A more likely reason for the DNA being on the lighter was that the rapist started the conversation with the Dutch equivalent of 'do you have a light?'. And then everything snowballed from there.
So the inference that the rapist lived locally is still specious.
They may as well have just assumed the crime was committed by a local in the first place, and started their dragnet on pure probability of locality (based on the likely fact that far more locals inhabit the area than non-locals).
But none of that has much to do with the chance that your DNA matches that of a specific sample from a crime scene, other than the fact that searching for false positives in pairwise database matches is a good way to compute the average false positive rate.
If if the odds of 'me' being a false positive match is extremely low, I still feel sorry for the one poor bastard in that database that did match and had no alibi because he was home alone watching a Star Wars marathon.
And Apple is free not to license those patents and come up with a new and unique way of doing it.
And in doing that have a product not compatible with the mobile phone communication standards that were created with those patents cemented in?
Keep in mind that just because a hardware patent exists, does not mean that it is any better from a technological standpoint than an overly broad / obvious software patent.
In my field, hundreds of new "hardware" patents come out every day that do not describe a reasonable improvement on the state of the art. Most are just rehashes of existing prior art with some twisted wording to obfuscate the similarity.
I learn virtually nothing from reading the vast majority of patents that are granted these days. They are simply there to capitalize on the laxity of the patent office (and 'pro-IP' judicial bias), and the mere threat of a costly and drawn out legal process.
This is true. Our company currently has specified prohibitions on designing in parts from at least half a dozen big name device manufacturers that have in the past pulled stunts like that.
TI is currently one of our preferred suppliers for ICs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. They make great parts, and never have major supply problems (well, not that I've ever experienced). And they don't charge an arm and a leg either - unlike some other IC manufacturers; Maxim and LTC, I'm looking at you.
If the state of an entangled set of quantum bits can be known in advance and their states observed without collapsing them, then it stands to reason that a remote communications station with a pre-delivered set of pre-entangled bits could receive a message by observing the collapse the instant the 'transmitter' causes it to happen.
I wonder if this research provides this possibility, or if there is something inherent to the entanglement/observation process that prevents this.
"Chipzilla" isn't the company linked twice in the summary. I confused the linked article source for one of those companies that spams out daily emails with 'press releases' for the 'latest' ICs. The summary read exactly like one those emails.
Astroturf alert. This is a block copy marketing pitch from a company dedicated to finding sources to buy ICs. Complete with blatant mention of themselves when they have no direct link to an Intel product they are 'announcing'.
Would this cost more than the value of the address space to reconfigure to 10.x.x.x or IPV6? Crikey, yes, Ten times yes. Magnitudes of scale yes.
Especially when there is no issue if the UK government just says piss off to anyone who wants their IP block, which costs them nothing.
It is far better for everyone to let others pay for their own IPv6 infrastructure upgrades (or NAT themselves into a hole). Whereas, making the UK release or restructure their block is an expense on par with just moving over to IPv6; meanwhile, other lazy corporations avoid the cost themselves while further compounding the problem by skiving off the released address space.
So it seems that the UK government keeping the block is a win-win for all, even if most of that "win" is not going to be a short term benefit on some random set of corporate end of year profit and loss reports.
That phrase is not interpreted as "algorithms or an equivalent algorithm based on algorithmic reduction", but as "algorithms or other specified constructions that describe the process". It is merely referring in general to mathematical algorithms, while also allowing other formal method/process descriptions that don't quite meet the legal definition of "algorithm".
There are so many aspects of the patent act that are presently ignored. Along with the watering down of the "obviousness" clause, ignoring this clause is one of the reasons overly broad 'bad' patents get through in the first place.
This clause basically says that you can claim a desired end result in your patent, but if that function is not described in full necessary detail to implement it, then the claim is limited in scope by pre-existing design documentation, specifications or reference implementation.
It is there to limit patents being taken out on general concepts where there is insufficient information on how to build/implement the idea. eg. A patent on a Star Trek transporter without describing all details (not already in the public domain) necessary to make it work.
The liability should be with the party that has the power to do something about it: the card companies.
So neither person at the point of sale has the power to do something about it? Its the institution that is by definition not at the point of sale?
The best the consumer and/or merchant can do is complain to the 'authorities' that their bank just sucked a huge chunk of cash out of their account. Maybe they could sue the bank for losses incurred due to a poorly secured transaction system. But, all that does is send the responsibility back to where it belongs in the first place: with the banks.
But, those costs would never have occurred if the banks secured (or continue to secure) their system properly. Thus the 'losses' that end up being paid for by the consumer end up being negligible.
So who better to be left holding the empty bag than the party that has direct control over retail prices, and even some control over who he does business with?
The answer to that question is: The party that has control over the implementation of the financial transaction system.
