What did those 180,000 people do? Wait in line until it closed/they missed their flight, then try again another day? Decide not to fly?
Yes, basically. I fly a lot, and what you'd see at airports with those scanners is frequent massive backups. Occasionally they'd start using the metal detectors, often not. What you did tend to get was employees coming through the line and calling flight numbers and moving people to the front of the line.
I missed a few shuttle flights because of it -- they don't tend to call shuttle flights, but generally you just had to stand and listen carefully for your flight and move to the front of the line. And then get irradiated.
My gripe: I run remote desktops. Sometimes from an iPad, sometimes from an android tablet, sometimes in windowed mode from a windows PC. Nearly everything does not work with remote desktop. There's no start button to click. There's no way to run an app w/o getting to start. There's no way to simulate gestures when you don't use a mouse. Productivity is way down with this thing.
My gripe: I run remote desktops. Sometimes from an iPad, sometimes from an android tablet, sometimes in windowed mode from a windows PC. Nearly everything does not work with remote desktop. There's no start button to click. There's no way to run an app w/o getting to start. There's no way to simulate gestures when you don't use a mouse. Productivity is way down with this thing.
It works fine from Windows 7 with a mouse -- you hit the corners of the screen just like you do with a mouse on the local screen.
It also works fine from Windows 8 tablets -- you swipe in from the bottom and there's buttons you get to trigger the touch actions on the remote workstation. Its pretty slick, actually. Works extremely well.
From a 3rd party touch device that hasn't been updated to support Windows 8, I can see that being a problem. So your complaint is that your specific pattern of use for remote applications is a problem. If you're using Microsoft Remote Desktop on your iPad (no idea if such a beast exists), then I suggest you hop on over to the appropriate Connect site and file a comment or upvote an existing bug to address it on the iPad version. If its a 3rd party remote desktop application, hop on over to that developer's site and ask them to do it. That said, I'm actually surprised a screen swipe from another tablet wouldn't just work. Its a problem on the Windows tablets because it'll interpret them as a local swipe, but if the iPad doesn't do that, I'm surprised you can't swipe in from the side of the screen like you'd do on a touch system.
Your on screen keyboard doesn't have a Windows key on it?
... is there a story here? Or is this just an ad for something?
Everything on Slashdot is either an ad, an anti-something rantfest designed to whip up their base to view more ads, or (in a more meta sense) an ad designed to whip up their base to complain about ads (like this) all while seeing ads.
That's Slashdot. The key is to tune out the noise to get the occasional interesting signal. Or to play the "lets go trolling and see if we can be subtle enough to get modded up for it!" game.
Pretty sure Oracle and Microsoft are different companies. The lawsuits the GP post was talking about were by Microsoft, and were SOP for cross licensing IP between handset manufacturers.
There are proxy companies, proxy servers and proxy actions, etc. Do YOU understand what a proxy is? This is a proxy action. Motorola won't make any real money off the lawsuit, because the expenses will very likely be near the amount they can get out of it. Thus its a proxy lawsuit for some other motivation. The question is, what is the motivation? At $500-$750 an hour for their lawyers, they'll burn through millions or tens of millions on the lawsuit. That's sheer insanity given the likely size of the Surface market and the amount they'd realistically be able to get for it.
If the numbers are correct I would say that a significant portion below the tcp/ip layer is being counted.
How much retransmit/error correction is there in DSL? I personally wouldn't think that's valid to charge, but the argument could be made.
As for for the original poster's question on law, I doubt there is any requirement, though if you challenge them in court, it would have to be revealed, or they have no evidence.
20-30% isn't realistic, but headers plus a mismatch between a MiB and MB measure would get you a lot closer. The poster also didn't mention if all of the traffic was being totaled in his calculations (TCP/UDP/ICMP,etc).
He's also likely measuring traffic going *though* his router, not traffic coming *to* his router. ATT is measuring at their end, so he's likely being billed for the constant port knocking and vulnerability scanning that is going on.
