No, this is the cost of doing business poorly. A trademark search needs to be international in scope if you plan on making an international product. On top of damages Apple should be prohibited from further infringement (rename the product in countries with a previously registered trademark). There was a similar debacle (within the US registry if I remember) over the iPhone. I think it was settled, but the infringing product (Apple's iPhone) should have been pulled off the shelves, relabeled, and future infringement explicitly prohibited. It seems that Apple only cares about IP when they can use it to keep others out of their business - the evidence here is that they don't even bother looking to see if they infringe in a direction they want to go.
Do your own research. U.S. government corruption is worse than what is described here.
When I publish my own research I generally include citations. It helps one be taken seriously, although not always.
Please do try again, it will make you a more effective at avoiding "flame bait" (because ACs can't really be guilty of trolling for karma - the line's got to be in the water for something else).
It may be worth looking into, but I have a suspicion that quartz has a higher capacitance than Mo. Again, I am not an expert in this area, but I think a transistor wants a pretty low capacitance so it can be driven from on to off (or off to on) without too much hassle. It seems that a higher capacitance would make for a slower transistor due to charge drain.
Not to mention that marketing (in pharma) drives up profitability but drops long term value. Actually, that link is probably a must read for anyone who makes claims based on the marketing is double R&D claim. (Actually, reading that link will likely tone down the quote based off of a snippet summary of a news article about this paper).
Nahdude812 makes some excellent points about marketing. Marketing pays for itself, and then it pays for other things (such as more R&D). If marketing is a net negative the company is being run so poorly that it won't be around long enough to make the third batch after approval.
And if there isn't a generic available, one can be thankful someone took a very high risk of being able to make a lot of money in a short window selling just what was needed when nobody else had taken that chance before. It may not be the purist altruism, but it eases discomfort or saves life to the point where people are willing to buy it.
You can't get approval from the FDA without showing some very specific pharmacology data. You need to show you know exactly what's going on at the lowest level or there's not a chance in bureaucracy that CBER or CDER is going to approve your new drug application. Theses days even the small molecule generics have to at least make a facsimile of the big boy's mechanism description and pay for someone on staff qualified to answer questions about it.
Recommending censorship of scientific literature is extremely dangerous ground, and a precedent which could lead to the halt of scientific advancement on earth if the limit is applied (mathematically).
Scientific advancement generally lets us do difficult things more easily. Humans are reasonably resilient to other humans, but still rather delicate and fragile over the spectrum of physical and chemical (biological) forces. Scientific advancement will allow an individual human to apply physical and chemical (biological) forces at a greater magnitude; surpassing the difficulty barriers in place for a naked individual.
It is already relatively trivial to wipe out a large number of humans with scientific advancement - poisoning wells was first implemented millenia ago. An ordinary Western kitchen has everything you need to make an IED in five minutes. Eventually (and not too far in the future), an ordinary household could contain everything needed to design the next pandemic (just modify your bio-LEGO set, or corrupt your dodo home cloning kit). A byproduct of scientific advancement will be the increased triviality of wholesale death; thus the desire for censorship. The problem is that we will hit a point where any further advancement in a field would result in making it too easy for the skulker in the shadows so all research in that field would be halted by censorship.
The problem is ultimately social and not scientific in nature. Should scientists pause progress and wait for social advancement to catch up in responsibility, or is social advancement primarily a reaction feedback mechanism which needs the ethical dilemmas produced by science to move forward? Will we ever get to a point socially where no one on earth would be capable of setting lose the deathly horrors? To identify and cure every sociopath, to have every extremist cause sits at a table. Is such a thing possible? If not, should we freeze scientific advancement to limit the damages which could be caused?
This is not a question which can be balanced without weighing the potential trade offs. It may be trivial these days to make an IED, but it is also trivial to cure the bubonic plague. The comparative risk of bringing new life into the world is trivial, producing enough food for a scientific nation is trivial, sharing ideas and communicating with friends and enemies alike... Eventually curing influenza, HIV, cancer, and even old age could be trivial.
