AT&T lied, and that's news? I knew they'd raise prices, but I figured they'd wait a little bit longer to do it just to keep from being so damned obvious about their lying.
Actually on the other hand, AT&T may try to advertise it a different way. If the base price is now $5 higher for new customer, it is then become the current base price. Existing customers now have the "lower" price because of the base price is higher than what they are paying; thus, it is a discount for existing customers. Not that I agree with the lie, but this is how corporations could spin their way through. I wish that the court could reverse the approval.
Wrong. The intellectual abilities that an infant can exert allow him to give a meaning to his experiences without any required training at all. We train our children because we want them to learn our ways to communicate and to behave in society, not because they cannot learn on their own language and behaviour. No computer program can do this.
So you meant that if you just drop a new born baby in a jungle, the baby will learn how to walk, eat, and talk by itself without any help/train (from humans or animals)? Intelligent abilities of a baby are simply capabilities and speed of learning due to its physique which is NOT ready to do anything by its own, regardless how intelligent it is.
Even though training and learning are 2 separated things, the learning is directly related to training for a baby which is pretty much like a computer. If you are talking about children, that is a completely different state.
Also, would there be any surcharge if the "later" just falls right into the time they usually top it up with a surcharge rate? For example, it is $10 right now and if you wait, it would be $8. But then 5 minutes later, a 25% surcharge is added due to rush time (or whatever reason). How could it be cheaper?
If you are talking about an algorithm to get from the start to end, it could be interesting. However, this is what I don't see useful is that solution of Rubik is simple a pattern from one to the other. Thus, you need to run the algorithm only once to create links to each of pattern to the solution state. Even though there are 6 faces, it is still possible to store them all. Why? Because that's how those Rubik geniuses do -- memorize certain patterns from one to the other. A computer should be able to do it better than human.
So, training a machine learning with sampled data is now patentable?
Does that also mean I can patent 'Training a person to.......'?
That has never been allowable before, why is it allowable now?
Oh, I forgot, the US patent office allows large US companies to patent ANYTHING, totally ignoring actual patent law.
That's the F-up part of software patents -- allow something to be patented when they aren't supposed to. That's why software should never be patentable.
So the US is in a first to file mode now and prior art doesn't mean a thing to invalidate a patent. Only a previous patent can.
Where did you get the idea from? Why do you think that prior art wouldn't be involved in invalidating a patent at all? In contrast, prior art has a huge part in invalidating both applications and granted patents.
I am guessing you meant prior art may not be used in patenting process because it is supposed to be voluntarily disclosed during the process by the applicant. However, examiners may still be able to discover other types of prior arts, which could result in rejecting the patent application. Also, applicants need to disclose non-patent literatures (articles, studies, research, etc.) related to the patent as well. As such, applicants can't simply ignore this type of prior art or their application may be rejected.
I suggest you to read this blog about prior art and granted patents. The author wrote it in a way that is much easier to understand for a layman.
I'm sure companies will ensure sufficient funding once the "estimated review date" of their patents show as "somewhen in 2080, by which time it expired so we can just skip reviewing it".
What are you talking about? If a patent application is stuck in the pipe line and then is granted, they will ADD additional life time to the patent if the waiting time is longer than the time they set (expected examining time is usually a couple years). For example, if they set an expected examination time to be 3 years after the date of filing. Then it takes the patent office 5 years to examine and finally the application is granted, the granted patent will have about 2 more additional years into the patent effective life time. If that what you mean, then what you said is not and should not be an issue with the current rules.
Then you need to read TFA. Their targets are small cryptocurrencies because these currencies still have small networks. Also, they can make money if the condition is right.
From TFA:
To make money using this attack vector, hackers need a few pieces to be in place. For one, an attacker can't do anything they want when they've racked up a majority of the hashing power. But they are able to double spend transactions under certain conditions.
...
As such, hackers have found various clever ways of making sure the conditions are just right to make them extra money. That's why attackers of monacoin, bitcoin gold, zencash and litecoin cash have all targeted exchanges holding millions in cryptocurrency.
By amassing more than half of the network's hashing power, the bitcoin gold attacker was able to double spend two very expensive transactions sent to an exchange.
