No, he understands correctly. The patent is "unlock a computer using facial recognition". It does not describe a system of face recognition or a computer security model. It smiply says that you can plug these things together.
The 17,000 word filing indicates otherwise. It does describe a security model, and I quote "If the determined identity match does not match a predetermined identity, then requiring the first user to enter first alphanumeric information that matches first predetermined alphanumeric information as a condition for logging the first user on to the computing device. Then, if the determined identity match does match a predetermined identity, one or more gestures in a touch sensitive area of a computing device can be received."
So no, I reiterate: You, and now the other poster as well, do not understand patents. They do describe a specific process. Actually, they describe a great many processes, in an attempt to cover every conceivable method of implimenting it. But then, that's how patents these days work: Because the Patent Office doesn't do its job, the courts have to, with inconsistent and often tragic results.
Vague and overbearing patents have become legally popular these past few years, in an attempt to achieve what you claim has been true since time immortal: Patenting the 'what' instead of the 'how'. That may be the trend, but that is now how the patent system was envisioned, nor how it started. You are still wrong, however: It isn't how patents are supposed to work, nor historically how they have worked, and if the system hadn't been so badly corrupted recently by questionable laws and equally questionable judges and judgements, it wouldn't be happening now either. Patents are supposed to only be granted to an inventor who demonstrates a truly novel method of accomplishing something. The system was designed in the 1700s, when industrialization was still in its infancy. It has adapted quite poorly to the information age.
It's a game that doesn't have to be online, but I'm glad it will be!
Naturally then, because you like it, everyone else will too. Other similarly bad arguments: Love it or leave it, you're not a game developer so your opinion doesn't count, you don't love it as much as I do, you're not part of [Favored Group] so you can't understand, and my personal favorite: If we listened to you, this kind of thing wouldn't exist!
Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?
You misunderstand patents; It's not what the apparatus does that's patentable, it's how it does it. There are a few other conditions as well; However it goes about its business has to be in a non-trivial, non-obvious fashion. In other words, if it took 20 electrical engineers to build the device, if I take 20 electrical engineers and tell them what the device does, they shouldn't come back with a nearly identical device; If they do, then no matter how complex it is, it shouldn't be patentable.
At least, that's the theory. In practice... Patents in the United States and most other countries are simply rubber-stamped and then the validity of the patent is contested in costly legal battles.
And no, I haven't pirated any of their titles either. I prefer to undermine my arguments in an ethical manner.
I use pirated software often when I also have purchased a legitimate copy. Pirated games don't demand always-on connections, having the CD/DVD in the drive, or non-bypassable giant logos that display for 30 seconds. When I launch a pirate game, I get the game, and that's all I want.
Yep.. if you don't like the terms the artist provides the content under, you can just do what ever you feel like.
Small problem: The artist has no say in how the content is distributed. Take Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Ever seen it on TV? Can you find a copy on the internet? As a matter of fact, it's very rare to do so because Martin Luther King's dysfunctional family wants money for it. A seminal work, part of our cultural heritage, and easily one of the top 100 speeches ever given in the United States, can't be shown in public because now that King is dead, his family owns the copyright.
I do not think King, if he were still alive, instead of his shit-eating family, would say that people who air his speech should give him or his descendants royalty payments. I think, in fact, he may have been rather shocked at how his own family is participating in this new form of slavery and oppression of his people -- by preventing his own message of peace and goodwill from being heard by others.
So would you propose that we allow his speech, and that of all civil rights leaders who have died and the rights to their words passed on to their greedy children or a trust, corporation, etc., be striken from history? Because that's what copyright law has done here, and in many, many other cases.
Our children don't know much about history because it's all been revised, and then copyrighted, and then sold off piece by piece. Their only culture is a collection of brand names, pop music, and shitty internet memes. You can thank copyright law for that... it has cut off our access to the past, to our own history and culture... and most of the damage is irreparable.
They aren't sapient. But they are definitely sentient. They have feeligs. They have likes and dislikes. If they are in pain they cry out, just like we do.
Umm... sentience requires consciousness, in other words: An awareness of self. Your pets don't have that...
Good: Yay! The EU wants to free up spectrum for mobile applications...but for who?
