If you have a one-line screen per button, then this ceases to be a problem. I would say this is much more botch-proof that either touch-screens, or a single screen for multiple buttons (where as you point out, drift can occur). If you display an indicator of who you voted for on the same one-line screen as the name, then you can be sure that the individual displays or buttons have not been switched.
Any implementation will need to be adequately tested, but some designs are inherently more prone to failure than others. For this, physical buttons are better than touchscreens, a screen per button is better than one large screen, and physically printed (and verifiable) result sheets is better than having no paper verifiable copy.
(I'm not making any claim that electronic voting is a good or safe way to go, mind you).
I was really concerned about the 4.65 inch Galaxy Nexus being too big when I bought it, coming from a 3.7 inch 480x854 Motorola Defy (which apart from being slow and Motorola I loved). I was also pleasantly surprised - the only time it bothers me is when I'm cycling, because it doesn't fit quite as comfortably in the zip-up pocket of my pants.
I really like the 4.0-4.3 inch screen-size range, and would probably still prefer the phone to be that size. However, having now owned a Nexus I don't think I'll be able to go back to other phones. Having official support for the new OS versions almost immediately; being able to build and flash the OS without having to fight drivers and build configurations; not having a bootloader protection stopping me installing what I want - there ain't no giving that up.
I agree, and I didn't say that yoghurt efficiency (did you mean efficacy?) is a homeopathic lie. I said that the evidence provided (meaning by the previous posters) meant that their claim carried as much weight as the claim that homeopathic vaccines are as effective as real vaccines.
Just to make sure I'm very clear (because others also took a different meaning from my post than I intended): The evidence provided for claim X means that the claim carries as much weight as claim Y. That doesn't mean X is an example of Y.
Yoghurt and Kefir may indeed be good for gut flora, but claiming that Yoghurt and Kefir do the same thing as a fecal transplant, but are not used because it is hard to monetize them, is a long long way from from claiming Yoghurt and Kefir are good for gut flora.
This research doesn't show the only way or all the ways your gut flora can be restored after (treating) a C dif infection.
Yes indeed.
Put another way, this research does not disprove the effectiveness of any rememdies not explicitly covered and should not be assumed to evaluate their individual effectivenesses.
Also true.
The key idea is intentionally augmenting the gut's flora with probiotics so that restoration of beneficial native flora can occur more rapidly. The paper points to specific strains which are required to attain the effectiveness of a fecal transfer. L bacillus and acidophilus may not cure your C dif infection or instantly restore homeostasis, but they'll significantly help restore your ability to properly receive nutrients from digested food. While more palatable than eating poo, they're simply not as efffective because they don't represent all the necessary flora. They are, however, still effective and recommended as treatments.
And I still am not disagreeing with you here - and indeed neither does my original post.
While theirs was not an accurate or well supported claim, please recognize that the comment you responded to contained more truth than your dissmissively out of hand rebuttal. Also, don't try to appeal to authority when there is evidence against your assertion that probiotics are equivalent to homeopathy.
And here, you're incorrect. They actually contain a claim, with no supporting evidence. Yoghurt and Kefir may indeed be good for gut flora, but claiming that Yoghurt and Kefir do the same thing as a fecal transplant, but are not used because it is hard to monetize them, is a long long way from from claiming Yoghurt and Kefir are good for gut flora. In particular, the evidence provided that the Kefir remedy 'does the same thing' as a fecal transplant (i.e. none) makes discounting the work of the researcher - which is implied in saying "x does the same, but there is no money in it" - ridiculous.
A single PC that acted as a server that I could buy for $600 cost nearly $4,000 because it had to be certified and registered with the FDA because the information that was held on it was medical, and/or the software may do analysis of the data.
It is unfortunate that the costs are so high, but it makes complete sense. You are using the machine as a server holding and analysing medical data. Errors and failures could be very high impact. The solution? Probably to actually have fewer, larger servers: maybe even virtualisation on those systems if people need to have their own servers with more custom configurations (although I'm not sure how the FDA approval works, so maybe that wouldn't help).
Without regulations like this, some punter would change the RAM in a machine running a radiotherapy machine sometime, there would be a fault, and someone would wind up cooked. We don't need to add that to the existing problems.
Kefir is even better, but hard to monetize so it's less common. Get some, keep a large jar and replenish with milk as required.
