around it by changing the above "img" to a "script" tag -- the file will still be downloaded. ; - P
You could already be in possession of child porn without ever actually seeing it... and, yes there is no defense...
Indeed, i dont give a fuck about arm. i have endless supply of software, games and other shit i may need to run on a tablet. until tablets can provide backwards compatibility to provide for that, gtfo. im not paying $400 for something that only presents a 10 inch screen to watch videos on youtube and make facebook updates or use half assed simple widgets. my phone can do these.
Let me introduce you to a *new* cross platform programming language that compiles down to binary for all current platforms...
Introducing: C
That's right folks -- Application logic can now be written in a machine independent language without using a virtual machine!
You see -- All of the software I need to run is open source, thus it runs on any architecture. I don't give a fuck about closed source apps. If I relied on a significant "supply of software, games and other shit" that was closed source, I would either be relying on the hardware it was compiled for to always exist, or for all future hardware to support the current lame (by future standards) binary interface, and for the company that produces the software to remain in business for my life-time.
Hint: Your current x86 apps will have to be re-complied to run on whatever x86 tablet architecture AMD goes with unless you install the same os you use on your desktop on the tablet... that's a whole other ball of lock-in wax...
This is the REAL win FOSS has over closed source: I could give a fuck less about "sharing" and "community", I want to upgrade when I fucking want to, and I want to be capable of running my current applications on new / different hardware than what I've got right now.
I don't give a shit about BACKWARDS compatibility... Until closed source code can provide native FORWARDS compatibility to all future uninvented CPU hardware without running in an interpretor (slow ass software VM or CPU level microcode bullshit), GTFO. I'm not paying even $1 for something that has an artificially limited life expectancy just for the sake of obfuscating how it works... (All of the closed source DRM is hacked shortly after release -- security via obscurity, 'nuff said)
The software I need runs on any architecture I will ever purchase -- If this is ever not the case, I'll learn the new hardware and write the bloody C compiler myself.
I wonder how many non geek Mac owner actually no the code name for their OS?
My girlfriend does! She uses a Mac, and whenever she tries to use some of my simple terminal apps, after a few minutes the inadequate OSX terminal starts spewing garbage characters she "no"s the hell out of her OS's code name: "no..No... NO NO NO, GAWD DAMN Snow Leopard!" can be heard all through the house...
The problem is due to the MACs shitty support of UTF-8. We've spent hours and days configuring OSX terminal to handle UTF-8, and according to the "Geniuses" at the Apple store, it should "just work" -- But it doesn't. I've even ran her connection through a proxy to check the data for bugs, but there are none, it's perfectly valid UTF-8 and displays just fine on Linux and my Windows terminal emulator...
She's really not a geek -- the terminal apps use ncurses to provide a simple GUI (w/ mouse support), she clicks the icon to launch the remote terminal session, enters her password and sometimes it works, other times, she "no"s her OS's code name...
Yes... software itself is just a document. You need a machine to actually violate the patent. That's why MS is going after B&N, not Google. Well, that, and Google's cash reserves, I rekon.
Yes, but as a document, in a machine, powered down, software is just sitting there -- it is not the method and apparatus combined any more than a briefcase is an apparatus for the paper printout.
Look... A PDF of the Android source code sitting in my NAS (which has a CPU, and is a machine) does not infringe the patent. Turning off the NAS doesn't make the PDF bits go away.... Storing the binary executables on my NAS isn't an infringement since it doesn't execute the code... If I change the firmware of the NAS to enable it to execute the Android binary files that are stored on it, but leave it powered off -- I'm not infringing any patents... No "use" has occurred of any patented software at this point. At this point I can sell my NAS, and I haven't infringed any software patents. I've just put bits in digital storage, in a machine. The person I sold the "Android NAS" to, can wipe the disks, put BSD on it, or fill it with porn -- so long as they don't turn it on and execute the Android binary no one COULD have violated a patent.
However, if the person I sold the NAS to turns on the machine and runs the Android binaries, then they MIGHT have infringed any patents that could be infringed -- But only if the machine processes the section of code that the patent covers.
A tablet and/or smart phone is just a general purpose machine that has some bits inside it. You have to turn it on, AND execute the section of machine code that the patent claim covers in order to violate said patent.
The general purpose computer mfgr, doesn't infringe any software patents. The software writer or bit storage system can't infringe any patents because the data is just data -- no machine.
Device manufacturers don't sell the device turned on... Since, it's not running at the point of sale, from the mfgr, the smart phone / tablet is just a bit storage device like a USB flash memory drive. It's not infringing to store the PDF, printout, or binary data and transmit it via network or flash drive or hard disk drive, or briefcase.
Device retailer outlets sometimes turn the machines on, but they don't have to -- They can install a SIM card and hand you the device --- YOU, the END USER, are the real infringer of any patents. Only the end user "creates" the "machine" that could infringe a patent, by using the "method and apparatus" together.
Thus, it makes no sense to sue chip / hardware mfgrs for source code infringement because any OS could run on that hardware, not just the "infringing" OS. It makes no sense to sue software developers since they just produce the documents in various flavors that may or may not describe a system similar to a patent claim. It makes no sense to sue the distributors since they simply put the files in a storage medium, and sell you the digital briefcase. It ONLY makes sense to sue the end users for software patent infringement.
If suing the device manufacturers is a good idea, then MS should sue Toshiba for selling me a Windows 7 laptop that I wiped clean and installed Linux on... But, that's retarded. Toshiba didn't put Linux on the machine, I did. If suing retailers is a good idea, then MS should sue John's Electronics -- I installed Linux on a hard drive, then returned it for a larger drive the next day -- they resell returned items at a discount (and charge a restocking fee). Ergo, they have sold a machine (hard drive) with Linux on it.... But that's retarded, storage can't infringe a software patent.
The only thing that makes sense is for MS to sue ME! I'm the one USING the alleged infringing "method and apparatus" Good luck with that -- MS Knows they can't do that, it would stain their reputation too badly.