Right now, NSABB has decided we're not ready for the next step of scientific advancement (science without publication is dead"). As I started with in the beginning - this is dangerous ground, but I can see their reasoning. We're standing at the leading edge of a great tunnel, when not just nation states with coordinated effort can destroy the world, but hidden men in basements and kitchens can do the same. We could stay here in the dusk, but for myself, I think I'd rather adventure onward and take my chances with the skulker in the shadows rather than cutting power to the light at the end of the tunnel.
You're forgetting about mechanical scaling. You don't need something that moves 0.1mm to get 0.1mm tolerance, you could instead make a screw with threads set such that a certain number of tick-mark revolutions will give you 0.1mm motion of your tool/piece. This lets you scale up your tolerance fairly quickly until you reach the limits of your materials (e.g. teflon vs. aluminum).
...Refusing to participate in peer review with them just means they'll get someone else to do it, and poor papers may slip through.
Thus degrading the quality of the journal and after about 10 years people will learn to treat it as one of the trashier neighborhoods. The problem is the impact (factor and public) that the article will have in the transition period. Also, the editor will have to keep hitting up the scientists who don't refuse until they burn out. This can actually be a feedback loop where the reviewing scientist decides that they must get asked to review because they publish so often in that journal, so picking a journal with a lower review load may be worth looking into. Forgoing review is a nasty and dirty type of boycott which definitely flirts the line between dereliction of duty and the need to advance science by publishing in a public forum (which country-club nit-picky-HOA Elsevier is not). Most of those journals are good, and often the sale to Elsevier was to free up their editorial board and professional staff for the real work on the journal. This problem has been building for years and there's not much that will solve it outside of legislation and possibly international treaty. Even the US legislation which says papers written on research performed with public money should be free to access (perhaps with a 6 month delay) has too many loopholes for it to work well.
Well don't leave your nic setup that way! What's the point of spoofing (in this case) if you stick around long enough to be photographed, triangulated, or otherwise caught with proof on the equipment seized?
Rules of MAC cloning: 1) leave it cloned if you're using a router with your ISP, 2) wipe the clone if you expect the inquisition to drop by for a late over a pendulum session.
Go for something like 01:23:45:67:89:AB. That way even if the logs get nabbed it'll save a lot of headache for both the open network admin and others involved. It makes it obvious that further tracking is pointless (good for you) and does a nice turn for anyone kind enough to leave open bandwidth for public use by (presumably) ending their harassment by investigators.
The other way to do it is to leave your home router's wireless open to the public (regulating bandwidth as you see fit), control the logs yourself, and then make any connection to a proxy via (registry/OS footprint free) utilities on a hidden volume or usb drive. Thus even if all of the proxies, anonymizers, and etc. are compromised you'll still have enough reasonable doubt. Of course reasonable doubt is only good in some locations. The places or circumstances these tools are often invented for (i.e. Arab Spring) may not care enough about western due process in the middle of a civil revolution.
Well, if they search your backups, email history, etc... there's probably some evidence of your forgetfullness (or lack thereof) for passwords. How often do you have to use a webmail (or slashdot account) password reset. Have local copies of zip-file password crackers? Revokation of a PGP key?
If I actually had all of that data in one place I could probably do some statistics on my personal likelihood of forgetting a password based on certain parameters. Some passwords I use so often that I've never had a problem, there's others that I don't even bother resetting from the randomly generated "new password" because it'll be another six years before the next elder scrolls game and I look for a PC friendly UI mod again. There's a few outliers though - one of which is a PGP personal pass phrase that I recently forgot. It had been a little while since I needed to sign something with it, and now I can't remember. I tried for weeks and probably a hundred attempts before just giving up and making a new key. It really sucks, and I probably should have had this one written down (offline paper would have been fine for my use). I would hope a judge would take all of that information into account and hope he or she believed me if I had really forgotten a password.
And a password of "I am guilty of any charges I am being investigated for" or "I am guilty of murder, theft, criticizing foreign royalty, and sundry offenses" would get you universal immunity? Somehow I don't think universal immunity is going to be offered. It's more likely that they'd give you the chance to type in the password in an unmonitored setting - no immunity that way and contempt if you don't.
Otherwise this would get to be a pretty quick way out of criminal charges. Plan a crime, make an encrypted file with a suspicious name (anything, could be lol cats) with a specific incriminating passphrase, and when the police show up you say: "Oh no! You didn't crack my dastardly plan file did you? Oops, forget I said anything about that - I want a lawyer."
