Internet would collapse. If every self entitled jerk who thinks that N-Mbps means they should be allowed to suck up N-Mbps 24 hours a day then there'd be no bandwidth left. AT&T always had bandwidth caps, which are now increasing (250g to 350g for me). And contracts change over time, duh. You think the $10/month from 20 years ago still applies today?
You're always been under a cap with AT&T internet, they just rarely enforced it. However now they have *increased* the cap for most people while also saying that they will enforce it. I don't really see the problem here.
And the juries in a particular West Texas district feel the same. Any big corporation they feel is the enemy. Whereas a patent troll who has an empty office in town are the small guys and thus the good guys. That's all they know and all they want to know, and they don't want to know the facts because that just complicates things for them.
Patent law excludes such patents, but they have no practical way anymore to enforce it. The patent office is overwhelmed by applications, not by legitimate applications but the modern shotgun approach to patenting anything and everything possible. Thus patents are not reviewed unless and until there is a lawsuit over the patents. And at that point the lawyers control the process and not engineers or scientists or experts in the field.
Corporations do this as a defensive measure. Every tech company dealing with hardware I've been too has a patent wall somewhere, where bronze plaques of bogus patents are displayed (ok, to be fair, one patent of moderate mportance and 20+ patents for trivial things). Big corporations cross license all patents and agree not to sue each other while blocking out the smaller companies. Employees are encouraged everywhere to contribute to patents, even software patents. They're told how to do this, how to turn the trivial idea or the existing idea into a patentable concept. Ie, take an existing idea in field A and apply it in field B, which means you can take a concept common in computers and use it in an embedded system and file a patent on that (seriously, a competitor once patented software upgrades in the field).
So the process basically starts as a filing first and often, threatening everyone else, suing when necessary, and hope that 10 years later a judge doesn't look to close at it. The only patent I applied for in graduate school, novel and not obvious, was rejected by the university as not worth the time and effort to defend should it be challenged (ie, wouldn't make them money), but over time the situation has changed and you've got armies of patent lawyers and trolls willing to do this.
No, it's natural. Doesn't mean stand by and wait for the end either. Floods are natural, earthquakes are natural, it makes sense to try and mitigate those as well if possible.
Remember though that in the past you had to actually show a model of your invention, and have a patent inspector pass on it. Meaning that you had done some non-trivial amount of work first, you had the idea and also the means to demonstrate the idea, and now needed time to get manufacturing up and running. Today the patent inspectors just rubber stamp everything, no one needs a working model, or even a non-working model. That's what's broken.
The limited time for exclusive access was very useful in the past. That is, if you think that supporting the little guy versus the large conglomerate is useful for society. The actual purpose of patents originally was not to lock everything out from everyone else, instead the purpose was to make the patent free and open once the time period expired. Before patents inventions were kept locked up and controlled, guilds were formed to protect the secrets, and so forth.
The patent term was long enough to get up and running and get into a competitive position before the rest of the world started making copies (but long enough to be more lucrative than hoarding the invention). Twenty years was also a very short period in the past, it just seems extremely long today because people are rushing new crap out as fast as they can and planned obsolescence is the status quo.
Possibly somebody had an idea for a "PDA that also makes phone calls", probably never without a single working implementation or even a description that would allow one to make a working implementation, and probably it was written down before the technology to even make this practical work existed. None of which should be allowed as an enforceable patent.
Otherwise I could just file a patent for a time machine. Now no one can create a time machine in the next twenty years without my permission. I don't even have to understand the physics about time travel or why it is or isn't feasible. (of course if such a machine were to be created and I exerted my patent powers then the inventor would just head off and build it somewhere else, go back in time, and shoot my computer before I could press the enter key).
They're all highly biased towards supporting big oil, highly biased towards laughing at anything anyone says that may involve spending government money, and so forth. This makes them mistakenly agree with the idea that there's no such thing as manking causing climate change. It's all natural to them, part of God's plan, so no need for a single dime in mitigation (besides, it's a liberal plot!). Morons.
What about the people currently making billions out of denying climate change? Big oil has a huge stake in convincing people that saving energy is irresponsible.
The low fat part being debunked is also BS, or at least highly misinterpreted data. People read what they want to read from scientific studies. http://www.bbc.com/news/health...