It would be pretty simple for everyone to avoid the whole p
For some time around here, Slashdot user's general attitude seems to be that it's OK to violate patents. I guess that stems from the FOSS mentality, but just because you're willing to give your work away, doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to do the same. You have to allow that other people value their time and work in different ways than you value yourrs. And, just because you think it's not immoral to violate patents, doesn't mean it's immoral to enforce them.
[...]
The problem is that companies keep prompting them to litigate because companies keep infringing on their patents. If patent holders should not take legal recourse to stop such incidents, then exactly what IS the purpose of a patent, anyways?
Hey, I've got a few questions about when a patent CAN be violated.
0. Is it a violation to publish the body of a patent claim publicly?
1. If not, then is it a violation of a patent to translate it to another language, say French?
2. If not, is it a violation of a patent to print it out of my computer's printer, using postscript?
3. If not, Can I put that print-out in a folder and carry it around? Can I sell a briefcase with the paper inside?
4. Is it an infringement to store and transfer the patent claim in a binary form, say PDF? (it's postscript -- the same format that was in transit to my printer)
5. Is it an infringement of a software patent to describe the claim with a different mathematical notation, publicly?
6. Is it an infringement to store that mathematic representation in a PDF binary, on a public website?
7. Is it an infringement to translate the public patent claim into JavaScript or C in my head? By hand, w/ pen on paper? On a typewriter? In a digital word processor, in a Hex editor?
8. Is it an infringement to translate the public patent claim by hand, into assembly language in any of those mediums?
9. Is it an infringement to translate the public patent claim by hand, into machine code in any of those mediums?
10. If it's not an infringement to use computer software or a printer to translate the claim into a PDF/post script, for output in a different medium, like say paper? Can I not also use a computer to output the hex machine code as a binary file?
11. If that's not infringing, can I not also simply use a macro to perform some of the claim to math to C to machine code translations?
12. Can I not simply use many macros to translate all of the math into a PDF or binary machine code representation?
So... Here's some open source software -- It's basically just restating your patent claims, but in a better, more specific and strictly structured form... Here, I've also translated it into a few languages so your patent is now understandable in German, Japanese, French, and x86 CPU.
I'm having a hard time finding where any open source distribution or binary executable distribution CAN be infringing your patent if printing the patent claim itself from the USPTO website is not infringing the patent...
Interestingly enough, software patents claim a Method, and Apparatus for performing the said method -- Without the Apparatus -- with just the source code -- the patent CAN NOT be infringed... Claim == Math == Source Code == Binary. All just language translations that describe your patent claim to different entities: Mathematicians, Programmers, Computers (or machine level programmers -- like me, I write compilers).
You actually have to run the binary in order to "create" the "machine" that applies the Method to the Apparatus.
Ergo, FOSS code is untouchable. It's just a restatement of a patent claim. Device manufacturers get sued because they place the binary patent claim in a machine, and sell that -- But isn't that the same as me selling a briefcase with the patent printout inside? The only ones that are infringing the patents are the actual end users, and yet they NEVER get sued by MS.... that would look bad, very bad.... Current Software patent enforcement polices are BOGUS.
Only after I hit submit did I look at a QWERTY keyboard, and realize that I meant ESDF, not EASD... However, it should have been apparent to me since I was repeating the ASD part of WASD...
Meh, point still stands: WASD is dumb for no good reason.... EG: With ESDF, you can keep your eyes on the screen and quickly find your finger position -- the F has a nub... To do this with WASD you find the F -- then move left one for no apparent reason.
Without tradition, developers probably would use a solution base on the nowadays more common WASD.
As long a I'm allowed to re-bind the keys as I please, I see no problem, that's the problem with some rogue-likes and most console games -- I want to re-map my buttons the way I like, yet few allow complete custom control schemes.
To prove my point -- Let's say you dedicate the "popular" WASD to movement.... I use Dvorak you insensitive clod!
Point being: I can't play most games that have such dedicated controls -- rogue-likes are sometimes an exception because the key letter actually means something......... In English. I feel sorry for players without USA Keyboard layouts.
Now, to further point out how rediculous WASD is: Why not just use EASD and leave the player's hands positioned on home-row?! That way, when I hit the "chat" or "console" mode, I don't have to reposition my fingers to chat, then back to play -- fingers stay where they belong -- ready to type. Not to mention that with EASD the "pinky" finger gets two extra keys to use (QZ, in addition to tab, caps, shift & ctrl)
"Although [we have an incomplete brain model description]."
I think the same thing could be achieved with just an RC filter. If I'm following this correctly, the difference here is a "demonstrated variation in synaptic strength, a key neural mechanism associated with memory and learning." Things will really start to get interesting when something like this circuit can be made that is also capable of amplification. That would be a complete artificial neuron.
Perhaps, but the model would still be wrong -- They're still fundamentally doing it wrong.
Brain waves form magnetic eddy currents which induce currents in near-by neurons that are NOT EVEN CONNECTED to each other.
This is where almost all AI research gets the brain wrong... The neuron connections are only part of the brain -- Actual thought is carried along the connections as well as in neurons that are physically close to each other (and to a lesser degree the neurons they are attached to).
So, is this the reason why the Slashdot a banner ad: "Steven Feuerstein: Java Developers Should Know PL/SQL." is stretched to be the nearly size of a full screen, and disproportionately too? <checks source> Nope...
Hey slashdot devs, Here's an ad for ya: "VortexCortex: Web Developers Should Know CSS/Algebra!"
Not once have I disabled ads, satisfied to give Slashdot whatever meager income the ads provide, but this has forced my hand...
Someone else publish more papers than [these two researchers] saying that [video games don't cause violence].
The additional quantity will disprove them.
No, no... There's a much better solution: Bring back the Colosseum. Make a spectacle of violence, nay, revel in it. Let the lions eat the criminals. Let the gladiators slay men and beasts... Who would want to play a silly violent video game when you can see / hear / smell / taste / participate in the real thing?
