That's addressed right in the summary. The banks generally manage to get their money back from one of the intermediates used to transfer the money out in the first place. It's those suckers that eat the majority of the loss.
Grammatical nitpick: He's talking about the "typical libertarian", not all libertarians, which is a rather different generalization. "They're all for" is casual English for "[the typical libertarians] are fully in support of", not "every libertarian is in support of".
The measurement is actually the same either way. It's just measuring total dose, regardless of how that dose is distributed (that's total quantity of radiation, not per voume). That's perfectly fine if you happen to know how the dose is distributed (or if it doesn't matter). Based on data for X-rays of that frequency, it's easy to work out the dose distribution in a human with respect to skin depth. IIRC, the skin region gets about two orders of magnitude higher dose per unit volume than if the radiation was distributed across the whole body. In some cases, that could be of significant concern. However, two orders of magnitude is still so far below the acute-effect threshold that it doesn't really matter.
It's standard procedure, when discussing and measuring cancer risks, to use whole-body dose because it's more convenient and sufficiently accurate as long as the dosing isn't highly localized.
Prior art has to be publicly disclosed. If you write a paper about your invention and make it publicly available, or manufacture the thing and sell it, or any number of other ways of making the invention known to the public, then it's prior art. If you invent it and don't do that, it's just an unpatented but patentable invention (and is not prior art). (I'm sure there's some subtlety about the "if you manufacture it" bit.)
Prior art isn't just art that is also prior. It's a legal term of art with a particular definition. The substance of the patent has to have been made known to the public to qualify as prior art.
If Amazon is the first to file on this does it matter how many people have done it before or even if they didn't invent it. It's all about who gets first post at the USPTO now isn't it?
No, first-to-file doesn't change how prior art works. (Okay, it subtlely changes some rules about prior art. It does not change in any way the overall idea that you can't patent something that already exists. "Already exists" needs to be demonstrated by something like a publication or an existing practice.)
First-to-file just changes the rules about how a conflict is resolved when two organizations independently patent the same thing. In first-to-invent, a court uses documentation from the two parties to determine which of the parties actually invented it first. (This is because when you invent something, if you keep it secret, it remains patentable. You have something like a year from when you first expose your invention to the public to file a patent. Hence, someone could easily file a patent on something that was already invented but never shown to the public. The first inventor could then file their own patent later. In first-to-invent, the latter takes precedence.) In first-to-file, instead of determining when the inventions were actually made, the filing date of the patent is used. It saves the courts from having to adjudicate these matters.
There's the big DSLRs, the 4/3 and m4/3, and then compact and bridge cameras. Repair shops rarely bother to try and fix compact and bridge cameras because they just aren't worth it (and have the product churn you talk about). The DSLRs and other system cameras still have pretty decent life, though. Olympus had a ton of new models because they're starting some fairly new product lines. (Okay, so when companies do that, you would expect poor third-party service. The same would go for, say, the Canon EOS M, which is a new line. But the mainline Canons and Nikons have substantial longevity still.)
It does sound silly, because people on a public wi-fi hotspot rarely care what sites you're going to, which is the only thing Tor effectively hides. Sure, it also encrypts data locally, so the people on your same hotspot can't steal credentials, session cookies, or data. It just doesn't encrypt the traffic coming out of the Tor exit node, where you are almost guaranteed that someone is snooping for credentials, session cookies, and data. You've just turned a bad situation into a worse one.
The correct solution is to use HTTPS. Always on public Internet access points, use HTTPS.
DSLRs and higher-end compacts have a multi-year lifecycle. Lenses, too; there's only a handful of new lenses released in a year for a system. While it's inconvenient to have a third party doing repairs, certainly a number of third parties do. (Lensrentals, for instance, does a lot of their own repairs.)
That's referring to unlocking, which is turning your carrier-specific phone into a carrier-independent phone. You're thinking of jailbreaking, which enables you to modify software you were not originally intended to modify. They're entirely separate things.
But most of those people already had phones. So a future market player can sell a foo-phone to the (large) market of people who don't own foo-phones and only own smartphones.
In what sense? Make it illegal entirely? As TFS says, they're focusing on people who are already robocalling illegally. Making it illegal probably won't stem that much.
Or are you suggesting somehow implementing a CAPTCHA in the telephone system?
The problem is the law. There are so many loopholes in it...
Actually, if you look in the summary, that's exactly not what the FTC found. All of the loopholes are legal ways for companies to call you that are still not desired by the recipient. But the majority of robocalls, it says, are illegal. Meaning they're not driving through loopholes, they're just ignoring the law.
Right, compare Stalinism and Nazism, one extreme left wing the other extreme right wing, the difference wasn't really all that great in the way they operated.