It's what I use. Two factor means it gets tied to my phone, relies upon a SMS being sent to me if I forget password, and other inconveniences. Phone breaks, then two factor authentication is impossible. Or you left phone at home as you rushed out the door. Don't use SMS, then current google methods fail. Buy a new phone then youve got a few days of having everything break until you reset them. When I log into a dumb social media service on my PC then I don't want it to tell me to push a button on my phone to continue.
Two factor is probably good for *important* stuff; like my bank account. Social media fluff doesn't fit into that category. It's also more secure to not put sensitive data anywhere near where Google or "the cloud" can see it
Personally, I think the code should work, and that others can read and understand it in order to make modifications. Sounds simple enough, yet so many people screw that up since they only focus on the first part. The second part presumably is either forgotten about or purposely skipped for some sort of misguided job security.
But what if you can't know it's insecure unless you break into it first? If you're not a security expert and you have not been called in to assist, then don't go breaking into anything. If it's for something important and not just for police (like say voting machines) then do it secretly.
Anyone smart enough to understand security (ie, not a script kiddie) should also presumably be smart enough to understand personal security.
What enables your "right" to the land and how do you enforce it? The right to own land is artificially created by humans, and controlled by whoever has the best armies. Just ask the original residents of the Americas; or ask the Tatars from the Crimea for a more recent example. Opting out of civilization effectively removes your ability to exercise whatever rights you claim to have, leaving only the hope that civilization ignores you or you collect a mass of fellow humans large enough to form your own opposing civilization. Wave around lots of papers that prove you have rights if you like, but if the papers can't feed you or stop bullets...
Nonsense. I develop a lot of technology and this is exactly why I'm wary of it. I'm afraid of new technology since I can see the decline in quality of the years.
Yes, in the future when only 100 people will have actual jobs, they will all sit around at lunch and complain that everyone else should just go get a real job instead of being a drain on society.
Slashdot Mirror
Internet would collapse. If every self entitled jerk who thinks that N-Mbps means they should be allowed to suck up N-Mbps 24 hours a day then there'd be no bandwidth left. AT&T always had bandwidth caps, which are now increasing (250g to 350g for me). And contracts change over time, duh. You think the $10/month from 20 years ago still applies today?
You're always been under a cap with AT&T internet, they just rarely enforced it. However now they have *increased* the cap for most people while also saying that they will enforce it. I don't really see the problem here.
And the juries in a particular West Texas district feel the same. Any big corporation they feel is the enemy. Whereas a patent troll who has an empty office in town are the small guys and thus the good guys. That's all they know and all they want to know, and they don't want to know the facts because that just complicates things for them.
Patent law excludes such patents, but they have no practical way anymore to enforce it. The patent office is overwhelmed by applications, not by legitimate applications but the modern shotgun approach to patenting anything and everything possible. Thus patents are not reviewed unless and until there is a lawsuit over the patents. And at that point the lawyers control the process and not engineers or scientists or experts in the field.
Corporations do this as a defensive measure. Every tech company dealing with hardware I've been too has a patent wall somewhere, where bronze plaques of bogus patents are displayed (ok, to be fair, one patent of moderate mportance and 20+ patents for trivial things). Big corporations cross license all patents and agree not to sue each other while blocking out the smaller companies. Employees are encouraged everywhere to contribute to patents, even software patents. They're told how to do this, how to turn the trivial idea or the existing idea into a patentable concept. Ie, take an existing idea in field A and apply it in field B, which means you can take a concept common in computers and use it in an embedded system and file a patent on that (seriously, a competitor once patented software upgrades in the field).
So the process basically starts as a filing first and often, threatening everyone else, suing when necessary, and hope that 10 years later a judge doesn't look to close at it. The only patent I applied for in graduate school, novel and not obvious, was rejected by the university as not worth the time and effort to defend should it be challenged (ie, wouldn't make them money), but over time the situation has changed and you've got armies of patent lawyers and trolls willing to do this.
No, it's natural. Doesn't mean stand by and wait for the end either. Floods are natural, earthquakes are natural, it makes sense to try and mitigate those as well if possible.
Remember though that in the past you had to actually show a model of your invention, and have a patent inspector pass on it. Meaning that you had done some non-trivial amount of work first, you had the idea and also the means to demonstrate the idea, and now needed time to get manufacturing up and running. Today the patent inspectors just rubber stamp everything, no one needs a working model, or even a non-working model. That's what's broken.