Face it, we're animals. Some of us have more animosity than others. Ever since the first human fell down and the others laughed we've been entertained by violence. Today, we consume our violent entertainment safely from the comfort of our sofas and desks in the form of movies, books, video games, eBullying... There's no need to trip or pull the chair out from under your friends for laughs (risking minor injuries) when you can virtually murder them in a game, or watch hundreds of unfortunates injure themselves on Youtube (or a Funniest Video show -- yes, that's right: By and large society says, "It's funny when people get mildly injured").
Would the censors rather us return to actually watching real murders for fun? Is liking violence perverse? Not if the majority of people enjoy it in some form or another -- Perverts are outliers, ergo, it's the prude pro censorship dolts that are perverse.
As to the topic of whether or not video games make children more violent -- No. Absolutely not. My nephew spends all his free time playing video-games -- He's living a far less violent life than those I know who grew up without them: Running loose outdoors, torturing of defenseless critters on occasion, and having the odd fist fight for no good reason.
Perhaps I've just led a less sheltered life than some -- I consider myself a good person, but I can tell you from experience: In a pinch, exhibiting violent behavior can be a real life saving trait.
TL;DR: We are animals; Are life forms that kill, such as lions, "violent"? Are snakes? Frogs? Fish?...mosquitoes? Amoeba? Venus fly traps? Mosses? Even trees rob life giving light from other plants -- Violence is part of life. Deal with it.
The following should cause most security researchers to raise a skeptical eyebrow:
"Network Security Auditing is touted as the complete guide to auditing security, measuring risk, and promoting compliance. The book lives up to its promise and is a comprehensive reference to all things network security audit related."
Emphasis mine.
Seriously folks, nearly all security researchers know that even if a "complete guide" to security were written, it would almost immediately need to be amended. Security is a moving target, new topics of interest and new exploits are discovered nearly every day; Thus, as soon as this book was written another "security audit related" topic most likely needed to be added to the reference in order for it to "live up to its promise" of being a "comprehensive reference to all things network security audit related."
By which I mean: It most likely has never lived up to the promise the review alludes to.
Additionally, most experienced security researchers learn early on that there are exceptions to almost every rule, and to be very careful when speaking of absolutes in order to avoid making false statements especially concerning edge cases. Re-read what I've written for a demonstration. Statements that are worded in such absolute terms should be a red flag, tipping off security minded individuals that the statements are most likely false if not in a few instances, then in many of them...
--
Not even a 999 nonnillion bit encryption key is absolutely secure -- there's still a slim chance the attacker will guess correctly...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no Sony apologist, I've boycotted them for over a decade; However: Microsoft could have the same sort of breach tomorrow.
Now I'm an XBox live user, I've used the service for years, and have purchased a large collection of indie games from the arcade (All of which I can re-download at no extra charge, btw).
If MS had this level of security breach tomorrow, why THERE'S NO F'ING WAY HACKERS COULD GET MY CREDIT CARD NUMBER. It's not that MS has such awesome security, it's that I do, and MS gave me the tools I need to have that security.
I purchase MS points with cold hard cash, and use them to purchase games; I use the XBL prepaid codes to get XBL access... On the original XBox live network, you had to give them your credit card number to play online -- Guess what? I didn't use that service. I used Hamachi, VPNs and XBox Connect to play "system link" games over the Internet, instead.
You see -- There are much safer ways to transfer money to an online service. If I really must purchase items online I use a reloadable gift/debit card. I keep a couple hundred dollars on the card, and it can be used anywhere a debit / credit card can be used. If an attacker steals my card number, I just empty the card -- If I don't know that my card is stolen, the thief doesn't get access to may actual bank account / credit card.
In fact: I don't even let my real credit cards leave my sight at a restaurant. Fuck that, I barely trust the waiter/waitress to not spit in my food, I'm not giving them my credit card! You must be insane! I use cash or my gift/debit card instead... In fact: my pre-paid debit card actually gives me "points" for free gasoline, like some credit cards do.
Time to face the facts: You need to further segregate access to your financial holdings in order to better limit the risk associated with a more unified, insecure approach.
TL;DR: chmod 740 your-money.now
Being able to compile Windows applications under Linux can make that a lot easier, whereas the fact that Mac applications can only be compiled on Macs is a huge pain...
You are clearly open to tools like Wine. Can't you use a tool like GnuStep to cross-compile to OSX from Linux? It sounds like a huge pain in the ass vs. just having an old headless Mac to run a compiler on, but you could put it together if you wanted to stay purely open source.
Yes, I've got cross compilers -- The problem is testing. I can re-boot nearly all of my x86 and x64 machines into various flavors of either Linux or Windows, or fire up a different OS in a VM to do a quick test or compile. I don't care about having to purchase additional OS licenses to do debugging / testing with! The problem is that IT'S ILLEGAL for me to run Apple's OSX on my hardware.
Therefore, the actual tests in a real working system that I consider essential to the release process, are impossible unless I purchase some inferior Apple hardware. Sorry -- I always tell people that if they want my code to run on Apple's OSX, then feel free to compile it (and resolve the implementation differences) yourself -- No one has done so yet, thus OSX is not an important target, or else my apps are not important for OSX users (why waste the time on a OS port if it's not important?).
I can legally / easily test my Windows vs Linux branches & compare differences on the same hardware, and on a variety of different hardware (this is important esp. with floating point inconsistencies I've uncovered), the same can not be said of OSX (if I only had more expensive Apple machines my code would still have those FPU errors in it). Thus, I produce win and lin and bsd binaries -- If Apple had less OS DRM, I would produce binaries for their OS too.
Note: By implementation differences, I mean things like file opening / locking issues, named pipes & networking issues, and window management -- totally different batches of code in the wrappers for lin vs win, and sometimes bsd vs lin... Without a full OS to test in, there is no feasible work-flow for me. Also note: I've tried Qt and other cross platform frameworks (Java, gtk) -- Same issues, unpredictable applications (added foreign code & complexity == increased surface for bugs to appear), and testing is still a must. "Write Once - Debug Everywhere" (I can't debug my code on a platform == I don't release code for that platform; Thus I do have AMD, Intel and ARM build/test machines). I see no reason to spend more money to get less power, perhaps someday someone will donate a decent Mac, until then, tough luck: Apple seems hostile to devs like me).
what's the point of even going to university if the end result is discovering that your idea has already been patented ages ago.