Their domestic and economic policies were fairly different. But people mostly remember them for being brutal autocrats, which is really orthogonal to their politics.
Encryption isn't magic. If someone uses the site to share a file with the general public, they have to somehow enable the public to decrypt the data, right? The copyright owner can simply use the same method.
Oddly, the DMCA actually protects against exactly the scheme you came up with. It places the operator of the website in the position where they simply need to take down offending material to protect themselves from liability. So Sony can't upload a video to the site and then sue them. They can upload a video to the site and give them a takedown notice, but if the material is taken down, then they have no ability to sue. (Despite its faults, one of the useful purposes of the DMCA was to make a clearly-defined legal framework in which the operator of a website can have immunity from liability for any copyrighted material uploaded to their website. Prior to that, it was ill-defined, which is a serious risk.)
The computers are Macintoshes. Apple is the company.
Their UEFI doesn't support secure boot as OS X doesn't support it...
Windows 8 doesn't require UEFI Secure Boot. It couldn't, since one of Microsoft's requirements is that users be able to disable Secure Boot. Having UEFI Secure Boot is a requirement places on the OEMs that ship computers with Windows 8, and Apple doesn't ship Macs preinstalled with Windows.
No, only the reports about them. Not only are the general facts uncopyrightable, a paper is not the same as the substance of the research. It's a report on the research. It's still important, but that's not controlled by publishers. (For that matter, algorithms and parameters are frequently not published in papers. Regardless, you can generally get it from the researcher themselves by asking, unless it's still an active area of research for them.)
Even so, access to papers is frequently more a theoretical problem than a real one, depending on discipline. Google Scholar exists. A large fraction of papers are available online as preprints. Search for the paper. Get preprint. Hooray!
Slashdot Mirror
That's addressed right in the summary. The banks generally manage to get their money back from one of the intermediates used to transfer the money out in the first place. It's those suckers that eat the majority of the loss.
If you're "parking" money, you already have the option of a vast array of investments, including lots of different currencies and actual gold.
I don't know that I'd really characterize the history of precious-metal-based money as "successful", just "long".
Grammatical nitpick: He's talking about the "typical libertarian", not all libertarians, which is a rather different generalization. "They're all for" is casual English for "[the typical libertarians] are fully in support of", not "every libertarian is in support of".
The measurement is actually the same either way. It's just measuring total dose, regardless of how that dose is distributed (that's total quantity of radiation, not per voume). That's perfectly fine if you happen to know how the dose is distributed (or if it doesn't matter). Based on data for X-rays of that frequency, it's easy to work out the dose distribution in a human with respect to skin depth. IIRC, the skin region gets about two orders of magnitude higher dose per unit volume than if the radiation was distributed across the whole body. In some cases, that could be of significant concern. However, two orders of magnitude is still so far below the acute-effect threshold that it doesn't really matter.
It's standard procedure, when discussing and measuring cancer risks, to use whole-body dose because it's more convenient and sufficiently accurate as long as the dosing isn't highly localized.
It's "Rapiscan" as in "rapid scanner".
Here's a lesson -- run your product name past some marketing people before you start selling it.
Prior art has to be publicly disclosed. If you write a paper about your invention and make it publicly available, or manufacture the thing and sell it, or any number of other ways of making the invention known to the public, then it's prior art. If you invent it and don't do that, it's just an unpatented but patentable invention (and is not prior art). (I'm sure there's some subtlety about the "if you manufacture it" bit.)
Prior art isn't just art that is also prior. It's a legal term of art with a particular definition. The substance of the patent has to have been made known to the public to qualify as prior art.
If Amazon is the first to file on this does it matter how many people have done it before or even if they didn't invent it. It's all about who gets first post at the USPTO now isn't it?
No, first-to-file doesn't change how prior art works. (Okay, it subtlely changes some rules about prior art. It does not change in any way the overall idea that you can't patent something that already exists. "Already exists" needs to be demonstrated by something like a publication or an existing practice.)
First-to-file just changes the rules about how a conflict is resolved when two organizations independently patent the same thing. In first-to-invent, a court uses documentation from the two parties to determine which of the parties actually invented it first. (This is because when you invent something, if you keep it secret, it remains patentable. You have something like a year from when you first expose your invention to the public to file a patent. Hence, someone could easily file a patent on something that was already invented but never shown to the public. The first inventor could then file their own patent later. In first-to-invent, the latter takes precedence.) In first-to-file, instead of determining when the inventions were actually made, the filing date of the patent is used. It saves the courts from having to adjudicate these matters.
Doesn't change prior art.