It didn't cross your mind that if you were actually correct, the researcher - who is presumably at least reasonably competent inside the field in which they are working - would have been culturing the microbes from yoghurt or kefir?
Right now, the evidence provided means the 'yoghurt or kefir are just as good' claim carries as much weight as the claim that homeopathic vaccines are as effective as real vaccines.
If you really wanted many people to see different things on the same screen, the various tricks used for 3D (shutter glasses, polarization) would be more effective.
There are problems with shutter-glasses though (aside from the headaches, diziness, etc some experience). The more people viewing, the more images you need to be switching through, so the smaller the segment of time you can display the imagine to each user. i.e. 2 people: each gets 50% timeshare of display 3 people: 33% timeshare 4 people: 25% timeshare. I imagine the display is looking getting pretty dim by this point.
With polarisation, you (to my understanding) simply can't present more than two images because you need the two polarisation angles to be relatively perpendicular. You can't add a third polarisation angle to get a distinct image.
Even combining technologies will probably not help, because each one still dims the brightness of the image.
You can still carry two phones, but now that they can talk to each other you'll be the third wheel - especially since they have so much in common. No longer will you rely on other people in the restaurant whispering between themselves about 'the guy playing with his phone': these phones will be able to do that whispering to each other! Progress!
If Anonymous has material evidence that points to the guilt of a particular individual, they should turn that evidence over to the responsible law enforcement agency, not go public and taint both the investigation and public opinion. The detectives may have had the opportunity to seize evidence before the person knew he was under suspicion, or set up a sting operation.
I absolutely agree with this, particularly since I don't imagine the 'evidence' gathered by Anonymous would be admissible in court. If this is the case, then police would need to be able to gather their own evidence in order to prosecute. In addition, if the actions of Anonymous make it possible for the man to claim he is unable to receive a fair trial due to jury prejudice (if indeed he is charged) then they will have just ruined an opportunity to see if the legal system can deal with cases like this appropriately. An example of the system handling this type of case well could have encouraged others to come forward in future.
If the police fail to act in a way which satisfies 'Anonymous', it isn't like they are cut off from releasing the information themselves anyway.
That's fantastic - I somehow overlooked that. Next on the 'want/I should do myself' list: integrating that into CyanogenMod so it can send encrypted SMS transparently.
Yeah, my comment was unduly harsh and I regretted posting it shortly after I had: I shouldn't be attributing to stupidity what I could attribute to misunderstanding.
Anyway, my whole point was that GSM voice *does* have an advantage between your phone and the tower, and until GPRS/3G/4G provide the same QoS and coverage as GSM voice calls it will continue to have an advantage. There may be situations in which you can't make GSM voice calls but can get GPRS/3G/4G, but it is much more likely you will be in a situtation where you can't use GPRS/3G/4G but are able to make GSM voice calls. You seem to be claiming that isn't the case. I'm claiming that you're wrong.
Such a claim isn't being out of touch with current technology. It is acknowledging that voice calls and SMS on mobile networks will continue to work even when mobile IP connectivity is choking.
Yeah, the 'two three' was a typo. I started with two, added the 'not broken protocol' to make it three, and screwed up my correction. But as other commenters have noted, without the one guaranteed secure interaction trust isn't established.
With digital signing of keys by other trusted parties, this problem can be reduced but for 'failsafe' encryption you probably don't want to trust any third parties.
Just to clarify: You highly doubt that a GSM voice call and SMS don't require a GPRS/3G/4G/WiFi connection? Really? I think you may be a little bit confused. Or stupid. It could be either.
You're missing my point about encryption over GSM voice, and encrypted SMS, which is that neither GSM voice nor SMS require a GPRS/3G/4G/WiFi connection. I don't care whether things are VoIPed left, right and centre once it's hit the tower, but between my phone and the tower GSM and SMS has advantages.
Actually, if you want completely failsafe encryption (excluding actually cracking the key itself) you need two three things: 1. Trusted endpoints (i.e. devices that you can trust - this is quite a challenge itself) 2. *One* interaction guaranteed to be protected from a MiTM for key exchange 3. An encryption protocol which isn't broken
#3 is easy. There are multiple options available. #2 can be easy, if you live just down the road from the person you want to have secure communication with. It can also be hard if you can never meet the intended recipient. #1 is a nightmare, unless you build the device and the OS yourself.