Maybe, just maybe this will work for the first guy or two... but somehow I doubt it.
Additionally, it's entirely possible to rule that passwords can't be easily incriminating because people write untrue or obscene things for passwords all the time. I suppose for a password to be truly incriminating you'd need to use specific information only available to a guilty party (and perhaps the investigator) such as the exact poison, dosage, and delivery mechanism for a murder, or a specific date and time of criminal significance.
Christians are fucking morons, there is no god. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc, throw them all in a pit of fire.
Anyone believing in fucking sand dwelling nomadic fairy tails today, needs to give up their right to use technology and science.
But, on the off chance that these are your genuine feelings, perhaps you would favor a boycott of science and technology which was contributed to by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc...
Have you ever heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? Where do you suppose the giants thought they were standing?
It's "its" and "you're"!! There are various other grammar errors that aren't as a big a deal in an informal situation like this, but those two mistakes already drive me crazy.
...They're talking about scanning arrestees instead of frisking them. If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens"...
Law abiding citizens get frisked all the time, been to a major sporting event or airport recently? Law abiding citizens get arrested too. That is why we have a trial after the arrest has taken place; criminal charges may not haven even been brought before an arrest has occurred. An arrest merely does what it's name says: stops the proceedings which may or may not be legal. It gives the people (represented by the DA) a chance to decide if a criminal event was likely and whether prosecution of the possible event is warranted.
Now I realize there's a big difference between legally innocent and actually innocent, but a bystander on the street should assume that the arrested individual is innocent unless they have witnessed otherwise. If this is not the bystander's assumption, then I surely hope that bystander is responsible enough to tell a judge that they're not fit to serve on a jury.
Police have a different set of responsibilities, one of which is to make sure they don't get anyone's head blown off while proceeding with an arrest of an individual. This scanner (especially if it could be used in the off hand) could make covering an individual and discovering their armed status safer for everyone. IMHO you're spot on about the 4th Amendment and broad public usage though.
That makes sense, sounds like the "If this is the case..." that I started with is not the case.
I don't understand specifics on transmitted electromagnetic radiation, but I had assumed that the company was licensed a portion of the spectrum from x to y and were staying within that area. To me it seems like it should be a simple issue: if they're bleeding into other portions of the spectrum then they're violating the license, but if GPS had been poaching spectrum then it's at fault if someone wants to legitimately use that part of the air space (just like the majority of cordless PA microphones).
Do you have time to outline the specifics of the physics and license here, or could you point me at a good reference over-viewing the technicalities? Thanks.
If this is indeed the case, then GPS should be liable (the manufacturers of said receivers and transmitters) with a fair amount of that burden coming back on the tax payers. If Joe down the street sold me something, and then came back and told me I couldn't use it because it was essential to something else he still owns, Joe should offer to buy it back; but with no obligation for me to sell, Joe may simply be out of luck. If Uncle Sam sells me something...
Now the other way to see this story is: Joe sells me something, I find out that using what Joe sold me (through a previous design fault of Joe's) will endanger lives, cost third parties millions, and otherwise wreck havoc if I use it for my activities which may in the future save lives and earn third parties millions of dollars. So if Joe refuses to own up and fix the problem (or even buy the item back) - we have an ethical dilemma. So if Uncle Sam...
Usually when it comes to Uncle Sam and the "public good" some groups can get royally er republically screwed in a way that can give them a real trail of tears. Even if courts land on their side, enforcement is another issue.
Death due to influenza (or pneumonia) varies seasonally but tends to be in the 7% range (of all death types). (Probably only 2% to 8% of those P&I deaths are actually one of the major strains of influenza - also from the CDC). Serious adverse reactions to a flu vaccine is typically less than 20 per 1,000,000. Death is a very small subset of serious adverse reactions.
I'm not going to walk the numbers all the way to apples and apples because it should be obvious from here.
Slashdot Mirror
Or sales tax evasion...