Does it add up to 20-30%? Maybe no. Is ATT collectively a bunch of shitheads? Absolutely. Is it safe to assume because they're a bunch of shitheads that they're deliberately mis-billing? Also so. And "proprietary" could VERY easily be a corporate policy of "don't tell them anything if you're going to tell them something that is inaccurate". And I wouldn't trust a call center worker to properly explain the byte-for-byte measurement of network traffic. Far better to say "no, its proprietary" than to only explain 80% of it, get 10% wrong and have Slashdot or Reddit get their panties in a bunch because a near-minimum-wage call center worker mis-spoke.
Microsoft sued Android first, Google is just defending.
Android isn't a company. That isn't how patents work. Microsoft cross licensed patents with other handset manufacturers, just like every one of them did with all the others. Google can't defend anything, because they weren't the licensee or the target of any legal actions with regard to that IP.
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
Why do you think it was a bad question? Its clear based on everything Google has been doing that it is, in fact, utilizing Motorola IP as a proxy for corporate Google attacking Microsoft. That's not related to a whiny little comment or improving any public image. Its a valid discussion point. You can be assured that Google (just like any company taking an action like this) has a great number of lawyers who have been formulating the strategy.
The lawsuit, as it is, doesn't make a damn bit of sense. They'll go at 2.25%, and it'll probably settle out at 1/4 of that, if they win at all. They'll spend a lot more money on lawyers than they'll ever get out of it. By any measure the multiple on costs of a lawsuit like this isn't high enough to warrant the risk of loss (or worse yet, a judgment that impacts other licensing agreements!)
I think the GP is quite correct -- why is Google using a wireless patent as a proxy? What is their motivation?
It seems to me its probably a few things: - Sabre rattling, although this is probably dangerous given Microsoft's patent portfolio. (The patents around computing technologies are more significant to Google than anything related to mobile) - A small enough actual cost to Microsoft that they'll pay it, and Google can use that as leverage in subsequent lawsuits. - They could be close, but not close enough, in existing patent cross-licensing discussions that they're trying to force Microsoft's hand and sweeten an offer. - An overzealous business unit manager decided to unilaterally take the action without considering the potential impact to the rest of Google. - Motorola wants to exercise their IP portfolio prior to closing the deal with Google. I can't figure out if the deal has actually closed yet -- best I can tell, it hadn't as of a month or two ago. If it hadn't, maybe they want to take the action while its still "safe" to do so with regard to the rest of Google's business?
In either case, your dismissal of a valid question seems to be a lot more puzzling than the question itself being asked.
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
I think that's only partially correct -- I'd bet the real motivation (relatively to the devices in question) is the fact that most of the large Android manufacturers have cross-licensed patents with Microsoft, but a few haven't, and I'd bet Google is getting a lot of pressure from them. Telecommunication patents are a VERY deep thicket, and its a very expensive market to be in if you don't have a competitive portfolio so you can even-steven cross-license with everyone else. Apple and Google both do not have portfolios that deep, and have to fight with their smaller portfolios, rather than cross licensing. There's enough history (and existing licensing) between Apple and Microsoft that they just worked it out. Apple is then very selective about their direct attacks against Google-related properties (Samsung, etc) Google, on the other hand, bought Motorola for its IP portfolio and appears to think going after Microsoft will be better than going after Apple in the middle of the Samsung mess. (Likely rightfully so, best not to get sucked into that quagmire by association...)
IMO, its a risky move by Google. Microsoft's patent portfolio is VERY deep in a lot of areas critical to Google, and this could backfire badly on them.
Of course, anyone who has negotiated anything always starts way higher than you actually will settle. I bet they won't, though -- deep down this is a proxy battle over the things that really matter to Google. They critically need people using Android, Chromebooks and the ilk to keep eyeballs looking at their ads. They haven't knocked Apple down a notch in tablets, so I think they're trying to pre-emptively do so before the tide of web-to-app usage shifts far enough that their revenues completely dry up. And Microsoft is hitting them online with Bing and in devices now.
Patraeus is a public servant. The military and public servants agree to adhere to a higher standard of ethics when they take their jobs.