There's the big DSLRs, the 4/3 and m4/3, and then compact and bridge cameras. Repair shops rarely bother to try and fix compact and bridge cameras because they just aren't worth it (and have the product churn you talk about). The DSLRs and other system cameras still have pretty decent life, though. Olympus had a ton of new models because they're starting some fairly new product lines. (Okay, so when companies do that, you would expect poor third-party service. The same would go for, say, the Canon EOS M, which is a new line. But the mainline Canons and Nikons have substantial longevity still.)
This may sound silly...
It does sound silly, because people on a public wi-fi hotspot rarely care what sites you're going to, which is the only thing Tor effectively hides. Sure, it also encrypts data locally, so the people on your same hotspot can't steal credentials, session cookies, or data. It just doesn't encrypt the traffic coming out of the Tor exit node, where you are almost guaranteed that someone is snooping for credentials, session cookies, and data. You've just turned a bad situation into a worse one.
The correct solution is to use HTTPS. Always on public Internet access points, use HTTPS.
DSLRs and higher-end compacts have a multi-year lifecycle. Lenses, too; there's only a handful of new lenses released in a year for a system. While it's inconvenient to have a third party doing repairs, certainly a number of third parties do. (Lensrentals, for instance, does a lot of their own repairs.)
All of your examples are minor technologies that get added to a smartphone. That's not the same as a different kind of device.
That's referring to unlocking, which is turning your carrier-specific phone into a carrier-independent phone. You're thinking of jailbreaking, which enables you to modify software you were not originally intended to modify. They're entirely separate things.
But most of those people already had phones. So a future market player can sell a foo-phone to the (large) market of people who don't own foo-phones and only own smartphones.
So, *86?
Why not get rid of robocalling altogether?
In what sense? Make it illegal entirely? As TFS says, they're focusing on people who are already robocalling illegally. Making it illegal probably won't stem that much.
Or are you suggesting somehow implementing a CAPTCHA in the telephone system?
The problem is the law. There are so many loopholes in it...
Actually, if you look in the summary, that's exactly not what the FTC found. All of the loopholes are legal ways for companies to call you that are still not desired by the recipient. But the majority of robocalls, it says, are illegal. Meaning they're not driving through loopholes, they're just ignoring the law.
Right, compare Stalinism and Nazism, one extreme left wing the other extreme right wing, the difference wasn't really all that great in the way they operated.
Their domestic and economic policies were fairly different. But people mostly remember them for being brutal autocrats, which is really orthogonal to their politics.
That is perhaps the most boring evil plan I've ever heard.
Encryption isn't magic. If someone uses the site to share a file with the general public, they have to somehow enable the public to decrypt the data, right? The copyright owner can simply use the same method.
Oddly, the DMCA actually protects against exactly the scheme you came up with. It places the operator of the website in the position where they simply need to take down offending material to protect themselves from liability. So Sony can't upload a video to the site and then sue them. They can upload a video to the site and give them a takedown notice, but if the material is taken down, then they have no ability to sue. (Despite its faults, one of the useful purposes of the DMCA was to make a clearly-defined legal framework in which the operator of a website can have immunity from liability for any copyrighted material uploaded to their website. Prior to that, it was ill-defined, which is a serious risk.)
Last I knew, neither computer intrusion nor aggravated identity theft were considered pissing in bushes.
Last I knew, neither "computer intrusion" nor "aggravated identify theft" were considered sex crimes.
Did you run that assertion by a dictionary before making it?
Which begs the question
No it doesn't.
how does Apple boot Windows 8?
The computers are Macintoshes. Apple is the company.
Their UEFI doesn't support secure boot as OS X doesn't support it...
Windows 8 doesn't require UEFI Secure Boot. It couldn't, since one of Microsoft's requirements is that users be able to disable Secure Boot. Having UEFI Secure Boot is a requirement places on the OEMs that ship computers with Windows 8, and Apple doesn't ship Macs preinstalled with Windows.
I think you are referring to Microsoft. UEFI Secure Boot is their baby.
Except that it's not and that this bug doesn't appear to have anything to do with Secure Boot, just UEFI.
The discoveries, algorithms and parameters...
No, only the reports about them. Not only are the general facts uncopyrightable, a paper is not the same as the substance of the research. It's a report on the research. It's still important, but that's not controlled by publishers. (For that matter, algorithms and parameters are frequently not published in papers. Regardless, you can generally get it from the researcher themselves by asking, unless it's still an active area of research for them.)
Even so, access to papers is frequently more a theoretical problem than a real one, depending on discipline. Google Scholar exists. A large fraction of papers are available online as preprints. Search for the paper. Get preprint. Hooray!