Through three successful attacks of zencash (a lesser-known cryptocurrency that's a fork of a fork of privacy-minded Zcash), the attacker was able to run off with about more than 21,000 zen (the zencash token) worth well over $500,000 at the time of writing.
Still. This solution is similar to sweeping dust under a rug, and it doesn't make the problem go away but rather hope to kick the can down the road... You have no clear idea about other consequences of hiding CO2 in a decommissioned well.
Getting everyone to send in nude photos of themselves in the most logic solution to the problem.
It may be the most logical solution for prevention of the problem. However, in this case, you need to look at a solution in both prevention and solving the problem once it occurs.
Some times, prevention of problems generally is a good solution. But some other times, solving the problem after it occurs is a better solution. The reason is that when prevention could be easily exploited by some others (even by one person), it is no longer a good solution but could rather be an opening to even bigger problems. In this case, I see the prevention is a huge opening rather than a good solution to the problem. If you don't see it, I guess you are too optimistic in humans.
Everything *within reason*. Returning every other item that you buy in a short amount of time is not within reason. It's like when you go to a buffet that says "All you can eat". It doesn't mean you get to empty all of the steam trays of shrimp. Or how "free refills" doesn't mean you get to come in every day and sit for hours having drink after drink.
Also, Amazon Prime doesn't apply to third party sellers, who often get shafted by buyers who do that.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? When the buffet says "All you can eat", I can certainly empty all of the steam trays of shrimp. If they serve caviar, I can go and eat all the caviar they put out there, and then ask for some more after I've finished the container. It's ALL YOU CAN EAT. What part of that don't you get?
The problem is that those who foot the bill are NOT Amazon but rather those seller on the site. Thus, your buffet analogy doesn't work here because it would mean to be the ingredient suppliers who pay for the all you can eat, not the restaurant itself.
You misunderstood the the gp... The post is challenging Tesla that if it can pull a plane and accelerate from 0 to 15mph in 10 seconds. That's a whole lot different than a car accelerates itself from 0 to 60mpg.
It is not identity theft, it is credit fraud and the idiot who accepted the fake identity should be prosecuted unless they can prove someone did provide a fake identity. The person who accept the fake identity is solely responsible for that failure to accurately confirm identity and should be liable for all harm and suffering caused to the person they cheated. The credit companies just waffle this shit, to shift liability and proof of innocence to the person whose identity was used, rather than the idiot who accepted the false indemnity and the credit companies for failure to provide proper security methods in place, to cheap and greedy.
Then why not just make both of them at fault instead of pointing your finger to just one? Shouldn't identity thief be at fault and the idiots who accepted and approved the fake identity be at fault as well?
DNA itself may be naturally occurring, but if someone were to invent a novel arrangement that does not exist in nature (rather than taking genes present in some organism and inserting them into another) I don't have any objections to allowing a patent on something like that. If you look at the purpose of patents as allowing a limited duration monopoly on something in order to encourage and reward innovation, then it's hard to see why you'd disallow patents for something like that. If we're going to have patents at all, it should be consistent and not provide special treatment for some domains as opposed to others.
No, it should still be not patentable. The only patentable, which should be patentable, is the "method" which is used in manipulating the gene sequence. The result of gene sequences themselves should NEVER be patentable. Period.
Speaking of oil industry, I believe that they can patent the product because it is related to chemical structures (not directly involve living organism -- biology).
It is what people do -- dumb things. If you want to be very careful, don't have a FB account at all. That's the only way to avoid the situation you mentioned.
What, exactly, differentiates a social security number and browser session "48592589239520"?
Social security number is not easy to be changed once you get and even worse use it in any things tied to legal stuff. Session can expired when there is no activity (usually); thus, it can keep changing everyday. How could that be stalking?
Err. I misread, perhaps. If you are talking about COBOL itself, then it could be safer. If you are talking about replacing COBOL with other languages, then it is what I said earlier.
What I find more to the point, what is the long term support of this? Say I make an innovative piece of software, however it was outside Microsoft scope, 19 years later will they still help me protect my patent?