The actual communication path can be anything from public radio broadcast to RFC1149, so long as the endpoints are trusted, the encryption protocol isn't broken, and your key exchange hasn't been intercepted (or keys stolen, but that is a trusted endpoint issue)
Or maybe not even vaguely like Serval, since rather than being a distributed mesh network Silent Circle is an encryption communication platform. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great project and I'm very happy to see it appearing - I've been hoping something your project would appear for ages. It is just almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the product in TFA.
And then I RTFPM (PM = promotional material) and it doesn't encrypt phone calls, SMS or MMS. It provides yet another encrypted VoIP and Email-Replacement-Over-IP. On the upside, it is actually encrypted and appears to use keys which are stored by the endpoints and not in the middle, so it is no less secure than using x509 or (G)PG(P) encryption for e-mail, or SRTP for calls.
I guess it might provide an easy solution for key exchange. That would be a win.
While it is nice for someone to be making an easy-to-use all-in-one encryption app, the real question for me is this: Does it encrypt phone calls; real, phone-to-phone, no-VoIP phone calls.
There are already several solutionsoutthere for encrypted VoIP. Even a free, open-source general-purpose Android SIP client CSipSimple supports ZRTP for key exchange (or 'of course' a free, open-source...) However, I have not found a single app (and indeed only a few specialised devices) to actually make encrypted phone calls without using VoIP, and none that have made encrypted phone calls over GSM voice. A few people have talked about phone call encryption over GSM voice (e.g. at DEFCON) and there are many papers on the topic of data-over-GSM-voice), but I haven't yet seen it implemented. If this *does* implement it, *then* I'll be pumped.
On the SMS front, there is already TextSecure for sending encrypted SMS, and all the key exchange is handled through SMS (and perhaps MMS? I believe only SMS). Mind you, Moxie Marlinspike hasn't released the source for it (and it is now owned by Twitter, so we'll probably never see it).
But the requirement to notify you will inhibit law enforcement. Cases against bikies have evidence collection phases that stretch into years, literally millions of lines of transcribed conversation.
And think you and I actually think the same on this: I agree that as long as investigation is still underway, it is reasonable to delay notification - it may be that this should requires approval from a judge every six months, but I think that would be manageable.
Really, the point of requiring notification would be to 'encourage' appropriate use of this kind of data access. If people who are engaged in perfectly acceptable activities (like organising political protests, or just living their lives) started receiving notifications you can be certain attention would be directed to the issue quickly.
Technically, when a car dealer checks my credit file when I apply for finance, they are performing a warrentless check of private data... despite the fact I've given them permission.
Certainly, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going to count in the above lists (not being ASIO, the ATO, or any of the others) so that isn't really relevant.
I love the fact the Age does not differentiate between
ASIO, AFP, Defence,
and
the Tax Office, Immigration, Citizenship, Health, Ageing, and Medicare.
You know, I think that whichever of those agencies is accessing my phone, internet, or location records, it is not innocuous. (Note, from the article it is hard to make out who is obtaining what data).
Frankly, I think that the law should be such that all of this data is not available without a warrant, and that those organisations should be forced to put forward a good case for why it is otherwise. Furthermore, I think that if this data is accessed (or a wiretap is performed) then after a period of time (3 months? 6 maybe?) the relevant agency should be required to notify me that the data was accessed, unless either the investigation is ongoing, or they are in the process of pressing charges. If my call listing is accessed, and no action against me follows, then why shouldn't I know it was accessed?
Prior art does matter. The whole point of the trademark is that it specifically differentiates the particular thing to which the trademark refers: in the context of fast food places, McDonalds has a trademark on that name; they wouldn't have been able to get this trademark if there were already restaurants with the name McDonalds. Because there are already artistic works called Carnival of Souls, then that would significantly impinge the validity of the trademark.
For a good example of the importance of existing names for trademarks, look up 'Hungry Jacks' in Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack%27s)
No, the terms are right: it is low latency in that it doesn't *add* much latency, which is a critical feature in bidirectional real-time communications (like Skype). Having a low-latency codec is even more important for the Internet, because of the existing latency you have pointed out which is cumulative with any delays introduced by the codec.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a one-line screen per button, then this ceases to be a problem. I would say this is much more botch-proof that either touch-screens, or a single screen for multiple buttons (where as you point out, drift can occur). If you display an indicator of who you voted for on the same one-line screen as the name, then you can be sure that the individual displays or buttons have not been switched.