Bad: Not you.
Worse: Not them either.
Oh shit: The same people who are fucking you over a barrel in the mobile broadband arena now.
Personhood includes - or should include - other living things, like cats and dogs and other sundry 'pets', wildlife, extraterrestrials, cyborgs, artificial intelligences (Bicentennial Man, et al), etc. Theory of mind might be involved here.
Cats and dogs aren't sentient. Neither is wildlife. Extraterrestrials don't exist, and neither do cyborgs. Artificial intelligences are too primitive to date. However, I'm going to depart from my previous statement that human rights belong to everyone... they belong to everyone except you.
You are clearly too stupid to be trusted with them.
Some groups of a few people who care have changed the world. A far larger number of groups of a few people who cared have found the world unyielding to their efforts.
If you only ever do things that statistics favor, you're going to lead a most boring and undistinguished life. Life has always existed despite the odds, vibrant life doubly so. I choose to believe I am of consequence to the universe... and since you believe you are not of consequence to the universe, you are... of no consequence at all.
My model airplane radio does both frequency hopping and interference mitigation (so two or more radios can braodcast at the same time). Heck so too does a cellphone. I'm not understanding why you say it's not possible yet?
Find me one that does it 300,000 times per second.
For synical people like myself this is funny, painfully funny. (I do not mod)
It's cynical, and that is why you fail. I've been talking with EEs and RF engineers for several months about how to create a cognitive/software radio. It's already been done, it's not theoretical -- the military already has this technology in use today with specifications similar to what the project requires. But all that research is locked behind the guise of national security, so it must be developed independently. And it's not easy finding DACs and FPGAs with the bandwidth and clocking speeds necessary to drive the radio without a lot of discrete components; And when I say a lot, I mean more than what's on your motherboard.
However, every person I've talked to says it is certainly possible; Just not easy, especially if the design makes every attempt to limit harmful interference, since unlike the military, this device needs to play nice with existing equipment. Your cynicism is, frankly, pathetic. Don't think that a few people who care can't change the world -- indeed, they're the only ones who ever have.
The first thing to understand about human rights is it doesn't depend on the law of men to validate them. You have the right to freedom of speech, expression, and religion, regardless of what your government says. You have it regardless of whether the Constitution allows it or not, or even exists. You have it, because you're a human being. That is the definition of a human right: There are some laws higher than those of men.
Stop thinking of this as an American problem, or a legal problem. It's an ethical problem -- and the greatest advances of the 21st century won't be in science or technology, but in expanding the concept of what it means to be human. That, good sir, is your fight. You are not alone.
Uh, mods, I didn't intend for that to be funny. That really is the future of the internet. If we're going to have a free (as in liberty), worldwide, packet switched network, then our only hope lies in software defined radio, 3D printing, and a dozen or so RF engineers brave enough to build us a portable mesh-networking communication package with rapid frequency shifting, ultra wideband transmit/receive, and on the fly encryption. We have to build a new network -- one that doesn't rely on fixed infrastructure.
And we have to do it soon, before our children get the idea that what's going on now is what we intended the future of democracy to look like.
I think copyright systems like this are [This comment has been removed due to copyright violation.] What's even worse, the government [This comment has been seized by the DHS, FBI, and Intellectual Property bureau. The user has been charged with violations of the....] Well, screw them. I'll fight them with my last bre[This comment has been forwarded to law enforcement for making terrorist threats under statute...]. And you should [Alert: Your antivirus has detected that this comment contains political views that may harm your brain. To prevent damage, it has been automatically removed.]
Would just like to point out iOS does in fact give user control over Privacy
Apple uses a different definition of privacy than other people do; they define it as "giving information to anyone other than us." So your data is private, as long as you don't mind Apple having all of it.
My local university does this. It's actually a pretty good idea if it's done right. Of course, the other side of the reality is that in addition to knocking infected computers off of the internet,
The problem is that detecting infected computers invariably requires some level of privacy intrusion, and possibly committing numerous felonies to probe the machine. That's why only large organizations do this; because they own all the machines and can dictate that policy. It's entirely another matter when the system isn't owned by you, and that's what's under discussion.