IMO, that isn't even the real problem. The CIA, in particular, doesn't care two squats about your dirty secrets, as long as you don't care about them either. The problem with a long-term affair, relative to the CIA, is that the people involved (by the very nature of having gone to those extents to keep it a secret) are now potentially able to be compromised by someone via blackmail.
You could have a long track record of photos of you snorting blow off a shaved donkeys ass while giving it a reach around, and the CIA won't care as long as you're not embarrassed about it.
... hired by Apple and Google, to completely destroy Windows 8 and any chance of entering the mobile market.
Or - at least that's a hilariously plausible conspiracy theory. I'm going to pretend to believe it.
If you want to make it a plausible conspiracy theory, you need to say that he was an Templar plant put into Microsoft to take down Windows NT so OS/2 could win in the marketplace. OS/2 was definitely preferred by secret societies everywhere. When that plan failed he was left as a deep mole. When the Templar put Jobs back into power at Apple, to get mind-control audio technology out to the masses, they thought they had finally succeeded in global domination. But the rise of the superior Windows 8 represented a threat to the Templar control, so they awoke their deep sleeper agent. However, Ballmer (a long-line descendent of assassins) caught him in his nefarious acts and after scaling building 34, and throwing a few chairs, he made it clear that he had to go.
I suspect this will not be the end of the story...
Looks to me like escalation has begun. Loser will be end users. Buy stock in both Apple as well as Samsung as higher prices mean higher profit margins.
Its probably best for Apple's users, anyway. They've all got Stockholm syndrome at the moment, but once they're freed from that incarceration, they can start the long road to recovery.
You appear to have a problem with the concept of direction. The problem being addressed was that of stuff with the evil bit set coming *in* from the internet. Moving a PC relative to the windows does not change that at all, for example. Most of your defences seem to *presume* there's a man on the inside, but if you've got a man on the inside, there's no defence if there are *any* input devices at all. And a computer with no input devices can not receive or process any information. And therefore isn't a computer any more. You're just trying to show off that you can think of lots of ways of getting data off a supposedly secure system, which is pointless willy waving, anyone can do that. Why did you mention destroying guests' phones, but not the pad of paper they had in their pocket? Or their memories?
Its a lot easier to physically secure hardware -- and, more importantly, to know when a physical compromise has happened. These organizations, by and large, already have those provisions in place. I can't speak for the GP, but I would assume that's why he didn't get into those issues. People understand (to some extent) physical security. They don't understand "technical" security.
Or are you saying the patent wasn't granted in '89?
And, more relevantly, HTTPS didn't appear until 1994. (Netscape originated it, as an extension to the HTTP standard -- you needed their browser, and their webserver to be able to use it.)
I don't understand why the WWW was mentioned. SSL isn't tied to web technology. It makes me wonder if the submitter (and editors) have any idea what SSL is.
You can add onto it that the submitter and editors likely don't understand patents or the legal system, as well.
That's why any patent-related article on here turns into a shitstorm mere seconds away from invoking Godwin's law.
Much of the VC activity(and startup acquisition by larger outfits) in the valley has been based on absurd speculative bullshit only slightly less risible than pets.com. Now, with the supply of bigger suckers on which to unload your worthless stock in some 'disruptive' Web2.0/mobile/social/bullshit apparently drying up a bit, non-idiots are staying away.
Good heavens, whatever shall we do?
A third theory:
The global economy is, in essence, a pyramid scheme. Its based on the requirement of unbounded, infinite growth, which we know isn't the case. It looks non-zero-sum because of the size of it, but with resources and labor limited, even people in crushing poverty in the west are only that rich because of the real poor's share of labor and resources.
And like any pyramid scheme, the faster money moves through it, the faster you reach the point where its no longer supportable. So perhaps the massive increase in wealth (and I'm not talking 1%er wealth, I'm talking the vastly larger pool of resources represented globally by the growing middle class) has burned through enough of the pyramid that things are starting to fall apart.
Yes but inflation is different. The upper classes own assets. Asset values can move up and down during inflation. ie: see gold.