Any implementation will need to be adequately tested, but some designs are inherently more prone to failure than others. For this, physical buttons are better than touchscreens, a screen per button is better than one large screen, and physically printed (and verifiable) result sheets is better than having no paper verifiable copy.
(I'm not making any claim that electronic voting is a good or safe way to go, mind you).
I was really concerned about the 4.65 inch Galaxy Nexus being too big when I bought it, coming from a 3.7 inch 480x854 Motorola Defy (which apart from being slow and Motorola I loved). I was also pleasantly surprised - the only time it bothers me is when I'm cycling, because it doesn't fit quite as comfortably in the zip-up pocket of my pants.
I really like the 4.0-4.3 inch screen-size range, and would probably still prefer the phone to be that size. However, having now owned a Nexus I don't think I'll be able to go back to other phones. Having official support for the new OS versions almost immediately; being able to build and flash the OS without having to fight drivers and build configurations; not having a bootloader protection stopping me installing what I want - there ain't no giving that up.
Yoghurt efficiency is not homeopathic lie.
I agree, and I didn't say that yoghurt efficiency (did you mean efficacy?) is a homeopathic lie. I said that the evidence provided (meaning by the previous posters) meant that their claim carried as much weight as the claim that homeopathic vaccines are as effective as real vaccines.
Just to make sure I'm very clear (because others also took a different meaning from my post than I intended):
The evidence provided for claim X means that the claim carries as much weight as claim Y.
That doesn't mean X is an example of Y.
Yoghurt and Kefir may indeed be good for gut flora, but claiming that Yoghurt and Kefir do the same thing as a fecal transplant, but are not used because it is hard to monetize them, is a long long way from from claiming Yoghurt and Kefir are good for gut flora.
This research doesn't show the only way or all the ways your gut flora can be restored after (treating) a C dif infection.
Yes indeed.
Put another way, this research does not disprove the effectiveness of any rememdies not explicitly covered and should not be assumed to evaluate their individual effectivenesses.
Also true.
The key idea is intentionally augmenting the gut's flora with probiotics so that restoration of beneficial native flora can occur more rapidly. The paper points to specific strains which are required to attain the effectiveness of a fecal transfer. L bacillus and acidophilus may not cure your C dif infection or instantly restore homeostasis, but they'll significantly help restore your ability to properly receive nutrients from digested food. While more palatable than eating poo, they're simply not as efffective because they don't represent all the necessary flora. They are, however, still effective and recommended as treatments.
And I still am not disagreeing with you here - and indeed neither does my original post.
While theirs was not an accurate or well supported claim, please recognize that the comment you responded to contained more truth than your dissmissively out of hand rebuttal. Also, don't try to appeal to authority when there is evidence against your assertion that probiotics are equivalent to homeopathy.
And here, you're incorrect. They actually contain a claim, with no supporting evidence.
Yoghurt and Kefir may indeed be good for gut flora, but claiming that Yoghurt and Kefir do the same thing as a fecal transplant, but are not used because it is hard to monetize them, is a long long way from from claiming Yoghurt and Kefir are good for gut flora. In particular, the evidence provided that the Kefir remedy 'does the same thing' as a fecal transplant (i.e. none) makes discounting the work of the researcher - which is implied in saying "x does the same, but there is no money in it" - ridiculous.
So I mostly, but not entirely, agree with you.
A single PC that acted as a server that I could buy for $600 cost nearly $4,000 because it had to be certified and registered with the FDA because the information that was held on it was medical, and/or the software may do analysis of the data.
It is unfortunate that the costs are so high, but it makes complete sense. You are using the machine as a server holding and analysing medical data. Errors and failures could be very high impact. The solution? Probably to actually have fewer, larger servers: maybe even virtualisation on those systems if people need to have their own servers with more custom configurations (although I'm not sure how the FDA approval works, so maybe that wouldn't help).
Without regulations like this, some punter would change the RAM in a machine running a radiotherapy machine sometime, there would be a fault, and someone would wind up cooked. We don't need to add that to the existing problems.
Kefir is even better, but hard to monetize so it's less common. Get some, keep a large jar and replenish with milk as required.
It didn't cross your mind that if you were actually correct, the researcher - who is presumably at least reasonably competent inside the field in which they are working - would have been culturing the microbes from yoghurt or kefir?