The internet was designed to allow free and unfettered communication between any and all nodes. On the internet, every IP address was a peer to every other. But then corporations came, and they started walling things off, messing up the protocols, and trying to convert the internet to an asymetrical content distribution network to push their wares. And then the government came in and offered protection to that corruption of the network. Then other countries joined with the same pattern of uptake; And now countries are starting wars or engaging in war-like acts with each other, all to answer the question: Who will control the internet?
Given that, the question of whether you should be able to attack and offline other nodes on the network, for whatever reason, comes down to whether you believe you should have the same rights on the network as groups, organizations, corporations, and governments. The internet itself doesn't care which side you take -- you're just another peer, and all the ideologies now warring over control of it are heaped on top of it.
If you're an old school hacker, the answer is obvious. If you're a 20-something, you probably accept intellectual property, and the idea that the internet can be owned (as a collective entity, as membership to, not as individual components).
As an old-schooler, I will only say this: The Native Americans believed land couldn't be owned. It's a fine ideal. But the other guys had guns, and it didn't matter who was right, only who was left.
You've always been able to bypass that page, although on the older versions you had to know to hit command-q. In at least Mountain Lion, the skip button is right on the same page.
Imagine it's someone's first time using MacOS X: How will they know that, when it's not on the screen and not in any of the menus either? And at any rate, hiding the command is equivalent to forcing people to register -- most people aren't going to be bothered to google for "super secret registration bypass".
Your ignorance is what people in the FreeBSD world already know--viral.
I fail to see how stating the facts is ignorant; Are you disputing that Apple took FreeBSD, modified it to their own design, and then released it as a proprietary product? Because that's all I claimed, you arrogant prick.
I think Apple does give people access to their "own content" as much as they want.
Dude, are you smoking crack? OS X is based on an open source operating system that they then carved up and bolted on their own stuff, patented it, and threatened anyone who even looked at it sideways with a lawsuit. Then they built a walled garden around that so it's difficult to get applications anywhere but through them. Then they walled in those apps by making sure Apple had to approve each one individually, and double-walled it by making sure Apple got a cut of any content distributed by those applications.
Apple doesn't want you to own anything, even your own personal data. OS X is the only operating system I've used where there's no way to cancel or abort registration: You have to enter a name, address, and phone number to get to the login. It tries to phone home that information right away, even while lying to you on the interface by saying you don't have to register and leaving an icon on the screen for you to do it later... as if it didn't know it already phoned home.
No, Apple doesn't want to give you anything. They want to control all of it; like an amusement park. You're not allowed to bring in any outside food or beverage, and the only thing you can leave with is a few trinkets and a lot less of your money. If you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself.
Can't we for a while at least stop ascribing a success, which is due to the hard work of a very large group of people over a long period to one man, and further look for some magical parallels where there are none?
tl;dr. Condensed version: "Rich people are right because they're rich and you're not."
I could solve all the problems associated with these profiteering asshats with a simple solution: Allow people to be licensed to broadcast internet. Right now amateur radio can't offer internet access. If private persons were allowed to do with a larger spectrum space what they can do right now with wifi, I suspect that their entire business model would implode.
Mesh networking is a mature technology -- and it doesn't require the infrastructure these companies offer. Make it legal for people to build wireless communities. But I guess that would be too radical of a concept for the FCC; They seem only interested in appearing to support the common citizen, rather than actually supporting them. There's no profit in handing over spectrum to "the public", the group the FCC claims to represent, and whom the FCC mandate the spectrum is actually owned by, for which the FCC is merely an administrator of.
Not exactly. In that case, most of the code was uploaded, then resequenced and executed. The completed program looked the same on each card. In this case, what they're saying is with all the DLLs on a system, if you can heuristically analyze them for relevant code segments to fulfill your objective, then you can use code that's already trusted and integrated into the system as a foundation for your attack.
The problem with this method, is that it still requires a 'seed'. It needs a program with the logic necessary to stitch together its payload. In other words, the delivery system is still vulnerable to conventional countermeasures.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he understands correctly. The patent is "unlock a computer using facial recognition". It does not describe a system of face recognition or a computer security model. It smiply says that you can plug these things together.
