I hate how anytime anyone makes a negative comment about first to file, there is an overwhelming response of "you don't know what you're talking about."
First to file is bad for the little guy, because the little guy doesn't have a legal team standing ready to churn out a patent. Assume a guy in his garage and an employee at a big corp invent the same thing. The guy at the big corp invents it a little after the guy in his garage. The result will be that the big corp gets the patent, because they will be much quicker to generate the patent application. The little guy will have to go through many more steps, such as obtaining a patent lawyer, obtaining funding for the application, etc. The process is also likely unfamiliar to him, which will slow him down.
Under a first to invent system, at least that guy has a chance. Under first to file, he's just screwed. A better solution would be to simplify the legal process rather than simply declaring the winner ahead of time according to some meaningless paperwork that big corps are always going to be better at.
In a sense, first to file goes perfectly with the current trend towards statutory non-intent crimes with trivial to prove elements. Lazy justice is justice denied.
From the same administration that rammed through first to file, now we're supposed to believe they're out to help innocent patent victims? Seems more likely that someone decided that patent trolls were getting dangerous to the big boys. Expect to see no steps to prevent monopolists from using obvious patents to destroy potential competition.
I also want to add an example: consider it like the game Guess Who?. Knowing the person has glasses may not help you, but once you know it is a male with glasses and no beard suddenly your choices are narrowed significantly.
Yes but alone an IP address gives you a pretty good idea, especially when combined with what sorts of stuff is being visited and behavior on this sites. There may be lots of public networks, but most people still browse the internet at home, with a small number of people on a single IP.
Additionally, as above, these different devices can usually be distinguished from each other by comparing the browser request headers. This gives an additional heuristic to determine who is doing what.
This is a situation where you have a bunch of hints, and any one may not get you that far. However, if you combine the information from all of the available hints, you get a pretty clear picture. The military likes to call this type of situation 'total information awareness.'
I was more thinking people just went to the website. Making a copy of a website and calling it an 'app' never really seemed that useful to me, especially since the limitations on what you can do without a connection are likely to be severe in many applications.
I've never personally used a 'web application,' I go to the website. There is no reason for it to be able to store anything on my local machine; it stores what I tell it in the server session.
Most people seem to expect to need a connection to do anything now anyways. ChromeOS seems to be designed around that idea, that you will always have a way to connect, with the 'offline apps' being really an afterthought to counter potential criticism. After all, Google wants you to be online all the time so they can track you and serve you ads, right?
Your IP address and browser request header makes it easy to correlate your travel across several sites. As long as you do anything with that IP ever that ties to you, they've got you. With many ISPs, your IP can last for months.
This is a common misperception. IP address != person. Many ISPs have caching proxys to reduce traffic. To the site on the other end, the entire ISPs traffic may appear to be coming from a few proxy IPs. Even without proxys in between you and your destination, the IP address may be shared as it is at businesses, universities, and behind home Wi-Fi routers. In the vast majority of cases these days, the IP address a site sees is rarely tied to a single source.
If you are at work or at school, probably. But not at home...at least not with the biggest ISPs available in my area (and most of the US at least).
He also doesn't use an alarm clock or a watch anymore, despite the fact that cell phones in 2005 were just as capable at displacing those functions as they are today. He simply chooses not to use them now.
If there were no commercial ramifications you could use amateur radio licenses. People already talk to the ISS, bounce signals off the moon, etc. All you need is the ticket.
Ham radio cannot be used for any commercial purpose. If a commercial spaceflight pilot could use it as their main communication channel, then every other company could use it by some similar logic. Then things would just degenerate to a war to see who had the most powerful transmitter or something. It would be bad.
It's my understanding that tracking is done by cookies. I delete all cookies 2-3 times a day, and always after logging out of Google (which I rarely log in to) and Facebook. The only downside is that I have to log in to again to certain sites but that is easy because of OS X's built-in password manager.
Your IP address and browser request header makes it easy to correlate your travel across several sites. As long as you do anything with that IP ever that ties to you, they've got you. With many ISPs, your IP can last for months.
For ruling against them!!! Technically, there's no end to this is your lawyers are slimey enough. Technically it may even be possible to sue the members of SCOTUS...
Nope. Judges have absolute immunity for anything they do from the bench. This even applies when the judge's actions were malicious. Check out Stump v. Sparkman if you want to make yourself sick.
I don't have a right to forbid people from tossing crap on my property? If I tell them I don't want it and they should not drop it there, they are trespassing.
