I haven't read the patents, but not necessarily. I can't patent gears Just because a system is made up of gears, doesn't mean the system as a whole isn't patentable. Similarly, just because the software includes logic operations and equations doesn't mean the system isn't a new invention and patentable.
A new configuration of gears and levers, doing something new, is patentable. A new configuration of logic operations, equations and and interfaces, doing something new, is patentable.
The question is "is it a new invention"? There's no distinction in law or in common sense between hardware and software. Either it's a new invention or not. Mathematical TRUTHS aren't new inventions just as facts about physics aren't new inventions. Someone might have DISCOVERED them, but they didn't invent them.
On the other hand, a device with 10,000 gears may well be a new invention. So too, a device made of 10,000 lines of code may be a new invention.
In fifteen years of programming, largely R&D, I've come up with one, maybe two completely new solutions to old problems which are significant. One replaces CAPTCHAS with something that testers have had no problem using from ten feet away. A legally blind customer uses it on his site. I believe the law is correct in considering this a new invention.
You cannot patent the laws of nature, including the laws of physics and mathematics.
A car MAKES USE of the laws of physics, but it may be patentable if it's a new invention. You cannot patent X + 1 = X - (-1) because that's mathematical truth, it existed before you noticed it. Just as you can patent a new invention that USES the laws of physics, you can patent some system that uses math. In this case, a system for securely delivering secret messages across a public network. Of course it still has to be a new and useful invention in order to be patentable.
For encryption, that's fine. For signatures and hashes, cascading WEAKENS it. An attacker only has to crack ANY of the algorithms to crack the whole. To prove that to yourself, try it with one of the algorithms defined as:
Ffunction ption, fine. For signatures and hashes, cascading WRAKENS it. An attacker only has to crack ANY of the algorithms to crack the whole. To prove that to yourself, try it with one of the algorithms defined as:
Google "mens rea". It's a central concept of anglo-american law. The term we use today, mens rea, was first recorded by Augustine during the Roman empire.
You might wonder how this relates to "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Suppose you con someone out of $1,000. You may not know that what you did is called "fraud by inducement", but you know that you screwed then over. That's the difference. The fact that you don't know exactly which law makes it illegal is no excuse. You did have guilty intent, called mens rea.
On the other hand, a friend of mine shot at a dangerous animal and accidentally hit her husband. She knows that shooting people is illegal - it's not a question of ignorance of the law. She thought she was shooting at a dangerous animal, not at her husband. Their was no criminal intent, no mens rea. (She could however be charged with negligent discharge if she intentionally fired knowing that she was unsure of what she was aiming at.)
You then claim that the legistlators legal oath to uphold the Constitution is meaningless because they are imbeciles who are incapable of purposefully violating it. There, you've been wrong for only a hundred years or so. Another well known principle of US law is that laws are never meaningless. Any interpretation of a law which would have it mean nothing is invalid. Therefore the requirement that they uphold the Constitution must mean something. The plain wording is that they must not violate the Constitution. Therefore, they must use their own common sense to decide if what they are doing is legal or not.
To put it in even simpler terms, the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge of whether or not you're guilty of murder. Does that mean you can't avoid murdering someone, because you can't decide whether what you are about to do is murder? Of course you make your own decision first, then the court may have a look to see whether you decided correctly. Why would legistlators be any different? Why would they be allowed to break the law, including the Constitution? Sure, the courts may review their decisions just as the court may review your decision to stab someone. That doesn't exempt you, or them, from deciding whether or not to follow the law. If the court decides you broke the law on purpose, they may send you to prison. If the court decides that the NSA chief, or a senator, broke the law on purpose they should be subject to criminal penalties just as you and I are.
Funny, I think you're right about everything but the first sentence. Churchill's description was pretty accurate at the time he said it. Germany and Japan had attempted to massacre a significant portion of the planet and needed to be kept in check. Maybe Churchill was an idiot, but history suggests it's far more likely that you and I both are. Churchill was not Bush or Obama, who will be categorized with Millard Fillmore by historians.
To clarify what AC posted, the words "Java" and "Javascript" are like "car" and "caramel", or "ear" and "early" - they are completely unrelated. They just have some letters in common.