Right now, the evidence provided means the 'yoghurt or kefir are just as good' claim carries as much weight as the claim that homeopathic vaccines are as effective as real vaccines.
If you really wanted many people to see different things on the same screen, the various tricks used for 3D (shutter glasses, polarization) would be more effective.
LG and Samsung agree with you.
There are problems with shutter-glasses though (aside from the headaches, diziness, etc some experience). The more people viewing, the more images you need to be switching through, so the smaller the segment of time you can display the imagine to each user.
i.e.
2 people: each gets 50% timeshare of display
3 people: 33% timeshare
4 people: 25% timeshare. I imagine the display is looking getting pretty dim by this point.
With polarisation, you (to my understanding) simply can't present more than two images because you need the two polarisation angles to be relatively perpendicular. You can't add a third polarisation angle to get a distinct image.
Even combining technologies will probably not help, because each one still dims the brightness of the image.
You can still carry two phones, but now that they can talk to each other you'll be the third wheel - especially since they have so much in common. No longer will you rely on other people in the restaurant whispering between themselves about 'the guy playing with his phone': these phones will be able to do that whispering to each other! Progress!
If Anonymous has material evidence that points to the guilt of a particular individual, they should turn that evidence over to the responsible law enforcement agency, not go public and taint both the investigation and public opinion. The detectives may have had the opportunity to seize evidence before the person knew he was under suspicion, or set up a sting operation.
I absolutely agree with this, particularly since I don't imagine the 'evidence' gathered by Anonymous would be admissible in court. If this is the case, then police would need to be able to gather their own evidence in order to prosecute.
In addition, if the actions of Anonymous make it possible for the man to claim he is unable to receive a fair trial due to jury prejudice (if indeed he is charged) then they will have just ruined an opportunity to see if the legal system can deal with cases like this appropriately. An example of the system handling this type of case well could have encouraged others to come forward in future.
If the police fail to act in a way which satisfies 'Anonymous', it isn't like they are cut off from releasing the information themselves anyway.
That's fantastic - I somehow overlooked that. Next on the 'want/I should do myself' list: integrating that into CyanogenMod so it can send encrypted SMS transparently.
Yeah, my comment was unduly harsh and I regretted posting it shortly after I had: I shouldn't be attributing to stupidity what I could attribute to misunderstanding.
Anyway, my whole point was that GSM voice *does* have an advantage between your phone and the tower, and until GPRS/3G/4G provide the same QoS and coverage as GSM voice calls it will continue to have an advantage. There may be situations in which you can't make GSM voice calls but can get GPRS/3G/4G, but it is much more likely you will be in a situtation where you can't use GPRS/3G/4G but are able to make GSM voice calls. You seem to be claiming that isn't the case. I'm claiming that you're wrong.
Such a claim isn't being out of touch with current technology. It is acknowledging that voice calls and SMS on mobile networks will continue to work even when mobile IP connectivity is choking.
Yeah, the 'two three' was a typo. I started with two, added the 'not broken protocol' to make it three, and screwed up my correction. But as other commenters have noted, without the one guaranteed secure interaction trust isn't established.
With digital signing of keys by other trusted parties, this problem can be reduced but for 'failsafe' encryption you probably don't want to trust any third parties.
No it really is. Serval is building an encrypted, *decentralised* communication platform, that can also route packets over a local mesh network.
Ok, cool. When I looked over the website I saw a lot of discussion of mesh, but not discussion of encryption. I'll have more of a look.
Just to clarify: You highly doubt that a GSM voice call and SMS don't require a GPRS/3G/4G/WiFi connection? Really?
I think you may be a little bit confused. Or stupid. It could be either.
You're missing my point about encryption over GSM voice, and encrypted SMS, which is that neither GSM voice nor SMS require a GPRS/3G/4G/WiFi connection.
I don't care whether things are VoIPed left, right and centre once it's hit the tower, but between my phone and the tower GSM and SMS has advantages.
Actually, if you want completely failsafe encryption (excluding actually cracking the key itself) you need two three things:
1. Trusted endpoints (i.e. devices that you can trust - this is quite a challenge itself)
2. *One* interaction guaranteed to be protected from a MiTM for key exchange
3. An encryption protocol which isn't broken
#3 is easy. There are multiple options available.