No, this is the cost of doing business poorly. A trademark search needs to be international in scope if you plan on making an international product. On top of damages Apple should be prohibited from further infringement (rename the product in countries with a previously registered trademark). There was a similar debacle (within the US registry if I remember) over the iPhone. I think it was settled, but the infringing product (Apple's iPhone) should have been pulled off the shelves, relabeled, and future infringement explicitly prohibited. It seems that Apple only cares about IP when they can use it to keep others out of their business - the evidence here is that they don't even bother looking to see if they infringe in a direction they want to go.
Do your own research. U.S. government corruption is worse than what is described here.
When I publish my own research I generally include citations. It helps one be taken seriously, although not always.
Please do try again, it will make you a more effective at avoiding "flame bait" (because ACs can't really be guilty of trolling for karma - the line's got to be in the water for something else).
You shop Ebay outdoors? Aren't you worried the glare will throw off your view of the countdown at the final moment?
It may be worth looking into, but I have a suspicion that quartz has a higher capacitance than Mo. Again, I am not an expert in this area, but I think a transistor wants a pretty low capacitance so it can be driven from on to off (or off to on) without too much hassle. It seems that a higher capacitance would make for a slower transistor due to charge drain.
Not to mention that marketing (in pharma) drives up profitability but drops long term value. Actually, that link is probably a must read for anyone who makes claims based on the marketing is double R&D claim. (Actually, reading that link will likely tone down the quote based off of a snippet summary of a news article about this paper).
Nahdude812 makes some excellent points about marketing. Marketing pays for itself, and then it pays for other things (such as more R&D). If marketing is a net negative the company is being run so poorly that it won't be around long enough to make the third batch after approval.
And if there isn't a generic available, one can be thankful someone took a very high risk of being able to make a lot of money in a short window selling just what was needed when nobody else had taken that chance before. It may not be the purist altruism, but it eases discomfort or saves life to the point where people are willing to buy it.
You can't get approval from the FDA without showing some very specific pharmacology data. You need to show you know exactly what's going on at the lowest level or there's not a chance in bureaucracy that CBER or CDER is going to approve your new drug application. Theses days even the small molecule generics have to at least make a facsimile of the big boy's mechanism description and pay for someone on staff qualified to answer questions about it.
Yes, we should further examine the tau and its power.
Recommending censorship of scientific literature is extremely dangerous ground, and a precedent which could lead to the halt of scientific advancement on earth if the limit is applied (mathematically).
Scientific advancement generally lets us do difficult things more easily. Humans are reasonably resilient to other humans, but still rather delicate and fragile over the spectrum of physical and chemical (biological) forces. Scientific advancement will allow an individual human to apply physical and chemical (biological) forces at a greater magnitude; surpassing the difficulty barriers in place for a naked individual.
It is already relatively trivial to wipe out a large number of humans with scientific advancement - poisoning wells was first implemented millenia ago. An ordinary Western kitchen has everything you need to make an IED in five minutes. Eventually (and not too far in the future), an ordinary household could contain everything needed to design the next pandemic (just modify your bio-LEGO set, or corrupt your dodo home cloning kit). A byproduct of scientific advancement will be the increased triviality of wholesale death; thus the desire for censorship. The problem is that we will hit a point where any further advancement in a field would result in making it too easy for the skulker in the shadows so all research in that field would be halted by censorship.
The problem is ultimately social and not scientific in nature. Should scientists pause progress and wait for social advancement to catch up in responsibility, or is social advancement primarily a reaction feedback mechanism which needs the ethical dilemmas produced by science to move forward? Will we ever get to a point socially where no one on earth would be capable of setting lose the deathly horrors? To identify and cure every sociopath, to have every extremist cause sits at a table. Is such a thing possible? If not, should we freeze scientific advancement to limit the damages which could be caused?
This is not a question which can be balanced without weighing the potential trade offs. It may be trivial these days to make an IED, but it is also trivial to cure the bubonic plague. The comparative risk of bringing new life into the world is trivial, producing enough food for a scientific nation is trivial, sharing ideas and communicating with friends and enemies alike... Eventually curing influenza, HIV, cancer, and even old age could be trivial.
Right now, NSABB has decided we're not ready for the next step of scientific advancement (science without publication is dead"). As I started with in the beginning - this is dangerous ground, but I can see their reasoning. We're standing at the leading edge of a great tunnel, when not just nation states with coordinated effort can destroy the world, but hidden men in basements and kitchens can do the same. We could stay here in the dusk, but for myself, I think I'd rather adventure onward and take my chances with the skulker in the shadows rather than cutting power to the light at the end of the tunnel.