Netscape had an interpreted scripting language called LiveScript. It wasn't used a whole lot. Later, Sun released a virtual machine and a compiled language to program it in called Java. Java got a lot of press. Seeing all the press that Java was getting, Netscape renamed Livescript "Javascript", to ride the coat-tails of the completely different system, called Java.
They were developed completely separately, by different companies, for different purposes, and based on different principles. It's exactly as if the BETAMAX were renamed DroidVideo.
I'm not too familiar with the internal politics of many countries. One might say that the Republican party is an uneasy coalition between the constitutionalist, freedom based Tea Party types on one hand and and the old "moral majority" types on the other. They don't like each other and don't agree on much, but they form a coalition politically. On the other side, most Democrats may not be race baiters, but the race baiters unite with those who have communist leanings and historically even with the segregationalists to form the Democrat coalition.
How is that fundamentally different from the coalitions you are speaking of? I'm not saying it's the same, I'm honestly wondering how it's different.
Wikipedia says you're wrong, I'm right. Quoting Wikipedia:... until the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was enacted in response to the September 11 attacks. Since then, the director reports to the Director of National Intelligence, who in turn reports to the President.
You might be right, but the source you mentioned says I'm right.
It's too bad that having three parties seriously contest a race always ends up electing the least preferable candidate of the three.
An election generally swings on a major issue or two, or a philosophical difference. It could be abortion, size of government, taxes, whatever. It doesn't matter - the math is always the same. For illustration, let's call the main issue "ogplem". Assume 55% of thewinner- are for ogplem, 45% against. So a pro-ogplem third party has significant support. The three parties will rank differently on ogplem, such as this example: Party A 3 Party B 7 Party C 8
The 45% of voters who don't like ogplem will vote party A. The 55% who want ogplem will split their votes between B and C. That means A wins - the third party guarantees minority rule.
Proportional representation would fix that. With winner-take-all like the United States, a significant third party always results in minority rule by splitting votes with the major party they are most similar to.
They propose to change (mostly commercial) streaming of stolen works from a misdemeanor to a felony. Nothing becomes illegal that's not already illegal. If you were allowed to stream it, you still are. Fair use isn't changed. The change is to treat streaming the same as downloading.
Um, no. The computer doesn't have to understand the meaning of a scene in order to render it. Games are rendered a hundred times per second. The GPU doesn't know that's Lara Croft's boobs, it's just polygons.
You don't have to replace all the keys. If you're concerned, you replace one pin stack in xhe locks that key opens. You don't issue everyone identical keys. My key opens my office and the back door, only. The back door lock has a stack of pins that work as a bitmask, so many keys can open it and you can add or remove keys without necessarily affecting the others.
In re systems that use physical keys - key cards and key fobs are physical keys too. Key cards store their bit pattern in iron powder. "Regular" keys store their bit pattern in brass. There's no fundamental difference in security.
cracked the article is referring to restricted blanks. not available at Walmart or Home Depot. Those stores also do not have the special key cutting machine required to cut into the side of the key.
"If you have a blank" is a very big IF for the types of keys they are talking about. Wal-Mart doesn't sell sidecut blanks. Only locksmiths trust registered with the manufacturer can buy them.
99% of locks use the common keyways for which you can get generic key blanks. Those also have no effective key control - anyone can get copies made. In a high security environment you use high security locks with key control. The locksmiths who have access to the patented blanks will only duplicate a key after confirming with the registered contact person.
No security is perfect, but this system is alot more secure than just going to Wal-Mart. I worked as a locksmith for a little while. I've cut keys by hand. I can't do that with my office key. ( I work at a security aware agency). Being able to 3D print a key, or a blank, would be handy for me so I don't have to tell the security person that I lost my key AGAIN.
The whole thing sounds weird to me. My "white" friend Kristi is darker in color than my "black" wife. When "white" is a darker color than than "black" there might be something wrong with that labeling.