The poor hold money - dollars. Those only go one direction during inflation: down.
So does their debt. Net-net, the "poor" likely come out ahead in that. Savings rates are VERY low as compared to debt.
Inflation also helps the national debt. The easiest way to cut the national debt in half is to devalue the dollar by half. Companies that hoard cash will be hurt, but everyone else will have their stock rise (because its based on their production and physical assets), the cost of debt payments goes down, the impact of all the mortgages that are underwater goes down.
The people who are hurt (other than the suckers who loaned money to the US) are predominantly the people who are keeping resources out of the market by holding onto cash instead of using it.
No, no, no... we are quibbling as much about the actual cause as we quibble about semantics... and if we can't quibble about those things, we'll quibble about the effects. And during all those shenanigans, we're playing the blame-game.
You didn't really think this was about identifying and solving a problem, did you?
Joe six-pack, politicians and the media are quibbling about those things. There aren't any scientists trained in relevant fields who are, about the cause, semantics, or effects unless they're doing so for money or a bizarre reaction to "publish-or-perish".
The brain shifts in the skull, especially during impact. Any rigid strong wire risks being ripped out, as the brain stretches, or doing the cheese wire thing. Cheesewired brain is bad.
I suppose its plausible, if you had enough of them, that they could actually help hold things in place, absorbing that energy rather than sloshing a squishy brain around until it bleeds.
Slashdot Mirror
What did those 180,000 people do? Wait in line until it closed/they missed their flight, then try again another day? Decide not to fly?
Yes, basically. I fly a lot, and what you'd see at airports with those scanners is frequent massive backups. Occasionally they'd start using the metal detectors, often not. What you did tend to get was employees coming through the line and calling flight numbers and moving people to the front of the line.
I missed a few shuttle flights because of it -- they don't tend to call shuttle flights, but generally you just had to stand and listen carefully for your flight and move to the front of the line. And then get irradiated.
My gripe: I run remote desktops. Sometimes from an iPad, sometimes from an android tablet, sometimes in windowed mode from a windows PC. Nearly everything does not work with remote desktop. There's no start button to click. There's no way to run an app w/o getting to start. There's no way to simulate gestures when you don't use a mouse. Productivity is way down with this thing.
My gripe: I run remote desktops. Sometimes from an iPad, sometimes from an android tablet, sometimes in windowed mode from a windows PC. Nearly everything does not work with remote desktop. There's no start button to click. There's no way to run an app w/o getting to start. There's no way to simulate gestures when you don't use a mouse. Productivity is way down with this thing.
It works fine from Windows 7 with a mouse -- you hit the corners of the screen just like you do with a mouse on the local screen.
It also works fine from Windows 8 tablets -- you swipe in from the bottom and there's buttons you get to trigger the touch actions on the remote workstation. Its pretty slick, actually. Works extremely well.
From a 3rd party touch device that hasn't been updated to support Windows 8, I can see that being a problem. So your complaint is that your specific pattern of use for remote applications is a problem. If you're using Microsoft Remote Desktop on your iPad (no idea if such a beast exists), then I suggest you hop on over to the appropriate Connect site and file a comment or upvote an existing bug to address it on the iPad version. If its a 3rd party remote desktop application, hop on over to that developer's site and ask them to do it. That said, I'm actually surprised a screen swipe from another tablet wouldn't just work. Its a problem on the Windows tablets because it'll interpret them as a local swipe, but if the iPad doesn't do that, I'm surprised you can't swipe in from the side of the screen like you'd do on a touch system.
Your on screen keyboard doesn't have a Windows key on it?
The website I was looking at kept scrolling up and down... and up and down... and up and down... oh wait, um... nevermind.
... is there a story here? Or is this just an ad for something?
Everything on Slashdot is either an ad, an anti-something rantfest designed to whip up their base to view more ads, or (in a more meta sense) an ad designed to whip up their base to complain about ads (like this) all while seeing ads.
That's Slashdot. The key is to tune out the noise to get the occasional interesting signal. Or to play the "lets go trolling and see if we can be subtle enough to get modded up for it!" game.