The 17,000 word filing indicates otherwise. It does describe a security model, and I quote "If the determined identity match does not match a predetermined identity, then requiring the first user to enter first alphanumeric information that matches first predetermined alphanumeric information as a condition for logging the first user on to the computing device. Then, if the determined identity match does match a predetermined identity, one or more gestures in a touch sensitive area of a computing device can be received."
So no, I reiterate: You, and now the other poster as well, do not understand patents. They do describe a specific process. Actually, they describe a great many processes, in an attempt to cover every conceivable method of implimenting it. But then, that's how patents these days work: Because the Patent Office doesn't do its job, the courts have to, with inconsistent and often tragic results.
Vague and overbearing patents have become legally popular these past few years, in an attempt to achieve what you claim has been true since time immortal: Patenting the 'what' instead of the 'how'. That may be the trend, but that is now how the patent system was envisioned, nor how it started. You are still wrong, however: It isn't how patents are supposed to work, nor historically how they have worked, and if the system hadn't been so badly corrupted recently by questionable laws and equally questionable judges and judgements, it wouldn't be happening now either. Patents are supposed to only be granted to an inventor who demonstrates a truly novel method of accomplishing something. The system was designed in the 1700s, when industrialization was still in its infancy. It has adapted quite poorly to the information age.
It's a game that doesn't have to be online, but I'm glad it will be!
Naturally then, because you like it, everyone else will too. Other similarly bad arguments: Love it or leave it, you're not a game developer so your opinion doesn't count, you don't love it as much as I do, you're not part of [Favored Group] so you can't understand, and my personal favorite: If we listened to you, this kind of thing wouldn't exist!
Why is anything that has an obvious physical analog even patentable just because it's implemented on a computer?
You misunderstand patents; It's not what the apparatus does that's patentable, it's how it does it. There are a few other conditions as well; However it goes about its business has to be in a non-trivial, non-obvious fashion. In other words, if it took 20 electrical engineers to build the device, if I take 20 electrical engineers and tell them what the device does, they shouldn't come back with a nearly identical device; If they do, then no matter how complex it is, it shouldn't be patentable.
At least, that's the theory. In practice... Patents in the United States and most other countries are simply rubber-stamped and then the validity of the patent is contested in costly legal battles.
And no, I haven't pirated any of their titles either. I prefer to undermine my arguments in an ethical manner.
I use pirated software often when I also have purchased a legitimate copy. Pirated games don't demand always-on connections, having the CD/DVD in the drive, or non-bypassable giant logos that display for 30 seconds. When I launch a pirate game, I get the game, and that's all I want.
Yep.. if you don't like the terms the artist provides the content under, you can just do what ever you feel like.
Small problem: The artist has no say in how the content is distributed. Take Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Ever seen it on TV? Can you find a copy on the internet? As a matter of fact, it's very rare to do so because Martin Luther King's dysfunctional family wants money for it. A seminal work, part of our cultural heritage, and easily one of the top 100 speeches ever given in the United States, can't be shown in public because now that King is dead, his family owns the copyright.
I do not think King, if he were still alive, instead of his shit-eating family, would say that people who air his speech should give him or his descendants royalty payments. I think, in fact, he may have been rather shocked at how his own family is participating in this new form of slavery and oppression of his people -- by preventing his own message of peace and goodwill from being heard by others.
So would you propose that we allow his speech, and that of all civil rights leaders who have died and the rights to their words passed on to their greedy children or a trust, corporation, etc., be striken from history? Because that's what copyright law has done here, and in many, many other cases.
Our children don't know much about history because it's all been revised, and then copyrighted, and then sold off piece by piece. Their only culture is a collection of brand names, pop music, and shitty internet memes. You can thank copyright law for that... it has cut off our access to the past, to our own history and culture... and most of the damage is irreparable.
Corrupt motherfuckers.
FTFY.
They aren't sapient. But they are definitely sentient. They have feeligs. They have likes and dislikes. If they are in pain they cry out, just like we do.
Umm... sentience requires consciousness, in other words: An awareness of self. Your pets don't have that...
Good: Yay! The EU wants to free up spectrum for mobile applications...but for who?