That sounds like the administration is doing whatever they want with zero interference from the FISA court. So, pretty much the opposite of what of the court controlling the agencies as GP claimed
I'm pretty sure the FBI was moved under the Director of National Intelligence in 2004. Has it changed since then? In any event, the point stands - the FBI isn't a secret agency. They report to Obama through one intermediate person.
FISA allows the executive, under the direction of the president, to apply for a secret search warrant from a confidential court. That's the extent of the "secrecy" there is any evidence of in the judicial branch.
That court, like any other, can approve the warrant requested by the administration. I've seen no evidence, or even any claim other than yours, that the courts in any way direct the executive agencies. Do you have anything, anything at all, to support your novel and extravagant claims? If not, doesn't it make much more sense to focus our energies on the well known and currently very visible fact that the executive is trampling the Constitution?
It's the freaking FBI. That's not exactly a secret rogue agency. FBI director Mueller briefs Obama directly. Technically, Clapper is Mulleur's boss, and Obama is Clapper's boss. That's ONE GUY in the chain of command between Obama and the FBI.
Now that 99% of video is on YouTube and therefore accessible via html5, is Flash actually used by any significant site for anything but games and ads? I guess a few porn sites use it for video?
For about three years I haven't had Flash installed in my main browser and I haven't missed it. Maybe twice a year I open my other browser to see one of the above.
It's a bad idea, and anyone who studies web security knows that. That includes about 1% of web designers and developers. It seems that there are a lot of people building web sites who know all about color wheels, and don't know what CSRF stands for.
I'm the opposite - I don't know what mauve is, while I have exploited browser vulnerabilties. I've also made errors before, probably much more significant errors than what you referred to.
It's worrisome because although NAT is not designed to take the place of a firewall, in fact it often does. For home or SOHO users, it's actually reasonably good as a firewall. They "should" have better, you might argue, but in fact they don't, most often. IPv6 removes the need for NAT, possibly leaving many SOHO users with no firewall-like protection.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't read the patents, but not necessarily. I can't patent gears Just because a system is made up of gears, doesn't mean the system as a whole isn't patentable. Similarly, just because the software includes logic operations and equations doesn't mean the system isn't a new invention and patentable.
A new configuration of gears and levers, doing something new, is patentable.
A new configuration of logic operations, equations and and interfaces, doing something new, is patentable.
The question is "is it a new invention"? There's no distinction in law or in common sense between hardware and software. Either it's a new invention or not. Mathematical TRUTHS aren't new inventions just as facts about physics aren't new inventions. Someone might have DISCOVERED them, but they didn't invent them.
On the other hand, a device with 10,000 gears may well be a new invention. So too, a device made of 10,000 lines of code may be a new invention.
In fifteen years of programming, largely R&D, I've come up with one, maybe two completely new solutions to old problems which are significant. One replaces CAPTCHAS with something that testers have had no problem using from ten feet away. A legally blind customer uses it on his site. I believe the law is correct in considering this a new invention.
That's a common misconception. The actual law is:
You cannot patent the laws of nature, including the laws of physics and mathematics.
A car MAKES USE of the laws of physics, but it may be patentable if it's a new invention. You cannot patent X + 1 = X - (-1) because that's mathematical truth, it existed before you noticed it. Just as you can patent a new invention that USES the laws of physics, you can patent some system that uses math. In this case, a system for securely delivering secret messages across a public network. Of course it still has to be a new and useful invention in order to be patentable.
For encryption, that's fine. For signatures and hashes, cascading WEAKENS it. An attacker only has to crack ANY of the algorithms to crack the whole. To prove that to yourself, try it with one of the algorithms defined as:
function Weak(msg) {
return 1;
}
Compare these two:
Weak(MD5(msg))
MD5(msg)
Ffunction ption, fine. For signatures and hashes, cascading WRAKENS it. An attacker only has to crack ANY of the algorithms to crack the whole. To prove that to yourself, try it with one of the algorithms defined as:
function Weak(msg) {
return 1;
}
Compare these two:
Weak(MD5(msg))
MD5(msg)
Algorithms for either can normally be converted to do the other. If either falls, the other is likely not far behind.
Google "mens rea". It's a central concept of anglo-american law. The term we use today, mens rea, was first recorded by Augustine during the Roman empire.