This is equivalent to saying that someone is allowed to sit in my living room and yell about their political views, and I can't tell them to leave, because their speech is protected. The 1st amendment does not provide a defense for trespass.
The main reason why there is no exemption for corporations is that you can't weasel out of this law by creating a "Green NPO" to sniff out their rotting waste cans.
A typical solution to this 'problem' would be to require a license, predicated on a series of vague requirements, with broad discretionary authority for rejection. That way it could be ensured that only proper cronies gain access.
Yep. I'll also give a nod to the Apricorn devices, which we use quite a bit. They are OS-independent (we're Linux-only at home) and require no drivers beyond basic USB, with all of the AES encryption and authorization being internal to the device[*]. They have SSD and spinning disk and USB stick devices, with fingerprint or passcode authorization.
Ack! The 'passcode' on the ones on the website is a mere numeric pin. This essentially guarantees that if someone steals the unit and removes the drive/memory chip(s) etc, brute forcing of the pin will be trivial. I might give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they know this is just a minor obstacle to stop non-technical thieves, except their pages are plastered with the phrase "military grade." They even have pictures of people in camo uniforms using it.
The false sense of security from such a device is extremely dangerous!
Nah, I was actually talking about the "mainstream acts." I know there is, and probably always will be, quality stuff being put out by lesser known folks.
Of course it is obvious that there has always been bad music, but has the quantity of good music decreased? It seems to me that the music industry has suffered from the same pressures as most other industries; producing lower quality, less risky products and making up the difference in marketing is the rule of the day.
Anyone else think this may be due to a poorer quality of music signed with the labels? I know everyone always thinks things were better 'back in the day', but that doesn't make it not true.
Additionally, the distinction in the law is also a recognition of the added danger to all parties inherent in robbery. When someone takes things by threat of force, we take that threat at face value. Victims threatened with violence also typically have a right to retaliate in self-defense, and this is a possibility a robber is expected to reasonably anticipate as a consequence of their actions.
Article 11 (interstate commerce) and Amendment 1 (free speech, free association) rulez the Illinois foolz
It is the 14th amendment which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, not the commerce clause.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A state violating the right of its citizens to free speech is either denying them due process of law (if you believe Supreme Court precedent), or denying them the privileges and immunities of the United States (if you read the literature and understanding of 1868).
"It's claimed that users are faster at responding to familiar logos..."
I have no TV (but a 55" monitor to watch torrented stuff without ads), use adblockers everywhere, refuse ads in my mailbox, I wouldn't recognize a logo that I don't know from childhood and most of those have changed.
Do you also never go outside? Visit a store? Or purchase any products?
I also block as many ads as I can, but I am still exposed to plenty of logos and such merely by going outside in any relatively urban area. Even interacting with any people you will see logos, since people wear all sorts of them on their clothing. There's also a logo on almost any product you can buy, even if you never go outside and never see any other people.
If you don't know any logos, you must have been living under a rock. Say, did you know that 15 minutes could...
The other real issue would be with lubricants. That, or a piece with looser tolerances such as the AK-47. Either way, one would not want the lubricants to freeze nor the parts to self-weld.
Lubrication is not that big of a concern. The vast majority of modern semi-automatic combat-grade firearms can be safely run with no lubrication at all. The only effect it will have is to increase wear, which could start to be an issue after several thousand rounds fired at least. Certain designs, such as the Glock handgun, have been tested with upwards of 100,000 rounds fired with no lubrication and minimal detrimental effects.
Why not invest into research on more resilient buildings in the first place? It is not only meteors, but also hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes. Say, include into the glass sort of nylon net by regulations and forget about millions of broken glass injuries every year.
That would cost way more than $5 million, or even $5 billion. It would just be harder to see the cost because it would be forced on to people building a new home or whatever (as if that industry needs more costs right now).
The targets would be closer to aphelion than perihelion, since it would be easier and take less energy to deflect them when they were far from the Sun than when they were closer. So their relative motion is very slow and very easy to track from any Earth orbit whose plane was roughly perpendicular to a line from the Earth to the asteroid.
Ah, that makes sense. I guess then, you just don't spin up the system until you've already oriented the craft properly for the asteroid you want to shoot at.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate how anytime anyone makes a negative comment about first to file, there is an overwhelming response of "you don't know what you're talking about."