In patent, you pay maintenance fees at each mark year (3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years of patent life time starting from the filing date). If they (MS) are paying all the maintenance fees (including year 11.5), then your example would have no meaning because they definitely will help you protect your patent at 19th year. If they don't pay but you do, then your example is still null because they won't care if anyone infringes your patent because they aren't the one who is being financially damaged (but you). Besides, they just use your patent as their safe harbor if anyone is trying to sue them on the similar technology of your patent.
Or say I want to license it to an other company say Apple? In that mess of legalese will I have the right to do so? And what is to say the Current Nice Guy image of Microsoft regresses back to Bully Microsoft that we seen with Gates and Balmer.
That would depends on how they "license" your patent. If they put their name as an "assignee" of the patent, then you are very unlikely to be able to license your patent to someone else by your own but rather have to go through them. As a result, you won't be able to license it to someone else (you know why). If they don't put themselves as assignee, then you are very likely to license it to whoever you want. However, I'm quite sure that they will take advantage and want you to sign other legal things because they want to restrict you on how you can license your patent. Why would they want competitors to get the same benefits from your patent when they help you to get the patent?
Hello software programmers; its called regression testing. You do it after making major changes to check if you have broken anything. I think it's ususlly [sic] taught in CompSci 101.
Are you talking about FB or Tinder programmers? It sounds like you are talking about FB but I hope you at least are talking about Tinder instead.
TFA notes this as well. This is an area where I say the ACLU is wrong, if their cause has a good case then they can make an arrangement with the service provider rather they flaunt a right to 'break the rules'.
You should read the news from the original ACLU one. Slashdot shouldn't use the current link to a blogger anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T lied, and that's news? I knew they'd raise prices, but I figured they'd wait a little bit longer to do it just to keep from being so damned obvious about their lying.
Actually on the other hand, AT&T may try to advertise it a different way. If the base price is now $5 higher for new customer, it is then become the current base price. Existing customers now have the "lower" price because of the base price is higher than what they are paying; thus, it is a discount for existing customers. Not that I agree with the lie, but this is how corporations could spin their way through. I wish that the court could reverse the approval.
Wrong. The intellectual abilities that an infant can exert allow him to give a meaning to his experiences without any required training at all. We train our children because we want them to learn our ways to communicate and to behave in society, not because they cannot learn on their own language and behaviour. No computer program can do this.
So you meant that if you just drop a new born baby in a jungle, the baby will learn how to walk, eat, and talk by itself without any help/train (from humans or animals)? Intelligent abilities of a baby are simply capabilities and speed of learning due to its physique which is NOT ready to do anything by its own, regardless how intelligent it is.
Even though training and learning are 2 separated things, the learning is directly related to training for a baby which is pretty much like a computer. If you are talking about children, that is a completely different state.
Will come a time when AI is way better than humans at almost anything. Get used to it.
AI? Automated Industry? :p
Some thing like this already happen in 1984 in the U.S. Even though it was not very serious issue, it is shown the potential of seriousness...
Also, would there be any surcharge if the "later" just falls right into the time they usually top it up with a surcharge rate? For example, it is $10 right now and if you wait, it would be $8. But then 5 minutes later, a 25% surcharge is added due to rush time (or whatever reason). How could it be cheaper?
There's no such thing as YY. What you meant to say was XYY, which is a birth defect effecting less than 1 in 1,000 males.
There are more than just XYY. There are XXY or XXXY as well.
If you are talking about an algorithm to get from the start to end, it could be interesting. However, this is what I don't see useful is that solution of Rubik is simple a pattern from one to the other. Thus, you need to run the algorithm only once to create links to each of pattern to the solution state. Even though there are 6 faces, it is still possible to store them all. Why? Because that's how those Rubik geniuses do -- memorize certain patterns from one to the other. A computer should be able to do it better than human.
So, training a machine learning with sampled data is now patentable? Does that also mean I can patent 'Training a person to .......'?
That has never been allowable before, why is it allowable now?
Oh, I forgot, the US patent office allows large US companies to patent ANYTHING, totally ignoring actual patent law.
That's the F-up part of software patents -- allow something to be patented when they aren't supposed to. That's why software should never be patentable.