Bad: Not you.
Worse: Not them either.
Oh shit: The same people who are fucking you over a barrel in the mobile broadband arena now.
Personhood includes - or should include - other living things, like cats and dogs and other sundry 'pets', wildlife, extraterrestrials, cyborgs, artificial intelligences (Bicentennial Man, et al), etc. Theory of mind might be involved here.
Cats and dogs aren't sentient. Neither is wildlife. Extraterrestrials don't exist, and neither do cyborgs. Artificial intelligences are too primitive to date. However, I'm going to depart from my previous statement that human rights belong to everyone... they belong to everyone except you.
You are clearly too stupid to be trusted with them.
Some groups of a few people who care have changed the world. A far larger number of groups of a few people who cared have found the world unyielding to their efforts.
If you only ever do things that statistics favor, you're going to lead a most boring and undistinguished life. Life has always existed despite the odds, vibrant life doubly so. I choose to believe I am of consequence to the universe... and since you believe you are not of consequence to the universe, you are... of no consequence at all.
My model airplane radio does both frequency hopping and interference mitigation (so two or more radios can braodcast at the same time). Heck so too does a cellphone. I'm not understanding why you say it's not possible yet?
Find me one that does it 300,000 times per second.
For synical people like myself this is funny, painfully funny. (I do not mod)
It's cynical, and that is why you fail. I've been talking with EEs and RF engineers for several months about how to create a cognitive/software radio. It's already been done, it's not theoretical -- the military already has this technology in use today with specifications similar to what the project requires. But all that research is locked behind the guise of national security, so it must be developed independently. And it's not easy finding DACs and FPGAs with the bandwidth and clocking speeds necessary to drive the radio without a lot of discrete components; And when I say a lot, I mean more than what's on your motherboard.
However, every person I've talked to says it is certainly possible; Just not easy, especially if the design makes every attempt to limit harmful interference, since unlike the military, this device needs to play nice with existing equipment. Your cynicism is, frankly, pathetic. Don't think that a few people who care can't change the world -- indeed, they're the only ones who ever have.
It time to stand up for OUR 1st amendment rights!
The first thing to understand about human rights is it doesn't depend on the law of men to validate them. You have the right to freedom of speech, expression, and religion, regardless of what your government says. You have it regardless of whether the Constitution allows it or not, or even exists. You have it, because you're a human being. That is the definition of a human right: There are some laws higher than those of men.
Stop thinking of this as an American problem, or a legal problem. It's an ethical problem -- and the greatest advances of the 21st century won't be in science or technology, but in expanding the concept of what it means to be human. That, good sir, is your fight. You are not alone.
Uh, mods, I didn't intend for that to be funny. That really is the future of the internet. If we're going to have a free (as in liberty), worldwide, packet switched network, then our only hope lies in software defined radio, 3D printing, and a dozen or so RF engineers brave enough to build us a portable mesh-networking communication package with rapid frequency shifting, ultra wideband transmit/receive, and on the fly encryption. We have to build a new network -- one that doesn't rely on fixed infrastructure.
And we have to do it soon, before our children get the idea that what's going on now is what we intended the future of democracy to look like.
I think copyright systems like this are [This comment has been removed due to copyright violation.] What's even worse, the government [This comment has been seized by the DHS, FBI, and Intellectual Property bureau. The user has been charged with violations of the....] Well, screw them. I'll fight them with my last bre[This comment has been forwarded to law enforcement for making terrorist threats under statute...]. And you should [Alert: Your antivirus has detected that this comment contains political views that may harm your brain. To prevent damage, it has been automatically removed.]
Would just like to point out iOS does in fact give user control over Privacy
Apple uses a different definition of privacy than other people do; they define it as "giving information to anyone other than us." So your data is private, as long as you don't mind Apple having all of it.
My local university does this. It's actually a pretty good idea if it's done right. Of course, the other side of the reality is that in addition to knocking infected computers off of the internet,
The problem is that detecting infected computers invariably requires some level of privacy intrusion, and possibly committing numerous felonies to probe the machine. That's why only large organizations do this; because they own all the machines and can dictate that policy. It's entirely another matter when the system isn't owned by you, and that's what's under discussion.