Anything less and there's no incentive for the financial institutions to improve security and reduce overall losses in the system. There is no way a merchant or a consumer has any control over this. The most they can do is refuse to accept 'plastic', but due to the ubiquitous nature of credit based transactions, that would be akin to closing the door on a large portion of their income.
This might be true if 'you' used the chip authentication. However, if someone else has cloned your card (however they managed to do it), then 'you' haven't agreed to that transaction, and thus 'you' never used any kind of authentication, let alone "chip and pin".
I know you are trying to illustrate a crackpot group of people that seem to stand for a common goal. However, if that goal is "don't vote for party/candidate X", then the party/candidate itself has no votable platform on which to stand.
You're after an example movement that people would rally around and vote for a candidate to represent. Any movement that is important enough to a large enough swathe of people that it overrides their desire to vote for a seemingly more appropriate party/candidate, by definition should have some sort of proportional representation.
If 30% of the country are so scared of their shadow that they want to instigate a full blown totalitarian regime, then they should have someone to represent them. That representation doesn't mean that they will be able to force any lunatic desires past the majority of other representatives, but it does mean that their candidate will (should) try to push things in that direction whenever the opportunity arises - as much as their idea might seem crazy to everyone else.
If that were the case, they'd be better off walking around with a clipboard asking people to answer a few questions on they rate their airport experience.
You could pick the questions most likely to generate an effective response, rather than just the barely disguised, "I am going to intrude on your belongings, privacy, and personal space".
But, I suppose the TSA don't care what people think, as no one is in a position to disagree with or ignore them.
On top of that, since they are testing liquids being consumed in plain sight, they are selecting the most likely samples to be negative. So the probability of a positive match is further reduced by a factor of thousands/millions.
Dividing zero by anything is still zero, so it doesn't make any difference to security anyway. But I suppose it does keep up appearances.
Think of it like a security theatre encore performance. Just don't bow to low, or they might take your action of bending over as implicit consent for a back door cavity search.
I know you're probably going for a Funny mod, but The Pirate Party does not condone piracy. It is about making sure people are not harassed by one-sided laws that go against the common good.
Slashdot Mirror
A more likely reason for the DNA being on the lighter was that the rapist started the conversation with the Dutch equivalent of 'do you have a light?'. And then everything snowballed from there.
So the inference that the rapist lived locally is still specious.
They may as well have just assumed the crime was committed by a local in the first place, and started their dragnet on pure probability of locality (based on the likely fact that far more locals inhabit the area than non-locals).
But none of that has much to do with the chance that your DNA matches that of a specific sample from a crime scene, other than the fact that searching for false positives in pairwise database matches is a good way to compute the average false positive rate.
If if the odds of 'me' being a false positive match is extremely low, I still feel sorry for the one poor bastard in that database that did match and had no alibi because he was home alone watching a Star Wars marathon.
And Apple is free not to license those patents and come up with a new and unique way of doing it.
And in doing that have a product not compatible with the mobile phone communication standards that were created with those patents cemented in?
Keep in mind that just because a hardware patent exists, does not mean that it is any better from a technological standpoint than an overly broad / obvious software patent.
In my field, hundreds of new "hardware" patents come out every day that do not describe a reasonable improvement on the state of the art. Most are just rehashes of existing prior art with some twisted wording to obfuscate the similarity.
I learn virtually nothing from reading the vast majority of patents that are granted these days. They are simply there to capitalize on the laxity of the patent office (and 'pro-IP' judicial bias), and the mere threat of a costly and drawn out legal process.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Booth was a physicist.
This is true. Our company currently has specified prohibitions on designing in parts from at least half a dozen big name device manufacturers that have in the past pulled stunts like that.
TI is currently one of our preferred suppliers for ICs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. They make great parts, and never have major supply problems (well, not that I've ever experienced). And they don't charge an arm and a leg either - unlike some other IC manufacturers; Maxim and LTC, I'm looking at you.
If the state of an entangled set of quantum bits can be known in advance and their states observed without collapsing them, then it stands to reason that a remote communications station with a pre-delivered set of pre-entangled bits could receive a message by observing the collapse the instant the 'transmitter' causes it to happen.
I wonder if this research provides this possibility, or if there is something inherent to the entanglement/observation process that prevents this.
I'd mod you up, but I've already posted. ;-)
"Chipzilla" isn't the company linked twice in the summary. I confused the linked article source for one of those companies that spams out daily emails with 'press releases' for the 'latest' ICs. The summary read exactly like one those emails.
Astroturf alert. This is a block copy marketing pitch from a company dedicated to finding sources to buy ICs. Complete with blatant mention of themselves when they have no direct link to an Intel product they are 'announcing'.
if you had not been a coward, I could have modded this up.
Resistance was futile.