You might wonder how this relates to "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Suppose you con someone out of $1,000. You may not know that what you did is called "fraud by inducement", but you know that you screwed then over. That's the difference. The fact that you don't know exactly which law makes it illegal is no excuse. You did have guilty intent, called mens rea.
On the other hand, a friend of mine shot at a dangerous animal and accidentally hit her husband. She knows that shooting people is illegal - it's not a question of ignorance of the law. She thought she was shooting at a dangerous animal, not at her husband. Their was no criminal intent, no mens rea. (She could however be charged with negligent discharge if she intentionally fired knowing that she was unsure of what she was aiming at.)
You then claim that the legistlators legal oath to uphold the Constitution is meaningless because they are imbeciles who are incapable of purposefully violating it. There, you've been wrong for only a hundred years or so. Another well known principle of US law is that laws are never meaningless. Any interpretation of a law which would have it mean nothing is invalid. Therefore the requirement that they uphold the Constitution must mean something. The plain wording is that they must not violate the Constitution. Therefore, they must use their own common sense to decide if what they are doing is legal or not.
To put it in even simpler terms, the Supreme Court is the ultimate judge of whether or not you're guilty of murder. Does that mean you can't avoid murdering someone, because you can't decide whether what you are about to do is murder? Of course you make your own decision first, then the court may have a look to see whether you decided correctly. Why would legistlators be any different? Why would they be allowed to break the law, including the Constitution? Sure, the courts may review their decisions just as the court may review your decision to stab someone. That doesn't exempt you, or them, from deciding whether or not to follow the law. If the court decides you broke the law on purpose, they may send you to prison. If the court decides that the NSA chief, or a senator, broke the law on purpose they should be subject to criminal penalties just as you and I are.
Funny, I think you're right about everything but the first sentence. Churchill's description was pretty accurate at the time he said it. Germany and Japan had attempted to massacre a significant portion of the planet and needed to be kept in check. Maybe Churchill was an idiot, but history suggests it's far more likely that you and I both are. Churchill was not Bush or Obama, who will be categorized with Millard Fillmore by historians.
To clarify what AC posted, the words "Java" and "Javascript" are like "car" and "caramel", or "ear" and "early" - they are completely unrelated. They just have some letters in common.
Netscape had an interpreted scripting language called LiveScript. It wasn't used a whole lot.
Later, Sun released a virtual machine and a compiled language to program it in called Java. Java got a lot of press.
Seeing all the press that Java was getting, Netscape renamed Livescript "Javascript", to ride the coat-tails of the
completely different system, called Java.
They were developed completely separately, by different companies, for different purposes, and based on different principles.
It's exactly as if the BETAMAX were renamed DroidVideo.
I'm not too familiar with the internal politics of many countries. One might say that the Republican party is an uneasy coalition between the constitutionalist, freedom based Tea Party types on one hand and and the old "moral majority" types on the other. They don't like each other and don't agree on much, but they form a coalition politically. On the other side, most Democrats may not be race baiters, but the race baiters unite with those who have communist leanings and historically even with the segregationalists to form the Democrat coalition.
How is that fundamentally different from the coalitions you are speaking of? I'm not saying it's the same, I'm honestly wondering how it's different.
> you can check Wikipedia etc. for confirmation
... until the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was enacted in response to the September 11 attacks. Since then, the director reports to the Director of National Intelligence, who in turn reports to the President.
Wikipedia says you're wrong, I'm right. Quoting Wikipedia:
You might be right, but the source you mentioned says I'm right.
It's too bad that having three parties seriously contest a race always ends up electing the least preferable candidate of the three.
An election generally swings on a major issue or two, or a philosophical difference. It could be abortion, size of government, taxes, whatever. It doesn't matter - the math is always the same. For illustration, let's call the main issue "ogplem". Assume 55% of thewinner- are for ogplem, 45% against. So a pro-ogplem third party has significant support. The three parties will rank differently on ogplem, such as this example:
Party A 3
Party B 7
Party C 8
The 45% of voters who don't like ogplem will vote party A. The 55% who want ogplem will split their votes between B and C. That means A wins - the third party guarantees minority rule.