The internet was designed to allow free and unfettered communication between any and all nodes. On the internet, every IP address was a peer to every other. But then corporations came, and they started walling things off, messing up the protocols, and trying to convert the internet to an asymetrical content distribution network to push their wares. And then the government came in and offered protection to that corruption of the network. Then other countries joined with the same pattern of uptake; And now countries are starting wars or engaging in war-like acts with each other, all to answer the question: Who will control the internet?
Given that, the question of whether you should be able to attack and offline other nodes on the network, for whatever reason, comes down to whether you believe you should have the same rights on the network as groups, organizations, corporations, and governments. The internet itself doesn't care which side you take -- you're just another peer, and all the ideologies now warring over control of it are heaped on top of it.
If you're an old school hacker, the answer is obvious. If you're a 20-something, you probably accept intellectual property, and the idea that the internet can be owned (as a collective entity, as membership to, not as individual components).
As an old-schooler, I will only say this: The Native Americans believed land couldn't be owned. It's a fine ideal. But the other guys had guns, and it didn't matter who was right, only who was left.
You've always been able to bypass that page, although on the older versions you had to know to hit command-q. In at least Mountain Lion, the skip button is right on the same page.
Imagine it's someone's first time using MacOS X: How will they know that, when it's not on the screen and not in any of the menus either? And at any rate, hiding the command is equivalent to forcing people to register -- most people aren't going to be bothered to google for "super secret registration bypass".
Stop apologizing for them: It's wrong.
Your ignorance is what people in the FreeBSD world already know--viral.
I fail to see how stating the facts is ignorant; Are you disputing that Apple took FreeBSD, modified it to their own design, and then released it as a proprietary product? Because that's all I claimed, you arrogant prick.
I think Apple does give people access to their "own content" as much as they want.
Dude, are you smoking crack? OS X is based on an open source operating system that they then carved up and bolted on their own stuff, patented it, and threatened anyone who even looked at it sideways with a lawsuit. Then they built a walled garden around that so it's difficult to get applications anywhere but through them. Then they walled in those apps by making sure Apple had to approve each one individually, and double-walled it by making sure Apple got a cut of any content distributed by those applications.
Apple doesn't want you to own anything, even your own personal data. OS X is the only operating system I've used where there's no way to cancel or abort registration: You have to enter a name, address, and phone number to get to the login. It tries to phone home that information right away, even while lying to you on the interface by saying you don't have to register and leaving an icon on the screen for you to do it later... as if it didn't know it already phoned home.
No, Apple doesn't want to give you anything. They want to control all of it; like an amusement park. You're not allowed to bring in any outside food or beverage, and the only thing you can leave with is a few trinkets and a lot less of your money. If you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself.
Last word..
Can't we for a while at least stop ascribing a success, which is due to the hard work of a very large group of people over a long period to one man, and further look for some magical parallels where there are none?
tl;dr. Condensed version: "Rich people are right because they're rich and you're not."
Last word.
I could solve all the problems associated with these profiteering asshats with a simple solution: Allow people to be licensed to broadcast internet. Right now amateur radio can't offer internet access. If private persons were allowed to do with a larger spectrum space what they can do right now with wifi, I suspect that their entire business model would implode.
Mesh networking is a mature technology -- and it doesn't require the infrastructure these companies offer. Make it legal for people to build wireless communities. But I guess that would be too radical of a concept for the FCC; They seem only interested in appearing to support the common citizen, rather than actually supporting them. There's no profit in handing over spectrum to "the public", the group the FCC claims to represent, and whom the FCC mandate the spectrum is actually owned by, for which the FCC is merely an administrator of.
Not exactly. In that case, most of the code was uploaded, then resequenced and executed. The completed program looked the same on each card. In this case, what they're saying is with all the DLLs on a system, if you can heuristically analyze them for relevant code segments to fulfill your objective, then you can use code that's already trusted and integrated into the system as a foundation for your attack.
The problem with this method, is that it still requires a 'seed'. It needs a program with the logic necessary to stitch together its payload. In other words, the delivery system is still vulnerable to conventional countermeasures.