The limited time for exclusive access was very useful in the past. That is, if you think that supporting the little guy versus the large conglomerate is useful for society. The actual purpose of patents originally was not to lock everything out from everyone else, instead the purpose was to make the patent free and open once the time period expired. Before patents inventions were kept locked up and controlled, guilds were formed to protect the secrets, and so forth.
The patent term was long enough to get up and running and get into a competitive position before the rest of the world started making copies (but long enough to be more lucrative than hoarding the invention). Twenty years was also a very short period in the past, it just seems extremely long today because people are rushing new crap out as fast as they can and planned obsolescence is the status quo.
Possibly somebody had an idea for a "PDA that also makes phone calls", probably never without a single working implementation or even a description that would allow one to make a working implementation, and probably it was written down before the technology to even make this practical work existed. None of which should be allowed as an enforceable patent.
Otherwise I could just file a patent for a time machine. Now no one can create a time machine in the next twenty years without my permission. I don't even have to understand the physics about time travel or why it is or isn't feasible. (of course if such a machine were to be created and I exerted my patent powers then the inventor would just head off and build it somewhere else, go back in time, and shoot my computer before I could press the enter key).
It's common sense presumably. Except that the judges and juries in East Texas havent seen that movie yet.
And illegal?
Or ask European representatives to promote local European television streaming services.
They're all highly biased towards supporting big oil, highly biased towards laughing at anything anyone says that may involve spending government money, and so forth. This makes them mistakenly agree with the idea that there's no such thing as manking causing climate change. It's all natural to them, part of God's plan, so no need for a single dime in mitigation (besides, it's a liberal plot!). Morons.
What about the people currently making billions out of denying climate change? Big oil has a huge stake in convincing people that saving energy is irresponsible.
Ah yes, congress, the wise men and women of the scientific world.
The low fat part being debunked is also BS, or at least highly misinterpreted data. People read what they want to read from scientific studies.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health...
Scientific evidence seems to indicate that you've already been cut out of the will.
It's what I use. Two factor means it gets tied to my phone, relies upon a SMS being sent to me if I forget password, and other inconveniences. Phone breaks, then two factor authentication is impossible. Or you left phone at home as you rushed out the door. Don't use SMS, then current google methods fail. Buy a new phone then youve got a few days of having everything break until you reset them. When I log into a dumb social media service on my PC then I don't want it to tell me to push a button on my phone to continue.
Two factor is probably good for *important* stuff; like my bank account. Social media fluff doesn't fit into that category. It's also more secure to not put sensitive data anywhere near where Google or "the cloud" can see it
Personally, I think the code should work, and that others can read and understand it in order to make modifications. Sounds simple enough, yet so many people screw that up since they only focus on the first part. The second part presumably is either forgotten about or purposely skipped for some sort of misguided job security.
You should have just called your mom a soft-on-crime bleeding heart liberal SJW.
But what if you can't know it's insecure unless you break into it first? If you're not a security expert and you have not been called in to assist, then don't go breaking into anything. If it's for something important and not just for police (like say voting machines) then do it secretly.
Anyone smart enough to understand security (ie, not a script kiddie) should also presumably be smart enough to understand personal security.
Sorry to wake you but you should really get a proper lock for your doggie door.
What enables your "right" to the land and how do you enforce it? The right to own land is artificially created by humans, and controlled by whoever has the best armies. Just ask the original residents of the Americas; or ask the Tatars from the Crimea for a more recent example. Opting out of civilization effectively removes your ability to exercise whatever rights you claim to have, leaving only the hope that civilization ignores you or you collect a mass of fellow humans large enough to form your own opposing civilization. Wave around lots of papers that prove you have rights if you like, but if the papers can't feed you or stop bullets...
How do you "own" it? Someone with a bigger gun will come along and take it.
Nonsense. I develop a lot of technology and this is exactly why I'm wary of it. I'm afraid of new technology since I can see the decline in quality of the years.
Yes, in the future when only 100 people will have actual jobs, they will all sit around at lunch and complain that everyone else should just go get a real job instead of being a drain on society.
Don't forget to watch "Ow, My Balls!"