All else aside, we cannot allow Carte-Blanche for the reason tucked neatly into this sentence:
but also investigations into other murders, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography.
No matter how much emphasis we place on extra serious crimes like actual terrorism, high-level drug trafficking, and running global networks for child porn, The actual and prevalent use of the technology will be trivial matters like traffic accidents, failing to pick up after your dog, minor curfew violations, etc.
One years protection is definitely an improvement, but its still philosophically antithetical to the reason for patents to exist in the first place. Copyright should be sufficient protection, to keep people from stealing your code, but Software Patents protect the very idea, regardless of the means used to obtain it, in a way that physical patents do not.
Patents are designed to spur innovation by getting companies to share their secrets, so that a valuable portfolio of useful arts and sciences is built in the public domain (paraphrased from the Constitution Article 1). In return for sharing their secrets, the company is granted a limited exclusivity on the patented machine for a limited period of time designed such that the invention is still valuable after the exclusivity expires. Thats our first problem: Most software inventions are only good for about 5 years, which is less than copyright term. In that regard your proposal is spot on.
The bigger problem is however, that a patent on a machine makes only reasonably abstract claims, and the construction of the device must be reasonably concrete, meaning that substantially changing the design of the machine produces a new non-infringing product, even if the two devices perform the same task. Software patents however, are very very abstract, such that any means anyone could ever develop to perform a task that someone has patented an approach to, despite using a dramatically different approach, or developed without knowledge of the existing patent, is supposedly infringing. This is starkly different from Copyright, in that you generally have to know you are making an action that might infringe a copyright, by consuming an existing artefact.
Lastly, because Software Patents are so abstract (as opposed to patents on a physical machine or pharmaceutical) that when the exclusivity period is over, the secrets the inventor shared with the government are useless for further innovation in the public domain. This undercuts the entire purpose of Patents as described in the US Constitution, and only serves to promote anti-competitive practices for the companies profit.
Ultimately, there is no fix, that can make software patents work, unless every method in the algorithm is stated in the patent, such that you can create non-infringing approaches to achieve the same goal, which do not infringe, and so that the invention has worth to the public domain after exclusivity expires.
Thats not actually true, When RAMBUS ambushed everyone with the patented technologies they snuck into the JEDEC DDR2 specification, They were ordered to accept FRAND licensing as a result.
http://patent-damages.com/2013...
True, but DASH is a standard, so the use of a patented technology in that standard requires FRAND, which the courts will adjudicate, as proven by Motorola v Microsoft.
If they did, they would just have a court declare the technology standards-essential, and make licensing compulsory under so-called FRAND terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, what we need is an abolishment on Software Patents, so that armed thugs like the MPEGLA can't extort licensing fees from a developer because the code they wrote on their own happens to do something that is abstractly claimed in some random poor quality patent.
In the end, this data will only be used to restrict care by algorithm, saving insurance company profits, at the expense of those lives which were statistically 'inconvenient'. Only with a single payer system could this achieve the ends Mr Page cites. My guess is far more than 100K lives will be lost in persuit of this new profit.
Thats not really true. one of the principal of NN is protocol neutrality, and QOS based on assumptions about protocol usage is one of the major items a neutral network cannot allow.
For instance, Comcast and several other ISPs got warnings and fines from the FCC over bittorrent management policies that were downright discriminatory.
If we can't choose our own protocols, or develop new ones without buyin from the ISPs, then their management practices can have a chilling affect on consumer choice, protocol development, and will raise the barrier for entry to new services that implement their own protocols as they see fit.
If this hadn't been publicly disclosed, it would have just gone into the 0-day libraries which Intelligence agencies around the globe have been amassing. We'd never learn we were vulnerable, and their ability to impersonate and eavsdrop would have increased beyond any reasonably-articulatable expectation.
Responsible disclosure to sufficient parties to address the issue would also expose it to potential attackers, and there will always be players with need-to-know who won't be identified for notification.