Well, if your goal is to create innovative new work, I imagine the point of going to university is learning what has been done before.
On the other hand, if you enroll in an undergraduate program with an amazing, brilliant idea in your head, only to discover that it had already been patented ages ago, maybe it's a wake-up call that you aren't the most brilliant person ever born, after all, and that you still have some studying to do.
On the other hand, If your goal is to create your own software using your own ideas while ignoring the whole field of CS research, prior art and patents as their information is not accessible to you, and it matters not if wheels get re-invented because you are inventing them to learn how they work: The patent system can and will prevent you from profiting from your original works.
I was exposed to computers at a young age (7?) I taught myself BASIC on the Apple IIe, and on an IBM 386. Learning things by doing, I had needed more functionality and therefore learned Assembly and C by the age of 12. To solve a problem I would just think, how would I ___ in C? Then write an outline, and code it... I had no access to any other source code, or even higher mathematics.
EG: In Junior high -- age 13, having been taught about algebra and line slopes ratios I was able to render lines. For a vector graphics space battle game, I actually "invented" the unit circle, and sin/cos tables (I called them angle tables) by realizing line slopes could be used to roughly determine the degree of angle between two lines. I built a table of all 5.625 degree increments to line slopes, and interpolated between the line slopes to derive my "decentAngle()" function. Three years later the American public school system introduced me to trigonometry, and I told the teacher, "Gee, that Pythagoras guy wasn't that much of a genius, anyone can figure this out..." while showing her my sin() approximation functions and distance theorem... Oh, so that's called a "hypotenuse"?
Yes, the C library had a sin() function, but I didn't know what to use it for -- The compiler manual didn't teach trig...
As a teenager I built my first interpretor and virtual machine, without ever hearing those terms (I needed command language for my Doom .WAD (map) editor to build stairs, align textures across "curved" walls, etc.)
I had an expensive Borland C compiler, it's manual, a book on QBasic, and a book on x86/x87 Assembly. Understanding that a C compiler must somehow generate assembly like language in order to make .COMs & .EXEs, I wrote my first compiler by reverse engineering complied assembly instructions -- A "command to machine code table" was used to directly piece together an executable... it was ugly, but it worked, and I know better now (thanks to the existence of the Internet).
At age 16 I realized I could make money selling my programs. I distributed my software as share-ware and trial-ware for free on BSS systems -- after a the trial period a pass-code was needed to unlock the program. It was easily bypassed by re-installing or setting back the system clock, but was just enough of a deterrent that people would pay to get an unlock code. Hey, I would have released it as source code, but I needed $$$; Dating girls, driving cars and buying new compilers for MS OSs isn't cheap (besides, few others would likely compile the source, and if people asked I would show them how I achieved things).
Almost exactly 2 years after I started selling MY software I received my first cease and desist notice. I didn't have the money to dispute the claim in court (and neither did my family), so I stopped distributing the application. My simple CAD program was apparently infringing
I never got the allure of open hardware. Pretty much all the benefits from open source is that you can change it easily, ...
I'm sure RMS will buy one, but I can almost guarantee that I will not. But if there are enough people like RMS out there, feel free.
Purchase Windows 9! The most secure OS line just got even more secure! W9 now implements both Intel CodeCrypt and AMD Secure Ops, giving you security from the application level all the way to the encrypted processor instructions!
Currently, I can open up "closed source" binaries in a hex editor and see EXACTLY what it's telling my hardware to do. This may not be possible in the near future with chips that support public key encryption at the instruction level.
Once this is possible, it's a simple matter to require licenses for any and all software development -- Its not too far fetched to imagine a law being passed that requires all software that uses the Internet or other Government controlled root-authority signed communication mediums to be licensed and encrypted / signed / tracked / etc. "Think of the children!" no? ok, then: "Only terrorists don't want security!"
You may call folk like me paranoid and over-zealous, but it's people like me that actually get stirred up and help protect the rights of the more apathetic and/or ignorant. Don't you agree that most people don't communicate with / participate in their government enough? Who do you think picks up a bit of the slack? The over-zealous help combat the over apathetic...
I assure you that projects like these do need to exist -- In the future, they may be the only thing that enables people like me to keep doing what we do, even if our right to do so has been eroded out from under us...
This is stupid.
Troll much?
This is Stallmanism as its worst--"freedom" for freedom's sake without regard to functionality or practicality
All I will say about this is it is rather shocking to hear this statement being cast in a negative light.
I couldn't agree more. Additionally, Chip makers like Intel adding encryption capabilities to to their chips is offensive at best. Everyone knows that if an attacker has physical access, all bets are off -- even with encrypted chips... The only thing this does is prevent the end users from being able to tell what their CPU is doing.
In no other industry do people purchase items that they can not be sure of their contents and function: Food has ingredient lists, cars have opening hoods, clothing lists fabric types, etc. Currently even closed source software plainly lists its machine instructions. This may not always be the case once CPUs have public key cryptography embedded....
I think we need projects like these now more than ever, you can invoke "freedom" and "RMS" to imply over zealous freedom advocacy, yet I can point to current customer privacy concerns, government corruption, and major corporations with bad business practices such as "cutting off a competitor's air supply", "overselling services", and generally abusive behavior towards their own customers (lawsuits, etc).
Clearly some people do value their freedoms more than other's.
Pretty sure Linux runs on a CPU, rather than the other way around.
Unless the CPU is emulated. Then it might run on Linux.
Come on, you can get much better than those specs for $300 bucks or less in a FULL notebook PC. Sans monitor and other peripherals, you can get an even faster consumer grade computer.
You probably already have one at home...
Bring notebook to work. Clone MAC address of shite PC, plug in Ethernet / keyboard / mouse / monitor to notebook -- Tada" Faster workstation" on the cheap.