...Yapping and nipping at your heels like a rabid Chihuahua only works if you're cute.
So is that the lil' tyke's strategy?
You're forgetting about mechanical scaling. You don't need something that moves 0.1mm to get 0.1mm tolerance, you could instead make a screw with threads set such that a certain number of tick-mark revolutions will give you 0.1mm motion of your tool/piece. This lets you scale up your tolerance fairly quickly until you reach the limits of your materials (e.g. teflon vs. aluminum).
...Refusing to participate in peer review with them just means they'll get someone else to do it, and poor papers may slip through.
Thus degrading the quality of the journal and after about 10 years people will learn to treat it as one of the trashier neighborhoods. The problem is the impact (factor and public) that the article will have in the transition period. Also, the editor will have to keep hitting up the scientists who don't refuse until they burn out. This can actually be a feedback loop where the reviewing scientist decides that they must get asked to review because they publish so often in that journal, so picking a journal with a lower review load may be worth looking into. Forgoing review is a nasty and dirty type of boycott which definitely flirts the line between dereliction of duty and the need to advance science by publishing in a public forum (which country-club nit-picky-HOA Elsevier is not). Most of those journals are good, and often the sale to Elsevier was to free up their editorial board and professional staff for the real work on the journal. This problem has been building for years and there's not much that will solve it outside of legislation and possibly international treaty. Even the US legislation which says papers written on research performed with public money should be free to access (perhaps with a 6 month delay) has too many loopholes for it to work well.
Well don't leave your nic setup that way! What's the point of spoofing (in this case) if you stick around long enough to be photographed, triangulated, or otherwise caught with proof on the equipment seized?
Rules of MAC cloning: 1) leave it cloned if you're using a router with your ISP, 2) wipe the clone if you expect the inquisition to drop by for a late over a pendulum session.
Go for something like 01:23:45:67:89:AB. That way even if the logs get nabbed it'll save a lot of headache for both the open network admin and others involved. It makes it obvious that further tracking is pointless (good for you) and does a nice turn for anyone kind enough to leave open bandwidth for public use by (presumably) ending their harassment by investigators.
The other way to do it is to leave your home router's wireless open to the public (regulating bandwidth as you see fit), control the logs yourself, and then make any connection to a proxy via (registry/OS footprint free) utilities on a hidden volume or usb drive. Thus even if all of the proxies, anonymizers, and etc. are compromised you'll still have enough reasonable doubt. Of course reasonable doubt is only good in some locations. The places or circumstances these tools are often invented for (i.e. Arab Spring) may not care enough about western due process in the middle of a civil revolution.
Well, if they search your backups, email history, etc... there's probably some evidence of your forgetfullness (or lack thereof) for passwords. How often do you have to use a webmail (or slashdot account) password reset. Have local copies of zip-file password crackers? Revokation of a PGP key?
If I actually had all of that data in one place I could probably do some statistics on my personal likelihood of forgetting a password based on certain parameters. Some passwords I use so often that I've never had a problem, there's others that I don't even bother resetting from the randomly generated "new password" because it'll be another six years before the next elder scrolls game and I look for a PC friendly UI mod again. There's a few outliers though - one of which is a PGP personal pass phrase that I recently forgot. It had been a little while since I needed to sign something with it, and now I can't remember. I tried for weeks and probably a hundred attempts before just giving up and making a new key. It really sucks, and I probably should have had this one written down (offline paper would have been fine for my use). I would hope a judge would take all of that information into account and hope he or she believed me if I had really forgotten a password.
And a password of "I am guilty of any charges I am being investigated for" or "I am guilty of murder, theft, criticizing foreign royalty, and sundry offenses" would get you universal immunity? Somehow I don't think universal immunity is going to be offered. It's more likely that they'd give you the chance to type in the password in an unmonitored setting - no immunity that way and contempt if you don't.
Otherwise this would get to be a pretty quick way out of criminal charges. Plan a crime, make an encrypted file with a suspicious name (anything, could be lol cats) with a specific incriminating passphrase, and when the police show up you say: "Oh no! You didn't crack my dastardly plan file did you? Oops, forget I said anything about that - I want a lawyer."