The farscape/SG crossovers always had the feel of "throwing a dog a bone" after the dog's show was canceled/completed, and I blame that entirely on SyFy. They were unashamedly trying to use the stars existing clout to gain mind-share.
One example I can think of in B5 is Bestor (Walter Koenig aka Chekov), but he stands on his own, as did McGuyver in SG1. Chriton and Erin did not hold up nearly so well in alternate roles.
I'm primarily thinking of people who played small, one-time parts (so perhaps Katsulas was not so great an example). Patricia Tallman for instance played many background roles in Startrek, but either did not speak, or was an alien.
True. I'm more concerned about the content dying forever as the formats change. All the VCRs I had stockpiled are long dead, and even the DVDs are starting to thin out. As far as I'm concerned, its worth preserving.
I've often noticed that if an actor played a speaking character in one scifi series, while looking mostly humanish, any other series they are in they have a pretty concealing costume. For Instance Mr Katsulas played a rather humanish Tomalok on Startrek, whereas his G'Kar had a pretty intense costume.
Good distinctions, but a point of clarification.
Worms are self contained and target Systems (OSs, embedded devices of particular make, etc). They contain all the code necessary to spread from system to system using whatever media they are designed for.
Viruses target applications with communciations capabilities. A spam virus for instance generally targets an email client for instance. the virus requires the vulnerable application to transmit itself from vulnerable system to vulnerable system however; that code is not contained in the virus. Viruses do not require human interaction as a rule (some do, some don't). Automatic application updates and hardened code on the few types of applications capable of supporting a virus, have largely made them extinct.
Trojans DO require human intervention, but are the most flexible. Worms and Viruses are peer-to-peer only, whereas Trojans are client-server. For instance Drive By Download attacks from malicious web sites are now the infection-vector of choice these days, because it requires as little human interaction as possible.
The malware described here, would be a worm, because it is spreading of its own accord, and does not target a specific communications application.
in 2004, most people didn't need a PC, and one unit would service 5 or more people. then there came facebook and services like it, and with it, PC sales soared. people only used them to consume content however, so for the most part, a general purpose PC was more machine than they needed.
Now that we have Smartphones, and tablets, and internet connected TVs, and all manner of other cheap devices for consumption, only the content creators need full PCs.
The desktop isn't going away, but the inflated market must shrink back to its previous levels before the sales numbers will stop falling.
So how exactly is the customers consent/approval meaningful, if the data is collected anyway, and any yahoo at NSA/DHS can demand it on a massive scale without any warrent whatsoever?
Simple as pie, you wait for a crime to occure. No Law enforcement action, including the gathering of evidence can ever be allowed to occure before the crime.
No, they are claiming that they use statistical methods to attempt to exclude american citizens, but expect to collect their data anyway. additionally they implement policies that make american citizens fair game if there is any associational link to a foreign national with less than 3 degrees of seperation. this standard includes the vast majority of the american people. Programs XKeyScore and Nebulus (the program that notices when you say 'bomb' on the phone) can't establish the nationality of the parties even if they wanted to.
the biggest issue however, is that NSA analysts have been giving the data to domestic law enforcement agencies with no warrent, and that data is being introduced in non-terror prosecutions of american citizens, per the last batch of data that DNI released (declassified FISC findings).
When a power is used for specific elevated conditions for a period of time, law enforcement and the judicary become comfortable with it, and over time, the bar to use those elevated powers lowers. For instance, in London, after installing hundreds of CCTV cameras, which had no impact on serious crime, local town councils started using these terror-justified feeds to start prosecuting locals for not picking up after their dogs.
Allowing this program to continue, gaurentees that the liberties I knew as a child will be gone forever.
so you are saying that having a competitive advantage over other nations espionage programs is paramount to having your government acknowledge and protect your liberties?
Slashdot Mirror
but also investigations into other murders, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography.