Security preventing your new hardware from accessing the system? Bring a USB or CD with Linux and image your workstation hard drive -- run your workstation OS in your notebook via Virtual machine software -- I've done this before, however, you'll also want to put in a resume at another company...
Think about it: If they can't afford a one time $300 CPU purchase, how much do you cost them monthly? If they can afford the hardware, but can't cut the red tape to get you decent hardware, or if management is so inept they hire workers they can't utilize, or expect results from workers that are so ill-equipped they can't do their jobs: Just imagine what the rest of your time there will be like................... see? Now, update that resume.
Consent is implied by each individual user's web browser. Cookie Censorship need not apply, we already have the tools to manage our own cookie states (visitor discretion is not just advised, it's mandatory).
Much like the way no one can force you to visit their website, websites can not force your browser to accept a cookie -- And, last time I checked both IE & Firefox by default alerted me that a website was requesting to set a cookie, and the default action was to "[x] remember my decision" -- I opted to not have to answer yes each time, and instead opted to set my cookies to be cleared on each exit...
I am in no way prevented from disallowing all cookies... I remember writing web login systems before cookies were widespread -- URL MUNGING -- UHG! Hell, we even used the HTTP-REFERER (sic) header to transfer logins across domains (it contains your last visited URL -- the one before the current page request).
While I do like to know what the little opaque tokens are being used for, there is no reason to mandate their purposes be posted somewhere. Cookies are DESIGNED to track some user specific state information. Cookies track users. End Of Discussion. We know what they are for! Guess what else tracks users? Their IP ADDRESS; This, combined with URL munging == cookies. Netscape just wanted a formalized and more flexible way to do things...
I can imagine requiring a user to click yet another security dialog each time I add a bit of info or change the way a cookie operates -- To get around this one or both of the following WILL occur:
1. URL Munging, CSS style color hacks, and other tricks (like decoding a cached .PNG with client side JS) will be used instead of cookies for more user state preservation purposes.
2. The users will be given a "[x] Remember my decision" option, and we're right back to where we are now!
Ignorant fools -- When will we mandate that you must pass a technology test before voting for or against said technology related laws? EG: Score a 100% on the "Web Cookie" tech test, and you're fully qualified to vote -- score a 25% and your vote would be worth 25% of a vote since you don't know shit about what you're voting for or against....
Until then we'll keep having people who don't know shit pass ignorant laws based on "feelings" instead of "facts".
When I looked at the price line-item for her DSL service I was ASTOUNDED!
The bill said: "Canceled as of [mid March] -- Fee: $10.23 (prorated)"
I looked at my laptop -- refreshed the Firefox page, then said, "Mom, did you finally switch to Verizon?" "No," she said, "We're waiting for your little brother's phone contract to expire first" I scratched my head, "You didn't cancel your Internet service?"
In fact, it was just a "billing error" When I called the AT&T support to get make sure it got fixed, and not cut off the sales rep told me: "We've had our technicians in your area installing the new U-Verse system. It shows here that one of them got your line crossed with a faster U-Verse line, that's why there was a billing issue."
I called bullshit: "Woah, U-Verse is a Cable modem, We're using DSL, so that scenario COULDN'T happen, besides there has been no service interruption -- The DSL is just fine... I don't appreciate being lied to. How would crossed wires cause a Billing Issue anyway?"
They'll tell you anything to get you off the phone -- I guess those calls really aren't recorded for quality assurance purposes: I told the twerp's manager to review the tape, and she said she was unable to...
you have to (AFAIK) buy a Mac to develop for it
As I understand it, you have to buy a PC with Windows to develop for Windows Phone 7. Or you have to buy a retail copy of Windows to run in dual-boot or virtualization, which is as expensive as just buying an entry-level PC due to deep OEM discounts. (Once in Best Buy, I've seen a retail copy of Windows Home Premium for $200 and an ION nettop PC with included Windows Home Premium for $200.)
The problem for me is that I have hardware that is faster than anything that Apple sells right now, and I purchased it for less than 2/3rds the price of Apple's most comparable systems... I saw that I can purchase the Mac Box Set with Snow Leopard for $169.00, but IT REFUSES TO RUN ON MY HARDWARE.
That, my friend, is why I don't develop for iOS or other Apple OSs.
You may attempt a rebuttal claiming that Apple doesn't want to support any unsanctioned hardware, and go on about "complete experience", but I'll shoot you down immediately because I install ALL of my O.S.s in a virtual machine -- there is no "hardware differences" that Apple's software would have to support except the lack of a hardware DRM system that Apple uses to prevent me from installing their inferior OS on my superior hardware. Besides, OSX runs on the same Intel brand CPU that I purchased... and, in fact, I have an illegal VM image (Hackintosh) that runs just fine, so OSX Can and Does run under this environment -- But I refuse to use it to develop software since it's illegal.
The problem isn't that I can't afford to purchase Apple hardware, it's that I have to have a special build environment just for their over priced hardware and software DRM solution to operate legally... That, and I've already purchased better hardware than they sell...
When people ask why my apps run on Windows and Linux but not Mac I always reply: Because Apple's DRM makes it illegal to use OSX on my hardware, neither Linux or Windows does. Apple would rather lock things down than let me compile my code on my hardware with their OS.
Well then, you must certainly recognize that all the features that you mentioned about Silverlight were specifically designed so that it would be simpler to make Silverlight a back-end for a "pointy-clicky" front end language "studio" (IDE).
Come on... being familiar with other languages you must be able to see this -- right? I mean... "XAML, templates, styles, and data-bindings." All designed from the ground up to be easily representable in an IDE that already uses those concepts to perform refactoring....
The fact that MS Visual Studio only recently got a plug-in for Silverlight doesn't mean that they hadn't planned on adding it all along. It also doesn't mean that they didn't reuse some of their existing "language agnostic" IDE codebase to implement the features in Silverlight... Or, maybe I'm wrong, and you're right: Maybe the left hand of MS really doesn't ever know what the right hand is doing...