You mean other than an unsuccessful lawsuit from ORACLE (One Rich Anus Called Larry Ellison)?
Pretty sure Oracle and Microsoft are different companies. The lawsuits the GP post was talking about were by Microsoft, and were SOP for cross licensing IP between handset manufacturers.
Do you understand what a proxy is?
How does a patent act as a proxy for a company.
How does a company act as a proxy for itself.
There are proxy companies, proxy servers and proxy actions, etc. Do YOU understand what a proxy is? This is a proxy action. Motorola won't make any real money off the lawsuit, because the expenses will very likely be near the amount they can get out of it. Thus its a proxy lawsuit for some other motivation. The question is, what is the motivation? At $500-$750 an hour for their lawyers, they'll burn through millions or tens of millions on the lawsuit. That's sheer insanity given the likely size of the Surface market and the amount they'd realistically be able to get for it.
Is 20-30% A realistic estimation of TCP headers?
If the numbers are correct I would say that a significant portion below the tcp/ip layer is being counted.
How much retransmit/error correction is there in DSL? I personally wouldn't think that's valid to charge, but the argument could be made.
As for for the original poster's question on law, I doubt there is any requirement, though if you challenge them in court, it would have to be revealed, or they have no evidence.
20-30% isn't realistic, but headers plus a mismatch between a MiB and MB measure would get you a lot closer. The poster also didn't mention if all of the traffic was being totaled in his calculations (TCP/UDP/ICMP,etc).
He's also likely measuring traffic going *though* his router, not traffic coming *to* his router. ATT is measuring at their end, so he's likely being billed for the constant port knocking and vulnerability scanning that is going on.
Does it add up to 20-30%? Maybe no. Is ATT collectively a bunch of shitheads? Absolutely. Is it safe to assume because they're a bunch of shitheads that they're deliberately mis-billing? Also so. And "proprietary" could VERY easily be a corporate policy of "don't tell them anything if you're going to tell them something that is inaccurate". And I wouldn't trust a call center worker to properly explain the byte-for-byte measurement of network traffic. Far better to say "no, its proprietary" than to only explain 80% of it, get 10% wrong and have Slashdot or Reddit get their panties in a bunch because a near-minimum-wage call center worker mis-spoke.
Microsoft sued Android first, Google is just defending.
Android isn't a company. That isn't how patents work. Microsoft cross licensed patents with other handset manufacturers, just like every one of them did with all the others. Google can't defend anything, because they weren't the licensee or the target of any legal actions with regard to that IP.
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
Why do you think it was a bad question? Its clear based on everything Google has been doing that it is, in fact, utilizing Motorola IP as a proxy for corporate Google attacking Microsoft. That's not related to a whiny little comment or improving any public image. Its a valid discussion point. You can be assured that Google (just like any company taking an action like this) has a great number of lawyers who have been formulating the strategy.
The lawsuit, as it is, doesn't make a damn bit of sense. They'll go at 2.25%, and it'll probably settle out at 1/4 of that, if they win at all. They'll spend a lot more money on lawyers than they'll ever get out of it. By any measure the multiple on costs of a lawsuit like this isn't high enough to warrant the risk of loss (or worse yet, a judgment that impacts other licensing agreements!)
I think the GP is quite correct -- why is Google using a wireless patent as a proxy? What is their motivation?
It seems to me its probably a few things:
- Sabre rattling, although this is probably dangerous given Microsoft's patent portfolio. (The patents around computing technologies are more significant to Google than anything related to mobile)
- A small enough actual cost to Microsoft that they'll pay it, and Google can use that as leverage in subsequent lawsuits.
- They could be close, but not close enough, in existing patent cross-licensing discussions that they're trying to force Microsoft's hand and sweeten an offer.
- An overzealous business unit manager decided to unilaterally take the action without considering the potential impact to the rest of Google.
- Motorola wants to exercise their IP portfolio prior to closing the deal with Google. I can't figure out if the deal has actually closed yet -- best I can tell, it hadn't as of a month or two ago. If it hadn't, maybe they want to take the action while its still "safe" to do so with regard to the rest of Google's business?