No matter how much emphasis we place on extra serious crimes like actual terrorism, high-level drug trafficking, and running global networks for child porn, The actual and prevalent use of the technology will be trivial matters like traffic accidents, failing to pick up after your dog, minor curfew violations, etc.
One years protection is definitely an improvement, but its still philosophically antithetical to the reason for patents to exist in the first place. Copyright should be sufficient protection, to keep people from stealing your code, but Software Patents protect the very idea, regardless of the means used to obtain it, in a way that physical patents do not.
Patents are designed to spur innovation by getting companies to share their secrets, so that a valuable portfolio of useful arts and sciences is built in the public domain (paraphrased from the Constitution Article 1). In return for sharing their secrets, the company is granted a limited exclusivity on the patented machine for a limited period of time designed such that the invention is still valuable after the exclusivity expires. Thats our first problem: Most software inventions are only good for about 5 years, which is less than copyright term. In that regard your proposal is spot on.
The bigger problem is however, that a patent on a machine makes only reasonably abstract claims, and the construction of the device must be reasonably concrete, meaning that substantially changing the design of the machine produces a new non-infringing product, even if the two devices perform the same task. Software patents however, are very very abstract, such that any means anyone could ever develop to perform a task that someone has patented an approach to, despite using a dramatically different approach, or developed without knowledge of the existing patent, is supposedly infringing. This is starkly different from Copyright, in that you generally have to know you are making an action that might infringe a copyright, by consuming an existing artefact.
Lastly, because Software Patents are so abstract (as opposed to patents on a physical machine or pharmaceutical) that when the exclusivity period is over, the secrets the inventor shared with the government are useless for further innovation in the public domain. This undercuts the entire purpose of Patents as described in the US Constitution, and only serves to promote anti-competitive practices for the companies profit.
Ultimately, there is no fix, that can make software patents work, unless every method in the algorithm is stated in the patent, such that you can create non-infringing approaches to achieve the same goal, which do not infringe, and so that the invention has worth to the public domain after exclusivity expires.
Thats not actually true, When RAMBUS ambushed everyone with the patented technologies they snuck into the JEDEC DDR2 specification, They were ordered to accept FRAND licensing as a result. http://patent-damages.com/2013...
True, but DASH is a standard, so the use of a patented technology in that standard requires FRAND, which the courts will adjudicate, as proven by Motorola v Microsoft.
If they did, they would just have a court declare the technology standards-essential, and make licensing compulsory under so-called FRAND terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, what we need is an abolishment on Software Patents, so that armed thugs like the MPEGLA can't extort licensing fees from a developer because the code they wrote on their own happens to do something that is abstractly claimed in some random poor quality patent.
The Chinese have this outsourcing thing down from multiple angles.
see, I was thinking about X-Files: Fight the Future
In the end, this data will only be used to restrict care by algorithm, saving insurance company profits, at the expense of those lives which were statistically 'inconvenient'. Only with a single payer system could this achieve the ends Mr Page cites. My guess is far more than 100K lives will be lost in persuit of this new profit.
that is simply not true.
Thats not really true. one of the principal of NN is protocol neutrality, and QOS based on assumptions about protocol usage is one of the major items a neutral network cannot allow.
For instance, Comcast and several other ISPs got warnings and fines from the FCC over bittorrent management policies that were downright discriminatory.
If we can't choose our own protocols, or develop new ones without buyin from the ISPs, then their management practices can have a chilling affect on consumer choice, protocol development, and will raise the barrier for entry to new services that implement their own protocols as they see fit.
If this hadn't been publicly disclosed, it would have just gone into the 0-day libraries which Intelligence agencies around the globe have been amassing. We'd never learn we were vulnerable, and their ability to impersonate and eavsdrop would have increased beyond any reasonably-articulatable expectation.
Responsible disclosure to sufficient parties to address the issue would also expose it to potential attackers, and there will always be players with need-to-know who won't be identified for notification.