First to file is bad for the little guy, because the little guy doesn't have a legal team standing ready to churn out a patent. Assume a guy in his garage and an employee at a big corp invent the same thing. The guy at the big corp invents it a little after the guy in his garage. The result will be that the big corp gets the patent, because they will be much quicker to generate the patent application. The little guy will have to go through many more steps, such as obtaining a patent lawyer, obtaining funding for the application, etc. The process is also likely unfamiliar to him, which will slow him down.
Under a first to invent system, at least that guy has a chance. Under first to file, he's just screwed. A better solution would be to simplify the legal process rather than simply declaring the winner ahead of time according to some meaningless paperwork that big corps are always going to be better at.
In a sense, first to file goes perfectly with the current trend towards statutory non-intent crimes with trivial to prove elements. Lazy justice is justice denied.
From the same administration that rammed through first to file, now we're supposed to believe they're out to help innocent patent victims? Seems more likely that someone decided that patent trolls were getting dangerous to the big boys. Expect to see no steps to prevent monopolists from using obvious patents to destroy potential competition.
*these sites
I also want to add an example: consider it like the game Guess Who?. Knowing the person has glasses may not help you, but once you know it is a male with glasses and no beard suddenly your choices are narrowed significantly.
Yes but alone an IP address gives you a pretty good idea, especially when combined with what sorts of stuff is being visited and behavior on this sites. There may be lots of public networks, but most people still browse the internet at home, with a small number of people on a single IP.
Additionally, as above, these different devices can usually be distinguished from each other by comparing the browser request headers. This gives an additional heuristic to determine who is doing what.
This is a situation where you have a bunch of hints, and any one may not get you that far. However, if you combine the information from all of the available hints, you get a pretty clear picture. The military likes to call this type of situation 'total information awareness.'
I was more thinking people just went to the website. Making a copy of a website and calling it an 'app' never really seemed that useful to me, especially since the limitations on what you can do without a connection are likely to be severe in many applications.
I've never personally used a 'web application,' I go to the website. There is no reason for it to be able to store anything on my local machine; it stores what I tell it in the server session.
Most people seem to expect to need a connection to do anything now anyways. ChromeOS seems to be designed around that idea, that you will always have a way to connect, with the 'offline apps' being really an afterthought to counter potential criticism. After all, Google wants you to be online all the time so they can track you and serve you ads, right?
Your IP address and browser request header makes it easy to correlate your travel across several sites. As long as you do anything with that IP ever that ties to you, they've got you. With many ISPs, your IP can last for months.
This is a common misperception. IP address != person. Many ISPs have caching proxys to reduce traffic. To the site on the other end, the entire ISPs traffic may appear to be coming from a few proxy IPs. Even without proxys in between you and your destination, the IP address may be shared as it is at businesses, universities, and behind home Wi-Fi routers. In the vast majority of cases these days, the IP address a site sees is rarely tied to a single source.
If you are at work or at school, probably. But not at home...at least not with the biggest ISPs available in my area (and most of the US at least).
He also doesn't use an alarm clock or a watch anymore, despite the fact that cell phones in 2005 were just as capable at displacing those functions as they are today. He simply chooses not to use them now.
If there were no commercial ramifications you could use amateur radio licenses. People already talk to the ISS, bounce signals off the moon, etc. All you need is the ticket.
Ham radio cannot be used for any commercial purpose. If a commercial spaceflight pilot could use it as their main communication channel, then every other company could use it by some similar logic. Then things would just degenerate to a war to see who had the most powerful transmitter or something. It would be bad.
It's my understanding that tracking is done by cookies. I delete all cookies 2-3 times a day, and always after logging out of Google (which I rarely log in to) and Facebook. The only downside is that I have to log in to again to certain sites but that is easy because of OS X's built-in password manager.
Your IP address and browser request header makes it easy to correlate your travel across several sites. As long as you do anything with that IP ever that ties to you, they've got you. With many ISPs, your IP can last for months.
I just don't have the browser save anything anymore at close. No cache, no cookies, no login credentials, no history, nothing.
Not even IndexedDB? If not, then how do you plan to use web applications' offline modes?
"Web application" with an "offline mode"?? People actually use those?!?!
For ruling against them!!! Technically, there's no end to this is your lawyers are slimey enough. Technically it may even be possible to sue the members of SCOTUS...
Nope. Judges have absolute immunity for anything they do from the bench. This even applies when the judge's actions were malicious. Check out Stump v. Sparkman if you want to make yourself sick.
I don't have a right to forbid people from tossing crap on my property? If I tell them I don't want it and they should not drop it there, they are trespassing.