In either case, your dismissal of a valid question seems to be a lot more puzzling than the question itself being asked.
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
I think that's only partially correct -- I'd bet the real motivation (relatively to the devices in question) is the fact that most of the large Android manufacturers have cross-licensed patents with Microsoft, but a few haven't, and I'd bet Google is getting a lot of pressure from them. Telecommunication patents are a VERY deep thicket, and its a very expensive market to be in if you don't have a competitive portfolio so you can even-steven cross-license with everyone else. Apple and Google both do not have portfolios that deep, and have to fight with their smaller portfolios, rather than cross licensing. There's enough history (and existing licensing) between Apple and Microsoft that they just worked it out. Apple is then very selective about their direct attacks against Google-related properties (Samsung, etc) Google, on the other hand, bought Motorola for its IP portfolio and appears to think going after Microsoft will be better than going after Apple in the middle of the Samsung mess. (Likely rightfully so, best not to get sucked into that quagmire by association...)
IMO, its a risky move by Google. Microsoft's patent portfolio is VERY deep in a lot of areas critical to Google, and this could backfire badly on them.
Of course, anyone who has negotiated anything always starts way higher than you actually will settle. I bet they won't, though -- deep down this is a proxy battle over the things that really matter to Google. They critically need people using Android, Chromebooks and the ilk to keep eyeballs looking at their ads. They haven't knocked Apple down a notch in tablets, so I think they're trying to pre-emptively do so before the tide of web-to-app usage shifts far enough that their revenues completely dry up. And Microsoft is hitting them online with Bing and in devices now.
I have 0% problem with slaughtering babies - but 100% problem with the dishonesty motivating the effort and the lack of transparency behind it.
A billion accounts on Facebook happened.
FTFY.
No, my original wording was both deliberate and accurate.
Then he would be beholden to no one (except maybe google).
A billion users on Facebook happened.
Patraeus is a public servant. The military and public servants agree to adhere to a higher standard of ethics when they take their jobs.
IMO, that isn't even the real problem. The CIA, in particular, doesn't care two squats about your dirty secrets, as long as you don't care about them either. The problem with a long-term affair, relative to the CIA, is that the people involved (by the very nature of having gone to those extents to keep it a secret) are now potentially able to be compromised by someone via blackmail.
You could have a long track record of photos of you snorting blow off a shaved donkeys ass while giving it a reach around, and the CIA won't care as long as you're not embarrassed about it.
No, it can't. I don't think you realize how archaic 16-bit mode is. 16-bit mode was for running on *286* Windows. If you had a 386 you ran in 32 bits.
No, he's correct. You're talking about WoW32, he's talking about XP Mode. XP Mode is "Windows Virtual PC" and runs XP. 16 bit apps run fine in there.
They won't run in WoW, because the 16 bit support is a different subsystem in Windows, its not part of Win32.
... hired by Apple and Google, to completely destroy Windows 8 and any chance of entering the mobile market.
Or - at least that's a hilariously plausible conspiracy theory. I'm going to pretend to believe it.
If you want to make it a plausible conspiracy theory, you need to say that he was an Templar plant put into Microsoft to take down Windows NT so OS/2 could win in the marketplace. OS/2 was definitely preferred by secret societies everywhere. When that plan failed he was left as a deep mole. When the Templar put Jobs back into power at Apple, to get mind-control audio technology out to the masses, they thought they had finally succeeded in global domination. But the rise of the superior Windows 8 represented a threat to the Templar control, so they awoke their deep sleeper agent. However, Ballmer (a long-line descendent of assassins) caught him in his nefarious acts and after scaling building 34, and throwing a few chairs, he made it clear that he had to go.
I suspect this will not be the end of the story ...
Global Thermonuclear Warfare.
Looks to me like escalation has begun. Loser will be end users. Buy stock in both Apple as well as Samsung as higher prices mean higher profit margins.
Its probably best for Apple's users, anyway. They've all got Stockholm syndrome at the moment, but once they're freed from that incarceration, they can start the long road to recovery.