So the US is in a first to file mode now and prior art doesn't mean a thing to invalidate a patent. Only a previous patent can.
Where did you get the idea from? Why do you think that prior art wouldn't be involved in invalidating a patent at all? In contrast, prior art has a huge part in invalidating both applications and granted patents.
I am guessing you meant prior art may not be used in patenting process because it is supposed to be voluntarily disclosed during the process by the applicant. However, examiners may still be able to discover other types of prior arts, which could result in rejecting the patent application. Also, applicants need to disclose non-patent literatures (articles, studies, research, etc.) related to the patent as well. As such, applicants can't simply ignore this type of prior art or their application may be rejected.
I suggest you to read this blog about prior art and granted patents. The author wrote it in a way that is much easier to understand for a layman.
I'm sure companies will ensure sufficient funding once the "estimated review date" of their patents show as "somewhen in 2080, by which time it expired so we can just skip reviewing it".
What are you talking about? If a patent application is stuck in the pipe line and then is granted, they will ADD additional life time to the patent if the waiting time is longer than the time they set (expected examining time is usually a couple years). For example, if they set an expected examination time to be 3 years after the date of filing. Then it takes the patent office 5 years to examine and finally the application is granted, the granted patent will have about 2 more additional years into the patent effective life time. If that what you mean, then what you said is not and should not be an issue with the current rules.
Then you need to read TFA. Their targets are small cryptocurrencies because these currencies still have small networks. Also, they can make money if the condition is right.
From TFA:
To make money using this attack vector, hackers need a few pieces to be in place. For one, an attacker can't do anything they want when they've racked up a majority of the hashing power. But they are able to double spend transactions under certain conditions.
...
As such, hackers have found various clever ways of making sure the conditions are just right to make them extra money. That's why attackers of monacoin, bitcoin gold, zencash and litecoin cash have all targeted exchanges holding millions in cryptocurrency.
By amassing more than half of the network's hashing power, the bitcoin gold attacker was able to double spend two very expensive transactions sent to an exchange.
Through three successful attacks of zencash (a lesser-known cryptocurrency that's a fork of a fork of privacy-minded Zcash), the attacker was able to run off with about more than 21,000 zen (the zencash token) worth well over $500,000 at the time of writing.
Still. This solution is similar to sweeping dust under a rug, and it doesn't make the problem go away but rather hope to kick the can down the road... You have no clear idea about other consequences of hiding CO2 in a decommissioned well.
In my house we can afford more than one pair of headphones.
But that wouldn't help at all if you carefully read the parent post -- "We only have one headphone socket"
Getting everyone to send in nude photos of themselves in the most logic solution to the problem.
It may be the most logical solution for prevention of the problem. However, in this case, you need to look at a solution in both prevention and solving the problem once it occurs.
Some times, prevention of problems generally is a good solution. But some other times, solving the problem after it occurs is a better solution. The reason is that when prevention could be easily exploited by some others (even by one person), it is no longer a good solution but could rather be an opening to even bigger problems. In this case, I see the prevention is a huge opening rather than a good solution to the problem. If you don't see it, I guess you are too optimistic in humans.
Everything *within reason*. Returning every other item that you buy in a short amount of time is not within reason. It's like when you go to a buffet that says "All you can eat". It doesn't mean you get to empty all of the steam trays of shrimp. Or how "free refills" doesn't mean you get to come in every day and sit for hours having drink after drink.
Also, Amazon Prime doesn't apply to third party sellers, who often get shafted by buyers who do that.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? When the buffet says "All you can eat", I can certainly empty all of the steam trays of shrimp. If they serve caviar, I can go and eat all the caviar they put out there, and then ask for some more after I've finished the container. It's ALL YOU CAN EAT. What part of that don't you get?
The problem is that those who foot the bill are NOT Amazon but rather those seller on the site. Thus, your buffet analogy doesn't work here because it would mean to be the ingredient suppliers who pay for the all you can eat, not the restaurant itself.
>Now if the Testla would be able to accelerate the plane from 0 to 15mph in 10 seconds that would be impressive.
this should suffice. the alfa romeo does 4-4.5s for the 0-60 https://youtu.be/ib-02b2ooLY?t...