Proportional representation would fix that. With winner-take-all like the United States, a significant third party always results in minority rule by splitting votes with the major party they are most similar to.
They propose to change (mostly commercial) streaming of stolen works from a misdemeanor to a felony. Nothing becomes illegal that's not already illegal. If you were allowed to stream it, you still are. Fair use isn't changed. The change is to treat streaming the same as downloading.
Um, no. The computer doesn't have to understand the meaning of a scene in order to render it. Games are rendered a hundred times per second. The GPU doesn't know that's Lara Croft's boobs, it's just polygons.
Exploitation? wouldn't Transportation Integration Tool be better? TIT?
You don't have to replace all the keys.
If you're concerned, you replace one pin stack in xhe locks that key opens. You don't issue everyone identical keys. My key opens my office and the back door, only. The back door lock has a stack of pins that work as a bitmask, so many keys can open it and you can add or remove keys without necessarily affecting the others.
In re systems that use physical keys - key cards and key fobs are physical keys too. Key cards store their bit pattern in iron powder. "Regular" keys store their bit pattern in brass. There's no fundamental difference in security.
cracked the article is referring to restricted blanks. not available at Walmart or Home Depot. Those stores also do not have the special key cutting machine required to cut into the side of the key.
"If you have a blank" is a very big IF for the types of keys they are talking about. Wal-Mart doesn't sell sidecut blanks. Only locksmiths trust registered with the manufacturer can buy them.
99% of locks use the common keyways for which you can get generic key blanks. Those also have no effective key control - anyone can get copies made. In a high security environment you use high security locks with key control. The locksmiths who have access to the patented blanks will only duplicate a key after confirming with the registered contact person.
No security is perfect, but this system is alot more secure than just going to Wal-Mart. I worked as a locksmith for a little while. I've cut keys by hand. I can't do that with my office key. ( I work at a security aware agency). Being able to 3D print a key, or a blank, would be handy for me so I don't have to tell the security person that I lost my key AGAIN.
The whole thing sounds weird to me. My "white" friend Kristi is darker in color than my "black" wife. When "white" is a darker color than than "black" there might be something wrong with that labeling.
That sounds like the administration is doing whatever they want with zero interference from the FISA court. So, pretty much the opposite of what of the court controlling the agencies as GP claimed
I'm pretty sure the FBI was moved under the Director of National Intelligence in 2004. Has it changed since then? In any event, the point stands - the FBI isn't a secret agency. They report to Obama through one intermediate person.
FISA allows the executive, under the direction of the president, to apply for a secret search warrant from a confidential court. That's the extent of the "secrecy" there is any evidence of in the judicial branch.
That court, like any other, can approve the warrant requested by the administration. I've seen no evidence, or even any claim other than yours, that the courts in any way direct the executive agencies. Do you have anything, anything at all, to support your novel and extravagant claims? If not, doesn't it make much more sense to focus our energies on the well known and currently very visible fact that the executive is trampling the Constitution?
It's the freaking FBI. That's not exactly a secret rogue agency. FBI director Mueller briefs Obama directly. Technically, Clapper is Mulleur's boss, and Obama is Clapper's boss. That's ONE GUY in the chain of command between Obama and the FBI.
Now that 99% of video is on YouTube and therefore accessible via html5, is Flash actually used by any significant site for anything but games and ads? I guess a few porn sites use it for video?
For about three years I haven't had Flash installed in my main browser and I haven't missed it. Maybe twice a year I open my other browser to see one of the above.
It's a bad idea, and anyone who studies web security knows that. That includes about 1% of web designers and developers. It seems that there are a lot of people building web sites who know all about color wheels, and don't know what CSRF stands for.
I'm the opposite - I don't know what mauve is, while I have exploited browser vulnerabilties. I've also made errors before, probably much more significant errors than what you referred to.
It's worrisome because although NAT is not designed to take the place of a firewall, in fact it often does. For home or SOHO users, it's actually reasonably good as a firewall. They "should" have better, you might argue, but in fact they don't, most often. IPv6 removes the need for NAT, possibly leaving many SOHO users with no firewall-like protection.