You appear to have a problem with the concept of direction. The problem being addressed was that of stuff with the evil bit set coming *in* from the internet. Moving a PC relative to the windows does not change that at all, for example. Most of your defences seem to *presume* there's a man on the inside, but if you've got a man on the inside, there's no defence if there are *any* input devices at all. And a computer with no input devices can not receive or process any information. And therefore isn't a computer any more. You're just trying to show off that you can think of lots of ways of getting data off a supposedly secure system, which is pointless willy waving, anyone can do that. Why did you mention destroying guests' phones, but not the pad of paper they had in their pocket? Or their memories?
Its a lot easier to physically secure hardware -- and, more importantly, to know when a physical compromise has happened. These organizations, by and large, already have those provisions in place. I can't speak for the GP, but I would assume that's why he didn't get into those issues. People understand (to some extent) physical security. They don't understand "technical" security.
"Your sure about that are you?"
Yes? The web was invented in '92.
Or are you saying the patent wasn't granted in '89?
And, more relevantly, HTTPS didn't appear until 1994. (Netscape originated it, as an extension to the HTTP standard -- you needed their browser, and their webserver to be able to use it.)
So, clearly this is all Netscape's fault.
I don't understand why the WWW was mentioned. SSL isn't tied to web technology. It makes me wonder if the submitter (and editors) have any idea what SSL is.
You can add onto it that the submitter and editors likely don't understand patents or the legal system, as well.
That's why any patent-related article on here turns into a shitstorm mere seconds away from invoking Godwin's law.
Much of the VC activity(and startup acquisition by larger outfits) in the valley has been based on absurd speculative bullshit only slightly less risible than pets.com. Now, with the supply of bigger suckers on which to unload your worthless stock in some 'disruptive' Web2.0/mobile/social/bullshit apparently drying up a bit, non-idiots are staying away.
Good heavens, whatever shall we do?
A third theory:
The global economy is, in essence, a pyramid scheme. Its based on the requirement of unbounded, infinite growth, which we know isn't the case. It looks non-zero-sum because of the size of it, but with resources and labor limited, even people in crushing poverty in the west are only that rich because of the real poor's share of labor and resources.
And like any pyramid scheme, the faster money moves through it, the faster you reach the point where its no longer supportable. So perhaps the massive increase in wealth (and I'm not talking 1%er wealth, I'm talking the vastly larger pool of resources represented globally by the growing middle class) has burned through enough of the pyramid that things are starting to fall apart.
Yes but inflation is different. The upper classes own assets. Asset values can move up and down during inflation. ie: see gold.
The poor hold money - dollars. Those only go one direction during inflation: down.
So does their debt. Net-net, the "poor" likely come out ahead in that. Savings rates are VERY low as compared to debt.
Inflation also helps the national debt. The easiest way to cut the national debt in half is to devalue the dollar by half. Companies that hoard cash will be hurt, but everyone else will have their stock rise (because its based on their production and physical assets), the cost of debt payments goes down, the impact of all the mortgages that are underwater goes down.
The people who are hurt (other than the suckers who loaned money to the US) are predominantly the people who are keeping resources out of the market by holding onto cash instead of using it.
No, no, no... we are quibbling as much about the actual cause as we quibble about semantics... and if we can't quibble about those things, we'll quibble about the effects. And during all those shenanigans, we're playing the blame-game.
You didn't really think this was about identifying and solving a problem, did you?
Joe six-pack, politicians and the media are quibbling about those things. There aren't any scientists trained in relevant fields who are, about the cause, semantics, or effects unless they're doing so for money or a bizarre reaction to "publish-or-perish".
[nt]
You're from Canada, so you didn't see the last US election. Trust me, it began a long time ago.
The brain shifts in the skull, especially during impact.
Any rigid strong wire risks being ripped out, as the brain stretches, or doing the cheese wire thing.
Cheesewired brain is bad.
I suppose its plausible, if you had enough of them, that they could actually help hold things in place, absorbing that energy rather than sloshing a squishy brain around until it bleeds.