Paranoia 101
I mean, I could quote plenty of movies with terrorists in them on a plane, and would still be thrown in jail for it.
Which in itself is a further example of the 'law' overstepping its Constitutionally limited boundaries.
7 of 9?
Would this cost more than the value of the address space to reconfigure to 10.x.x.x or IPV6? Crikey, yes, Ten times yes. Magnitudes of scale yes.
Especially when there is no issue if the UK government just says piss off to anyone who wants their IP block, which costs them nothing.
It is far better for everyone to let others pay for their own IPv6 infrastructure upgrades (or NAT themselves into a hole). Whereas, making the UK release or restructure their block is an expense on par with just moving over to IPv6; meanwhile, other lazy corporations avoid the cost themselves while further compounding the problem by skiving off the released address space.
So it seems that the UK government keeping the block is a win-win for all, even if most of that "win" is not going to be a short term benefit on some random set of corporate end of year profit and loss reports.
That phrase is not interpreted as "algorithms or an equivalent algorithm based on algorithmic reduction", but as "algorithms or other specified constructions that describe the process". It is merely referring in general to mathematical algorithms, while also allowing other formal method/process descriptions that don't quite meet the legal definition of "algorithm".
There are so many aspects of the patent act that are presently ignored. Along with the watering down of the "obviousness" clause, ignoring this clause is one of the reasons overly broad 'bad' patents get through in the first place.
This clause basically says that you can claim a desired end result in your patent, but if that function is not described in full necessary detail to implement it, then the claim is limited in scope by pre-existing design documentation, specifications or reference implementation.
It is there to limit patents being taken out on general concepts where there is insufficient information on how to build/implement the idea. eg. A patent on a Star Trek transporter without describing all details (not already in the public domain) necessary to make it work.
The liability should be with the party that has the power to do something about it: the card companies.
So neither person at the point of sale has the power to do something about it? Its the institution that is by definition not at the point of sale?
The best the consumer and/or merchant can do is complain to the 'authorities' that their bank just sucked a huge chunk of cash out of their account. Maybe they could sue the bank for losses incurred due to a poorly secured transaction system. But, all that does is send the responsibility back to where it belongs in the first place: with the banks.
But, those costs would never have occurred if the banks secured (or continue to secure) their system properly. Thus the 'losses' that end up being paid for by the consumer end up being negligible.
So who better to be left holding the empty bag than the party that has direct control over retail prices, and even some control over who he does business with?
The answer to that question is: The party that has control over the implementation of the financial transaction system.
Anything less and there's no incentive for the financial institutions to improve security and reduce overall losses in the system. There is no way a merchant or a consumer has any control over this. The most they can do is refuse to accept 'plastic', but due to the ubiquitous nature of credit based transactions, that would be akin to closing the door on a large portion of their income.
This might be true if 'you' used the chip authentication. However, if someone else has cloned your card (however they managed to do it), then 'you' haven't agreed to that transaction, and thus 'you' never used any kind of authentication, let alone "chip and pin".
You can if you get a Firewire to Thunderbolt adapter.
I know you are trying to illustrate a crackpot group of people that seem to stand for a common goal. However, if that goal is "don't vote for party/candidate X", then the party/candidate itself has no votable platform on which to stand.
You're after an example movement that people would rally around and vote for a candidate to represent. Any movement that is important enough to a large enough swathe of people that it overrides their desire to vote for a seemingly more appropriate party/candidate, by definition should have some sort of proportional representation.
If 30% of the country are so scared of their shadow that they want to instigate a full blown totalitarian regime, then they should have someone to represent them. That representation doesn't mean that they will be able to force any lunatic desires past the majority of other representatives, but it does mean that their candidate will (should) try to push things in that direction whenever the opportunity arises - as much as their idea might seem crazy to everyone else.
What if the ones shipped to the US are made by the regular workers, and the ones made with the assistance of forced labour are sent elsewhere?
If that were the case, they'd be better off walking around with a clipboard asking people to answer a few questions on they rate their airport experience.
You could pick the questions most likely to generate an effective response, rather than just the barely disguised, "I am going to intrude on your belongings, privacy, and personal space".
But, I suppose the TSA don't care what people think, as no one is in a position to disagree with or ignore them.
On top of that, since they are testing liquids being consumed in plain sight, they are selecting the most likely samples to be negative. So the probability of a positive match is further reduced by a factor of thousands/millions.
Dividing zero by anything is still zero, so it doesn't make any difference to security anyway. But I suppose it does keep up appearances.
Think of it like a security theatre encore performance. Just don't bow to low, or they might take your action of bending over as implicit consent for a back door cavity search.
I know you're probably going for a Funny mod, but The Pirate Party does not condone piracy. It is about making sure people are not harassed by one-sided laws that go against the common good.