Maybe, just maybe this will work for the first guy or two... but somehow I doubt it.
Additionally, it's entirely possible to rule that passwords can't be easily incriminating because people write untrue or obscene things for passwords all the time. I suppose for a password to be truly incriminating you'd need to use specific information only available to a guilty party (and perhaps the investigator) such as the exact poison, dosage, and delivery mechanism for a murder, or a specific date and time of criminal significance.
You're probably trolling or baiting here:
Christians are fucking morons, there is no god. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc, throw them all in a pit of fire.
Anyone believing in fucking sand dwelling nomadic fairy tails today, needs to give up their right to use technology and science.
But, on the off chance that these are your genuine feelings, perhaps you would favor a boycott of science and technology which was contributed to by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc...
Have you ever heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? Where do you suppose the giants thought they were standing?
It's "its" and "you're"!! There are various other grammar errors that aren't as a big a deal in an informal situation like this, but those two mistakes already drive me crazy.
Ah ha! A "Grammar Nazi!"
...They're talking about scanning arrestees instead of frisking them. If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens"...
Law abiding citizens get frisked all the time, been to a major sporting event or airport recently? Law abiding citizens get arrested too. That is why we have a trial after the arrest has taken place; criminal charges may not haven even been brought before an arrest has occurred. An arrest merely does what it's name says: stops the proceedings which may or may not be legal. It gives the people (represented by the DA) a chance to decide if a criminal event was likely and whether prosecution of the possible event is warranted.
Now I realize there's a big difference between legally innocent and actually innocent, but a bystander on the street should assume that the arrested individual is innocent unless they have witnessed otherwise. If this is not the bystander's assumption, then I surely hope that bystander is responsible enough to tell a judge that they're not fit to serve on a jury.
Police have a different set of responsibilities, one of which is to make sure they don't get anyone's head blown off while proceeding with an arrest of an individual. This scanner (especially if it could be used in the off hand) could make covering an individual and discovering their armed status safer for everyone. IMHO you're spot on about the 4th Amendment and broad public usage though.
Thank you.
Not when you consider that the bees are getting replaced by a "fun guy" with a virus. In that light, might be time to start the gun collection ;)
That makes sense, sounds like the "If this is the case..." that I started with is not the case.
I don't understand specifics on transmitted electromagnetic radiation, but I had assumed that the company was licensed a portion of the spectrum from x to y and were staying within that area. To me it seems like it should be a simple issue: if they're bleeding into other portions of the spectrum then they're violating the license, but if GPS had been poaching spectrum then it's at fault if someone wants to legitimately use that part of the air space (just like the majority of cordless PA microphones).
Do you have time to outline the specifics of the physics and license here, or could you point me at a good reference over-viewing the technicalities? Thanks.
If this is indeed the case, then GPS should be liable (the manufacturers of said receivers and transmitters) with a fair amount of that burden coming back on the tax payers. If Joe down the street sold me something, and then came back and told me I couldn't use it because it was essential to something else he still owns, Joe should offer to buy it back; but with no obligation for me to sell, Joe may simply be out of luck. If Uncle Sam sells me something...
Now the other way to see this story is: Joe sells me something, I find out that using what Joe sold me (through a previous design fault of Joe's) will endanger lives, cost third parties millions, and otherwise wreck havoc if I use it for my activities which may in the future save lives and earn third parties millions of dollars. So if Joe refuses to own up and fix the problem (or even buy the item back) - we have an ethical dilemma. So if Uncle Sam...
Usually when it comes to Uncle Sam and the "public good" some groups can get royally er republically screwed in a way that can give them a real trail of tears. Even if courts land on their side, enforcement is another issue.
Death due to influenza (or pneumonia) varies seasonally but tends to be in the 7% range (of all death types). (Probably only 2% to 8% of those P&I deaths are actually one of the major strains of influenza - also from the CDC). Serious adverse reactions to a flu vaccine is typically less than 20 per 1,000,000. Death is a very small subset of serious adverse reactions.
I'm not going to walk the numbers all the way to apples and apples because it should be obvious from here.