This is equivalent to saying that someone is allowed to sit in my living room and yell about their political views, and I can't tell them to leave, because their speech is protected. The 1st amendment does not provide a defense for trespass.
The main reason why there is no exemption for corporations is that you can't weasel out of this law by creating a "Green NPO" to sniff out their rotting waste cans.
A typical solution to this 'problem' would be to require a license, predicated on a series of vague requirements, with broad discretionary authority for rejection. That way it could be ensured that only proper cronies gain access.
Perhaps the law actually says "reasonable articulable suspicion"? That is an existing standard for searches, like a Terry Stop.
As usual: one rule for the state, and one rule for the peons. They just forgot to add exemptions for their pals in certain industries.
Yep. I'll also give a nod to the Apricorn devices, which we use quite a bit. They are OS-independent (we're Linux-only at home) and require no drivers beyond basic USB, with all of the AES encryption and authorization being internal to the device[*]. They have SSD and spinning disk and USB stick devices, with fingerprint or passcode authorization.
Ack! The 'passcode' on the ones on the website is a mere numeric pin. This essentially guarantees that if someone steals the unit and removes the drive/memory chip(s) etc, brute forcing of the pin will be trivial. I might give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they know this is just a minor obstacle to stop non-technical thieves, except their pages are plastered with the phrase "military grade." They even have pictures of people in camo uniforms using it.
The false sense of security from such a device is extremely dangerous!
Nah, I was actually talking about the "mainstream acts." I know there is, and probably always will be, quality stuff being put out by lesser known folks.
Of course it is obvious that there has always been bad music, but has the quantity of good music decreased? It seems to me that the music industry has suffered from the same pressures as most other industries; producing lower quality, less risky products and making up the difference in marketing is the rule of the day.
Anyone else think this may be due to a poorer quality of music signed with the labels? I know everyone always thinks things were better 'back in the day', but that doesn't make it not true.
Additionally, the distinction in the law is also a recognition of the added danger to all parties inherent in robbery. When someone takes things by threat of force, we take that threat at face value. Victims threatened with violence also typically have a right to retaliate in self-defense, and this is a possibility a robber is expected to reasonably anticipate as a consequence of their actions.
Article 11 (interstate commerce) and Amendment 1 (free speech, free association) rulez the Illinois foolz
It is the 14th amendment which applies the Bill of Rights to the states, not the commerce clause.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A state violating the right of its citizens to free speech is either denying them due process of law (if you believe Supreme Court precedent), or denying them the privileges and immunities of the United States (if you read the literature and understanding of 1868).
"It's claimed that users are faster at responding to familiar logos..."
I have no TV (but a 55" monitor to watch torrented stuff without ads), use adblockers everywhere, refuse ads in my mailbox, I wouldn't recognize a logo that I don't know from childhood and most of those have changed.
Do you also never go outside? Visit a store? Or purchase any products?
I also block as many ads as I can, but I am still exposed to plenty of logos and such merely by going outside in any relatively urban area. Even interacting with any people you will see logos, since people wear all sorts of them on their clothing. There's also a logo on almost any product you can buy, even if you never go outside and never see any other people.
If you don't know any logos, you must have been living under a rock. Say, did you know that 15 minutes could...
The other real issue would be with lubricants. That, or a piece with looser tolerances such as the AK-47. Either way, one would not want the lubricants to freeze nor the parts to self-weld.
Lubrication is not that big of a concern. The vast majority of modern semi-automatic combat-grade firearms can be safely run with no lubrication at all. The only effect it will have is to increase wear, which could start to be an issue after several thousand rounds fired at least. Certain designs, such as the Glock handgun, have been tested with upwards of 100,000 rounds fired with no lubrication and minimal detrimental effects.
Why not invest into research on more resilient buildings in the first place? It is not only meteors, but also hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes. Say, include into the glass sort of nylon net by regulations and forget about millions of broken glass injuries every year.
That would cost way more than $5 million, or even $5 billion. It would just be harder to see the cost because it would be forced on to people building a new home or whatever (as if that industry needs more costs right now).
The targets would be closer to aphelion than perihelion, since it would be easier and take less energy to deflect them when they were far from the Sun than when they were closer. So their relative motion is very slow and very easy to track from any Earth orbit whose plane was roughly perpendicular to a line from the Earth to the asteroid.
Ah, that makes sense. I guess then, you just don't spin up the system until you've already oriented the craft properly for the asteroid you want to shoot at.