You misunderstood the the gp... The post is challenging Tesla that if it can pull a plane and accelerate from 0 to 15mph in 10 seconds. That's a whole lot different than a car accelerates itself from 0 to 60mpg.
It is not identity theft, it is credit fraud and the idiot who accepted the fake identity should be prosecuted unless they can prove someone did provide a fake identity. The person who accept the fake identity is solely responsible for that failure to accurately confirm identity and should be liable for all harm and suffering caused to the person they cheated. The credit companies just waffle this shit, to shift liability and proof of innocence to the person whose identity was used, rather than the idiot who accepted the false indemnity and the credit companies for failure to provide proper security methods in place, to cheap and greedy.
Then why not just make both of them at fault instead of pointing your finger to just one? Shouldn't identity thief be at fault and the idiots who accepted and approved the fake identity be at fault as well?
DNA itself may be naturally occurring, but if someone were to invent a novel arrangement that does not exist in nature (rather than taking genes present in some organism and inserting them into another) I don't have any objections to allowing a patent on something like that. If you look at the purpose of patents as allowing a limited duration monopoly on something in order to encourage and reward innovation, then it's hard to see why you'd disallow patents for something like that. If we're going to have patents at all, it should be consistent and not provide special treatment for some domains as opposed to others.
No, it should still be not patentable. The only patentable, which should be patentable, is the "method" which is used in manipulating the gene sequence. The result of gene sequences themselves should NEVER be patentable. Period.
Speaking of oil industry, I believe that they can patent the product because it is related to chemical structures (not directly involve living organism -- biology).
It is what people do -- dumb things. If you want to be very careful, don't have a FB account at all. That's the only way to avoid the situation you mentioned.
What, exactly, differentiates a social security number and browser session "48592589239520"?
Social security number is not easy to be changed once you get and even worse use it in any things tied to legal stuff. Session can expired when there is no activity (usually); thus, it can keep changing everyday. How could that be stalking?
Err. I misread, perhaps. If you are talking about COBOL itself, then it could be safer. If you are talking about replacing COBOL with other languages, then it is what I said earlier.
Or when they do update it it's safer and more cost effective to add to the existing codebase than replace it entirely.
Cost effective, could be. Safer? I don't know and won't guarantee the claim at all.
What I find more to the point, what is the long term support of this? Say I make an innovative piece of software, however it was outside Microsoft scope, 19 years later will they still help me protect my patent?
In patent, you pay maintenance fees at each mark year (3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years of patent life time starting from the filing date). If they (MS) are paying all the maintenance fees (including year 11.5), then your example would have no meaning because they definitely will help you protect your patent at 19th year. If they don't pay but you do, then your example is still null because they won't care if anyone infringes your patent because they aren't the one who is being financially damaged (but you). Besides, they just use your patent as their safe harbor if anyone is trying to sue them on the similar technology of your patent.
Or say I want to license it to an other company say Apple? In that mess of legalese will I have the right to do so? And what is to say the Current Nice Guy image of Microsoft regresses back to Bully Microsoft that we seen with Gates and Balmer.
That would depends on how they "license" your patent. If they put their name as an "assignee" of the patent, then you are very unlikely to be able to license your patent to someone else by your own but rather have to go through them. As a result, you won't be able to license it to someone else (you know why). If they don't put themselves as assignee, then you are very likely to license it to whoever you want. However, I'm quite sure that they will take advantage and want you to sign other legal things because they want to restrict you on how you can license your patent. Why would they want competitors to get the same benefits from your patent when they help you to get the patent?
Hello software programmers; its called regression testing. You do it after making major changes to check if you have broken anything. I think it's ususlly [sic] taught in CompSci 101.
Are you talking about FB or Tinder programmers? It sounds like you are talking about FB but I hope you at least are talking about Tinder instead.
TFA notes this as well. This is an area where I say the ACLU is wrong, if their cause has a good case then they can make an arrangement with the service provider rather they flaunt a right to 'break the rules'.
You should read the news from the original ACLU one. Slashdot shouldn't use the current link to a blogger anyway...