The fact that you said the language wasn't "pointy-clicky" then listed all the features that specifically enable it to be so was humorous to me. Honestly, I thought it was a clever bit of irony on your part... It seems I've overestimating your sense of humor.
Also note: I can create Silverlight applications, but I don't claim to be a Silverlight programmer... It just feels so far removed from programming -- more like web design ( sort of like (X)HTML + JavaScript -- except that both of those can be used completely independently of each other ).
Silverlight is not "pointy clicky development". It is a clean Reactive Programming model that [blah blah blah, heh, funny buzzword soup, LMAO]
I do not wish to offend, but you may not know much about Silverlight. Up until a couple of versions ago it did not even have a visual plugin for Visual Studio...
Oh, shiiii--! You weren't making a joke? That wasn't supposed to be funny?!
I'm sorry... it's just that I'm an ASM/C/C++/Java/Perl/Ruby/OCAML/Haskel/JavaScript programmer... and I've tried Silverlight...
Unless, of course, your guerillas also weigh 800 pounds. Sumo guerillas, anyone?
No no.. A guerrilla should never be weighed in pounds -- That's a currency unit you dolt. They can cost 800 pounds, but no gorilla or guerrilla is worth it's weight in pounds!
The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is that this saying depends on the current exchange rate for gorillas, eh? I can never figure out if that saying refers to an expensive, cheap, or reasonably priced ape. What's the going exchange rate for gorillas these days in Loonies?
No, its from a technical perspective. From the linked /. article
Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java and why it was invented, and an explanation of terms such as bytecode, compiler, class library and machine-readable code. The tutorial was to prepare him for a claim construction conference in two weeks, where he'll have to sort out disputes between the two sides about how language in Oracle's Java patents should be interpreted. At one point an attorney for Google, Scott Weingaertner, described how a typical computer is made up of applications, an OS and the hardware underneath. 'I understand that much,' Alsup said, asking him to move on. But he had to ask several questions to grasp some aspects of Java, including the concept of Java class libraries. 'Coming into today's hearing, I couldn't understand what was meant by a class,' he admitted."
Not only is it a good idea in general to know what you're talking about, I posit that it should be made illegal to preside over a case unless you understand the basics of what is disputed... As in cases such as this, a brief crash course can be given. A simple quiz about the subject could be given to judges and jurors alike to deem if they are fit to pass judgment.
Additionally, I think the patent system should also apply this methodology to their examiners. Clearly, the examiner that allowed the "swinging on swing sideways" patent application to be granted in 2002 was not properly educated about the common use of swings in general... A bit of education in this respect could have saved lots of tax payer dollars spent on the re-examination and subsequent invalidation of the bogus "business method" patent.
If you accidentally stumble across child pornography, do not report it to the authorities. You can be and likely will be prosecuted if you do so.
Possession is considered a serious crime, and criminal intent is not considered relevant.
If you stumble across child pornography, immediately clear out your browser history, do whatever you can to clean up your hard drive - and hope to ghod that the site wasn't an FBI honey pot that just got your IP address.
There is no defense.
However, if you are malicious and have access to HTML display of a website (your own or via SQL-injection, etc.), please DO document the URL, and use the following HTML in all of the pages you can post to in order to ensure that unsuspecting web visitors download the child porn without even being alerted to its presence:
<img style="position:absolute;top:-99999px;left:-99999px" src="URL_goes_here" />
Thus allowing you to, if prosecuted, claim that the download happened without your control -- Point to the thousands of others that have downloaded the image without realizing it, and claim you are one of them.
You see: There is no way to even know that you accidentally downloaded child porn just by looking at the web site. You must check your web browser's image cache...
Note: If a browser disallows negative positioning, simply work around it by changing the above "img" to a "script" tag -- the file will still be downloaded. ; - P
You could already be in possession of child porn without ever actually seeing it... and, yes there is no defense...
Indeed, i dont give a fuck about arm. i have endless supply of software, games and other shit i may need to run on a tablet. until tablets can provide backwards compatibility to provide for that, gtfo. im not paying $400 for something that only presents a 10 inch screen to watch videos on youtube and make facebook updates or use half assed simple widgets. my phone can do these.
Let me introduce you to a *new* cross platform programming language that compiles down to binary for all current platforms...
Introducing: C
That's right folks -- Application logic can now be written in a machine independent language without using a virtual machine!
You see -- All of the software I need to run is open source, thus it runs on any architecture. I don't give a fuck about closed source apps. If I relied on a significant "supply of software, games and other shit" that was closed source, I would either be relying on the hardware it was compiled for to always exist, or for all future hardware to support the current lame (by future standards) binary interface, and for the company that produces the software to remain in business for my life-time.
Hint: Your current x86 apps will have to be re-complied to run on whatever x86 tablet architecture AMD goes with unless you install the same os you use on your desktop on the tablet... that's a whole other ball of lock-in wax...
This is the REAL win FOSS has over closed source: I could give a fuck less about "sharing" and "community", I want to upgrade when I fucking want to, and I want to be capable of running my current applications on new / different hardware than what I've got right now.
I don't give a shit about BACKWARDS compatibility... Until closed source code can provide native FORWARDS compatibility to all future uninvented CPU hardware without running in an interpretor (slow ass software VM or CPU level microcode bullshit), GTFO. I'm not paying even $1 for something that has an artificially limited life expectancy just for the sake of obfuscating how it works... (All of the closed source DRM is hacked shortly after release -- security via obscurity, 'nuff said)
The software I need runs on any architecture I will ever purchase -- If this is ever not the case, I'll learn the new hardware and write the bloody C compiler myself.
I wonder how many non geek Mac owner actually no the code name for their OS?
My girlfriend does! She uses a Mac, and whenever she tries to use some of my simple terminal apps, after a few minutes the inadequate OSX terminal starts spewing garbage characters she "no"s the hell out of her OS's code name: "no..No... NO NO NO, GAWD DAMN Snow Leopard!" can be heard all through the house...