It always just seemed like the first step toward them becoming a really crappy apple store.
Now if they just ditch unity and mir and their advertising in the dash, I can go back to using ubuntu.
TFA has very little info on the supposed Synology management interface vulnerability.
I believe this article covers some some of the general info on the vulnerabilities: http://www.symantec.com/connec...
One example I can think of in B5 is Bestor (Walter Koenig aka Chekov), but he stands on his own, as did McGuyver in SG1. Chriton and Erin did not hold up nearly so well in alternate roles. I'm primarily thinking of people who played small, one-time parts (so perhaps Katsulas was not so great an example). Patricia Tallman for instance played many background roles in Startrek, but either did not speak, or was an alien.
True. I'm more concerned about the content dying forever as the formats change. All the VCRs I had stockpiled are long dead, and even the DVDs are starting to thin out. As far as I'm concerned, its worth preserving.
watch or read some of his stuff. the stories are told quite compellingly.
I've often noticed that if an actor played a speaking character in one scifi series, while looking mostly humanish, any other series they are in they have a pretty concealing costume. For Instance Mr Katsulas played a rather humanish Tomalok on Startrek, whereas his G'Kar had a pretty intense costume.
Is this done intentionally, or just coincidence?
Can we PLEEEEEASE have HD Bab5? if you crowd-fund it, we will pay.
Good distinctions, but a point of clarification. Worms are self contained and target Systems (OSs, embedded devices of particular make, etc). They contain all the code necessary to spread from system to system using whatever media they are designed for. Viruses target applications with communciations capabilities. A spam virus for instance generally targets an email client for instance. the virus requires the vulnerable application to transmit itself from vulnerable system to vulnerable system however; that code is not contained in the virus. Viruses do not require human interaction as a rule (some do, some don't). Automatic application updates and hardened code on the few types of applications capable of supporting a virus, have largely made them extinct. Trojans DO require human intervention, but are the most flexible. Worms and Viruses are peer-to-peer only, whereas Trojans are client-server. For instance Drive By Download attacks from malicious web sites are now the infection-vector of choice these days, because it requires as little human interaction as possible. The malware described here, would be a worm, because it is spreading of its own accord, and does not target a specific communications application.
Now that we have Smartphones, and tablets, and internet connected TVs, and all manner of other cheap devices for consumption, only the content creators need full PCs.
The desktop isn't going away, but the inflated market must shrink back to its previous levels before the sales numbers will stop falling.
So how exactly is the customers consent/approval meaningful, if the data is collected anyway, and any yahoo at NSA/DHS can demand it on a massive scale without any warrent whatsoever?
Simple as pie, you wait for a crime to occure. No Law enforcement action, including the gathering of evidence can ever be allowed to occure before the crime.
No, they are claiming that they use statistical methods to attempt to exclude american citizens, but expect to collect their data anyway. additionally they implement policies that make american citizens fair game if there is any associational link to a foreign national with less than 3 degrees of seperation. this standard includes the vast majority of the american people. Programs XKeyScore and Nebulus (the program that notices when you say 'bomb' on the phone) can't establish the nationality of the parties even if they wanted to.
the biggest issue however, is that NSA analysts have been giving the data to domestic law enforcement agencies with no warrent, and that data is being introduced in non-terror prosecutions of american citizens, per the last batch of data that DNI released (declassified FISC findings).
When a power is used for specific elevated conditions for a period of time, law enforcement and the judicary become comfortable with it, and over time, the bar to use those elevated powers lowers. For instance, in London, after installing hundreds of CCTV cameras, which had no impact on serious crime, local town councils started using these terror-justified feeds to start prosecuting locals for not picking up after their dogs.
Allowing this program to continue, gaurentees that the liberties I knew as a child will be gone forever.
so you are saying that having a competitive advantage over other nations espionage programs is paramount to having your government acknowledge and protect your liberties?