After having worked with ubiquitous computing for a while, I can tell you one thing -- that thing is too big and has very bad affordances for it to take off big time.
On the other hand, look at something that folks like Thad Starner or Steve Mann come up with - better affordances.
(Mann actually had a different helmet design and changed to the Eye-tap design)
Your analogy is flawed. You're working for a company and you have signed an NDA. No matter how big a fan you are, that does not give you the right to violate the agreements you've signed with your employer.
If Metallica's manager were to bring out the tunes and lyrics of albums Metallica hasn't even recorded yet, you might have a closer to the analogy.
This does not fall under the realm of IP law, rather under contract law. The guy violated an employer-employee contract no matter what. I think Apple would be setting a bad precedent if it did not drag them out into the public.
Agreed that this is just a simple case of information leak that did not have any drastic consequences. However, what if there are leaks of information of a more confidential nature in the future?
Apple has always stayed ahead of the game by innovating and bringing out things that its competitors never quite thought about - leaks of this sort would put ideas into the heads of its competitors, which could be bad for business.
And besides, if someone is ready to violate an NDA for a little gain, who knows what else they'd be divulging? I can *totally* see Apple's point of view - when you work under someone, you need to abide by their rules.
Sure, even if you cannot crack an algorithm, you can always brute-force it.
Which is why I added the line, "attacks and technology" in the last line. For instance, if QC were to become real, one can always brute-force an algorithm.
While I do not feel am competent enough to prove formally my argument, I would think that I'm quite certain of its validity.
Re:Time to switch....
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Which *one* of SHA-2?
FYI, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 are all referred to as SHA-2.
Actually, I do not know about LLNL, but I do know about LANL (I've worked there).
If UC gives up control over LANL, it is not Lockheed Martin that folks are worried abbout, but University of Texas.
And it's not just pension, UC has a lot of perks and has been managing LANL for a long time now, people at LANL are immensely skeptical about wresting control over to anyone else.
But having been there when the disks were lost, I will agree with you that this seems more of a political antic than anything else.
> Condidering the fact that getting a PhD in CS and > EE is fairly easy these days
Nice troll, but I'll bite.
It's easy, but depends entirely on your school & your advisor. I'm fairly certain that places like Stanford or Caltech aren't gonna let you wrap up your PhD in anything less than 5+ years. And that too, not before making sure you worked your butt off.
No, the point is that you assumed that all software packages can be boiled down to numbers, which is not true.
What about the art in games? Would they not count?
Merely wanted to point out that not all software processes can be broken down purely into numbers. And not all "software patents" are entirely software related, either.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that a large number of tests for these things *are* conducted by and for the Army?
In fact, a lot of things that'd have been useless otherwise have been designed better thanks to tests by the Army.
After having worked with ubiquitous computing for a while, I can tell you one thing -- that thing is too big and has very bad affordances for it to take off big time.
On the other hand, look at something that folks like Thad Starner or Steve Mann come up with - better affordances.
(Mann actually had a different helmet design and changed to the Eye-tap design)
You forgot - "grab the fucking cat!"
The no-planet left behind thingy, eh?
Accountability?
Seems like nobody needs that irky little thing anymore. Not even if you're dealing with stuff that could blow up half the world.
Sheesh.
Your analogy is flawed. You're working for a company and you have signed an NDA. No matter how big a fan you are, that does not give you the right to violate the agreements you've signed with your employer.
If Metallica's manager were to bring out the tunes and lyrics of albums Metallica hasn't even recorded yet, you might have a closer to the analogy.
This does not fall under the realm of IP law, rather under contract law. The guy violated an employer-employee contract no matter what. I think Apple would be setting a bad precedent if it did not drag them out into the public.
Agreed that this is just a simple case of information leak that did not have any drastic consequences. However, what if there are leaks of information of a more confidential nature in the future?
Apple has always stayed ahead of the game by innovating and bringing out things that its competitors never quite thought about - leaks of this sort would put ideas into the heads of its competitors, which could be bad for business.
And besides, if someone is ready to violate an NDA for a little gain, who knows what else they'd be divulging? I can *totally* see Apple's point of view - when you work under someone, you need to abide by their rules.
it'll give the next era of cavemen something to do for a few millenia, anyway.
:-p
Like what, nibble at our DVDs trying to figure out what the hell they're all about?
Sure, even if you cannot crack an algorithm, you can always brute-force it.
Which is why I added the line, "attacks and technology" in the last line. For instance, if QC were to become real, one can always brute-force an algorithm.
While I do not feel am competent enough to prove formally my argument, I would think that I'm quite certain of its validity.
Which *one* of SHA-2?
FYI, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 are all referred to as SHA-2.
It's a hashing algorithm - SHA stands for Secure Hashing Algorithm.
Is it so hard to look it up?
Had to happen, didn't it?
No algorithm is all-powerful - it only withstands attacks for so long.
The strength of the algorithm lies in how long it can stand up - to attacks and to future technologies.
That way I could retire with relative ease.
:-|
That's the *worst* pun I've ever heard.
Wow, you're good.
>'Put it this way - we haven't yet got a machine
> we could sell to the CIA.'
Oh yeah. I'm sure you'd know, Dr. Nelson.
I predict that this post will hit +5 funny!!
:-(
No?
Were they from Los Angeles, too? =)
(note to editor - it's Los Alamos National Laboratory, not Los Angeles National Laboratory).
Actually, I do not know about LLNL, but I do know about LANL (I've worked there).
If UC gives up control over LANL, it is not Lockheed Martin that folks are worried abbout, but University of Texas.
And it's not just pension, UC has a lot of perks and has been managing LANL for a long time now, people at LANL are immensely skeptical about wresting control over to anyone else.
But having been there when the disks were lost, I will agree with you that this seems more of a political antic than anything else.
> Condidering the fact that getting a PhD in CS and
> EE is fairly easy these days
Nice troll, but I'll bite.
It's easy, but depends entirely on your school & your advisor. I'm fairly certain that places like Stanford or Caltech aren't gonna let you wrap up your PhD in anything less than 5+ years. And that too, not before making sure you worked your butt off.
No, the point is that you assumed that all software packages can be boiled down to numbers, which is not true.
What about the art in games? Would they not count?
Merely wanted to point out that not all software processes can be broken down purely into numbers. And not all "software patents" are entirely software related, either.
> Name one process software can do that can't be
> duplicated entirely with math.
Art.
Go ahead, try duplicating Michelangelo and van Gogh through math. Goodluck.
Okay, this just shows that you have absolutely no basic idea of Intellectual Property Law.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea ONLY, while patents protect the idea in and of itself.
That is the fundamental difference.
Both are very different and cater to very different areas. Sheesh.
Nah.
;-)
They're taking a cue from our President.
They're smokin' out the damn patents from their burrowed lawyer-holes
...and what incentive will you have, sir, to protect your hard-work from those who'd not hesitate to rip it off you?
You had to be *Very graphic* in describing that now, didn't you? =)