The problem is due to the MACs shitty support of UTF-8. We've spent hours and days configuring OSX terminal to handle UTF-8, and according to the "Geniuses" at the Apple store, it should "just work" -- But it doesn't. I've even ran her connection through a proxy to check the data for bugs, but there are none, it's perfectly valid UTF-8 and displays just fine on Linux and my Windows terminal emulator...
She's really not a geek -- the terminal apps use ncurses to provide a simple GUI (w/ mouse support), she clicks the icon to launch the remote terminal session, enters her password and sometimes it works, other times, she "no"s her OS's code name...
Yes... software itself is just a document. You need a machine to actually violate the patent. That's why MS is going after B&N, not Google. Well, that, and Google's cash reserves, I rekon.
Yes, but as a document, in a machine, powered down, software is just sitting there -- it is not the method and apparatus combined any more than a briefcase is an apparatus for the paper printout.
Look... A PDF of the Android source code sitting in my NAS (which has a CPU, and is a machine) does not infringe the patent. Turning off the NAS doesn't make the PDF bits go away.... Storing the binary executables on my NAS isn't an infringement since it doesn't execute the code... If I change the firmware of the NAS to enable it to execute the Android binary files that are stored on it, but leave it powered off -- I'm not infringing any patents... No "use" has occurred of any patented software at this point. At this point I can sell my NAS, and I haven't infringed any software patents. I've just put bits in digital storage, in a machine. The person I sold the "Android NAS" to, can wipe the disks, put BSD on it, or fill it with porn -- so long as they don't turn it on and execute the Android binary no one COULD have violated a patent.
However, if the person I sold the NAS to turns on the machine and runs the Android binaries, then they MIGHT have infringed any patents that could be infringed -- But only if the machine processes the section of code that the patent covers.
A tablet and/or smart phone is just a general purpose machine that has some bits inside it. You have to turn it on, AND execute the section of machine code that the patent claim covers in order to violate said patent.
The general purpose computer mfgr, doesn't infringe any software patents. The software writer or bit storage system can't infringe any patents because the data is just data -- no machine.
Device manufacturers don't sell the device turned on... Since, it's not running at the point of sale, from the mfgr, the smart phone / tablet is just a bit storage device like a USB flash memory drive. It's not infringing to store the PDF, printout, or binary data and transmit it via network or flash drive or hard disk drive, or briefcase.
Device retailer outlets sometimes turn the machines on, but they don't have to -- They can install a SIM card and hand you the device --- YOU, the END USER, are the real infringer of any patents. Only the end user "creates" the "machine" that could infringe a patent, by using the "method and apparatus" together.
Thus, it makes no sense to sue chip / hardware mfgrs for source code infringement because any OS could run on that hardware, not just the "infringing" OS. It makes no sense to sue software developers since they just produce the documents in various flavors that may or may not describe a system similar to a patent claim. It makes no sense to sue the distributors since they simply put the files in a storage medium, and sell you the digital briefcase. It ONLY makes sense to sue the end users for software patent infringement.
If suing the device manufacturers is a good idea, then MS should sue Toshiba for selling me a Windows 7 laptop that I wiped clean and installed Linux on... But, that's retarded. Toshiba didn't put Linux on the machine, I did. If suing retailers is a good idea, then MS should sue John's Electronics -- I installed Linux on a hard drive, then returned it for a larger drive the next day -- they resell returned items at a discount (and charge a restocking fee). Ergo, they have sold a machine (hard drive) with Linux on it.... But that's retarded, storage can't infringe a software patent.
The only thing that makes sense is for MS to sue ME! I'm the one USING the alleged infringing "method and apparatus" Good luck with that -- MS Knows they can't do that, it would stain their reputation too badly.
It would be pretty simple for everyone to avoid the whole p
For some time around here, Slashdot user's general attitude seems to be that it's OK to violate patents. I guess that stems from the FOSS mentality, but just because you're willing to give your work away, doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to do the same. You have to allow that other people value their time and work in different ways than you value yourrs. And, just because you think it's not immoral to violate patents, doesn't mean it's immoral to enforce them.
[...]
The problem is that companies keep prompting them to litigate because companies keep infringing on their patents. If patent holders should not take legal recourse to stop such incidents, then exactly what IS the purpose of a patent, anyways?
Hey, I've got a few questions about when a patent CAN be violated.
0. Is it a violation to publish the body of a patent claim publicly?
1. If not, then is it a violation of a patent to translate it to another language, say French?
2. If not, is it a violation of a patent to print it out of my computer's printer, using postscript?
3. If not, Can I put that print-out in a folder and carry it around? Can I sell a briefcase with the paper inside?
4. Is it an infringement to store and transfer the patent claim in a binary form, say PDF? (it's postscript -- the same format that was in transit to my printer)
5. Is it an infringement of a software patent to describe the claim with a different mathematical notation, publicly? 6. Is it an infringement to store that mathematic representation in a PDF binary, on a public website? 7. Is it an infringement to translate the public patent claim into JavaScript or C in my head? By hand, w/ pen on paper? On a typewriter? In a digital word processor, in a Hex editor?
8. Is it an infringement to translate the public patent claim by hand, into assembly language in any of those mediums?
9. Is it an infringement to translate the public patent claim by hand, into machine code in any of those mediums?
10. If it's not an infringement to use computer software or a printer to translate the claim into a PDF/post script, for output in a different medium, like say paper? Can I not also use a computer to output the hex machine code as a binary file?
11. If that's not infringing, can I not also simply use a macro to perform some of the claim to math to C to machine code translations?
12. Can I not simply use many macros to translate all of the math into a PDF or binary machine code representation?
So... Here's some open source software -- It's basically just restating your patent claims, but in a better, more specific and strictly structured form... Here, I've also translated it into a few languages so your patent is now understandable in German, Japanese, French, and x86 CPU.
I'm having a hard time finding where any open source distribution or binary executable distribution CAN be infringing your patent if printing the patent claim itself from the USPTO website is not infringing the patent...