#2 can be easy, if you live just down the road from the person you want to have secure communication with. It can also be hard if you can never meet the intended recipient.
#1 is a nightmare, unless you build the device and the OS yourself.
The actual communication path can be anything from public radio broadcast to RFC1149, so long as the endpoints are trusted, the encryption protocol isn't broken, and your key exchange hasn't been intercepted (or keys stolen, but that is a trusted endpoint issue)
Or maybe not even vaguely like Serval, since rather than being a distributed mesh network Silent Circle is an encryption communication platform.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great project and I'm very happy to see it appearing - I've been hoping something your project would appear for ages. It is just almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the product in TFA.
And then I RTFPM (PM = promotional material) and it doesn't encrypt phone calls, SMS or MMS. It provides yet another encrypted VoIP and Email-Replacement-Over-IP. On the upside, it is actually encrypted and appears to use keys which are stored by the endpoints and not in the middle, so it is no less secure than using x509 or (G)PG(P) encryption for e-mail, or SRTP for calls.
I guess it might provide an easy solution for key exchange. That would be a win.
While it is nice for someone to be making an easy-to-use all-in-one encryption app, the real question for me is this:
Does it encrypt phone calls; real, phone-to-phone, no-VoIP phone calls.
There are already several solutions out there for encrypted VoIP. Even a free, open-source general-purpose Android SIP client CSipSimple supports ZRTP for key exchange (or 'of course' a free, open-source ...)
However, I have not found a single app (and indeed only a few specialised devices) to actually make encrypted phone calls without using VoIP, and none that have made encrypted phone calls over GSM voice. A few people have talked about phone call encryption over GSM voice (e.g. at DEFCON) and there are many papers on the topic of data-over-GSM-voice), but I haven't yet seen it implemented. If this *does* implement it, *then* I'll be pumped.
On the SMS front, there is already TextSecure for sending encrypted SMS, and all the key exchange is handled through SMS (and perhaps MMS? I believe only SMS). Mind you, Moxie Marlinspike hasn't released the source for it (and it is now owned by Twitter, so we'll probably never see it).
But the requirement to notify you will inhibit law enforcement. Cases against bikies have evidence collection phases that stretch into years, literally millions of lines of transcribed conversation.
And think you and I actually think the same on this: I agree that as long as investigation is still underway, it is reasonable to delay notification - it may be that this should requires approval from a judge every six months, but I think that would be manageable.
Really, the point of requiring notification would be to 'encourage' appropriate use of this kind of data access. If people who are engaged in perfectly acceptable activities (like organising political protests, or just living their lives) started receiving notifications you can be certain attention would be directed to the issue quickly.
Technically, when a car dealer checks my credit file when I apply for finance, they are performing a warrentless check of private data... despite the fact I've given them permission.
Certainly, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going to count in the above lists (not being ASIO, the ATO, or any of the others) so that isn't really relevant.
I love the fact the Age does not differentiate between
and
You know, I think that whichever of those agencies is accessing my phone, internet, or location records, it is not innocuous. (Note, from the article it is hard to make out who is obtaining what data).
Frankly, I think that the law should be such that all of this data is not available without a warrant, and that those organisations should be forced to put forward a good case for why it is otherwise. Furthermore, I think that if this data is accessed (or a wiretap is performed) then after a period of time (3 months? 6 maybe?) the relevant agency should be required to notify me that the data was accessed, unless either the investigation is ongoing, or they are in the process of pressing charges. If my call listing is accessed, and no action against me follows, then why shouldn't I know it was accessed?
If what you're saying is true, then what needs to be changed is the cops, not the wiretap laws.
Prior art does matter. The whole point of the trademark is that it specifically differentiates the particular thing to which the trademark refers: in the context of fast food places, McDonalds has a trademark on that name; they wouldn't have been able to get this trademark if there were already restaurants with the name McDonalds. Because there are already artistic works called Carnival of Souls, then that would significantly impinge the validity of the trademark.
For a good example of the importance of existing names for trademarks, look up 'Hungry Jacks' in Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Jack%27s)
No, the terms are right: it is low latency in that it doesn't *add* much latency, which is a critical feature in bidirectional real-time communications (like Skype). Having a low-latency codec is even more important for the Internet, because of the existing latency you have pointed out which is cumulative with any delays introduced by the codec.
If you're in the situation where they can tell, it isn't likely to make a big difference is it?