Interestingly enough, software patents claim a Method, and Apparatus for performing the said method -- Without the Apparatus -- with just the source code -- the patent CAN NOT be infringed... Claim == Math == Source Code == Binary. All just language translations that describe your patent claim to different entities: Mathematicians, Programmers, Computers (or machine level programmers -- like me, I write compilers).
You actually have to run the binary in order to "create" the "machine" that applies the Method to the Apparatus.
Ergo, FOSS code is untouchable. It's just a restatement of a patent claim. Device manufacturers get sued because they place the binary patent claim in a machine, and sell that -- But isn't that the same as me selling a briefcase with the patent printout inside? The only ones that are infringing the patents are the actual end users, and yet they NEVER get sued by MS.... that would look bad, very bad.... Current Software patent enforcement polices are BOGUS.
Only after I hit submit did I look at a QWERTY keyboard, and realize that I meant ESDF, not EASD... However, it should have been apparent to me since I was repeating the ASD part of WASD...
Meh, point still stands: WASD is dumb for no good reason.... EG: With ESDF, you can keep your eyes on the screen and quickly find your finger position -- the F has a nub... To do this with WASD you find the F -- then move left one for no apparent reason.
Without tradition, developers probably would use a solution base on the nowadays more common WASD.
As long a I'm allowed to re-bind the keys as I please, I see no problem, that's the problem with some rogue-likes and most console games -- I want to re-map my buttons the way I like, yet few allow complete custom control schemes.
To prove my point -- Let's say you dedicate the "popular" WASD to movement.... I use Dvorak you insensitive clod!
Point being: I can't play most games that have such dedicated controls -- rogue-likes are sometimes an exception because the key letter actually means something......... In English. I feel sorry for players without USA Keyboard layouts.
Now, to further point out how rediculous WASD is: Why not just use EASD and leave the player's hands positioned on home-row?! That way, when I hit the "chat" or "console" mode, I don't have to reposition my fingers to chat, then back to play -- fingers stay where they belong -- ready to type. Not to mention that with EASD the "pinky" finger gets two extra keys to use (QZ, in addition to tab, caps, shift & ctrl)
WASD? Pffft, >OEU is where it's at, man.
"Although [we have an incomplete brain model description]."
I think the same thing could be achieved with just an RC filter. If I'm following this correctly, the difference here is a "demonstrated variation in synaptic strength, a key neural mechanism associated with memory and learning." Things will really start to get interesting when something like this circuit can be made that is also capable of amplification. That would be a complete artificial neuron.
Perhaps, but the model would still be wrong -- They're still fundamentally doing it wrong.
Brain waves form magnetic eddy currents which induce currents in near-by neurons that are NOT EVEN CONNECTED to each other.
This is where almost all AI research gets the brain wrong... The neuron connections are only part of the brain -- Actual thought is carried along the connections as well as in neurons that are physically close to each other (and to a lesser degree the neurons they are attached to).
There are so many papers on the therapeutic use of magnetic induction on the human brain, I see it as a failure that this subject is largely ignored by AI network design.
Hey slashdot devs, Here's an ad for ya: "VortexCortex: Web Developers Should Know CSS/Algebra!"
Not once have I disabled ads, satisfied to give Slashdot whatever meager income the ads provide, but this has forced my hand...
Someone else publish more papers than [these two researchers] saying that [video games don't cause violence].
The additional quantity will disprove them.
No, no... There's a much better solution: Bring back the Colosseum. Make a spectacle of violence, nay, revel in it. Let the lions eat the criminals. Let the gladiators slay men and beasts... Who would want to play a silly violent video game when you can see / hear / smell / taste / participate in the real thing?
Face it, we're animals. Some of us have more animosity than others. Ever since the first human fell down and the others laughed we've been entertained by violence. Today, we consume our violent entertainment safely from the comfort of our sofas and desks in the form of movies, books, video games, eBullying... There's no need to trip or pull the chair out from under your friends for laughs (risking minor injuries) when you can virtually murder them in a game, or watch hundreds of unfortunates injure themselves on Youtube (or a Funniest Video show -- yes, that's right: By and large society says, "It's funny when people get mildly injured").
Would the censors rather us return to actually watching real murders for fun? Is liking violence perverse? Not if the majority of people enjoy it in some form or another -- Perverts are outliers, ergo, it's the prude pro censorship dolts that are perverse.
As to the topic of whether or not video games make children more violent -- No. Absolutely not. My nephew spends all his free time playing video-games -- He's living a far less violent life than those I know who grew up without them: Running loose outdoors, torturing of defenseless critters on occasion, and having the odd fist fight for no good reason.
Perhaps I've just led a less sheltered life than some -- I consider myself a good person, but I can tell you from experience: In a pinch, exhibiting violent behavior can be a real life saving trait.
TL;DR: We are animals; Are life forms that kill, such as lions, "violent"? Are snakes? Frogs? Fish? ...mosquitoes? Amoeba? Venus fly traps? Mosses? Even trees rob life giving light from other plants -- Violence is part of life. Deal with it.
The following should cause most security researchers to raise a skeptical eyebrow:
"Network Security Auditing is touted as the complete guide to auditing security, measuring risk, and promoting compliance. The book lives up to its promise and is a comprehensive reference to all things network security audit related."
Emphasis mine.
Seriously folks, nearly all security researchers know that even if a "complete guide" to security were written, it would almost immediately need to be amended. Security is a moving target, new topics of interest and new exploits are discovered nearly every day; Thus, as soon as this book was written another "security audit related" topic most likely needed to be added to the reference in order for it to "live up to its promise" of being a "comprehensive reference to all things network security audit related."
By which I mean: It most likely has never lived up to the promise the review alludes to.
Additionally, most experienced security researchers learn early on that there are exceptions to almost every rule, and to be very careful when speaking of absolutes in order to avoid making false statements especially concerning edge cases. Re-read what I've written for a demonstration. Statements that are worded in such absolute terms should be a red flag, tipping off security minded individuals that the statements are most likely false if not in a few instances, then in many of them...
--
Not even a 999 nonnillion bit encryption key is absolutely secure -- there's still a slim chance the attacker will guess correctly...