Maybe it is time to search the patent database, pull out any Patents tied to Microsoft and list them on the web. Let people vote up or down the patents that could conflict with current standard and try to identify them ourselves instead of waiting...
This would probably not be a good idea. Since it could help Microsoft's case. If you are going to trawl the patent database far better to look for patents Microsoft might be infringing and tip off the patent holders.
Linux and other Open Source software projects almost unquestionably transgress patents owned both by Microsoft and others. This is not the real issue. The real question is, are these patents defensible?
It's probably best to wait until Microsoft can be bothered to enumerate what they think are the patents and violations are. Worst case senario would for someone to discover something serious Microsoft havn't thought of.
Or would they fall due to "prior art" or other well known / common patent flaws?
Including cases where the OSS code actually is the prior art.
it seems suspicious that they can count them, yet cannot identify them. "yes, 235 of them, but we have no idea which ones, and where they are. it would be too difficult to find out." yeah right.
Rather difficult to sue anyone on that basis. Together with a good chance of Microsoft getting sucessfully countersued.
For example, a man was arrested for being in possession of an egg with intent to throw. A pregnant woman was fined for being 1cm over a parking bay line, and a mother was fined for not seeing a single crisp (potato chip) that her child dropped.
Amongst the people who think this is daft are the police themselves.
Here in England, a huge number of people have a huge problem with parking laws and seem to believe that abuse and violence will get there ticket canceled. If I was a warden, I'd want the evendance that some chav really DID spend 20 mins shouting death threats at me.
In which case a radio might be of more use than a camera. Especially since it can be used to summon aid, e.g. a crew to remove the car. Thus sending the message that such behaviour is likely to result in the loss of their car and/or licence.
If you believe what you said, you should have no problem stripping naked, telling people
It isn't even random people, the set of people who have access to such survaillance tends to include a higher than average proportion of the untrustworthy.
what school your kids go to, where they are now, where you work, how much you earn, what you're listening to on your iPod, what medical problems you have, etc.
As well as the full details of any bank accounts (including PINs and other secrets) anything proving their title to any property, etc.
I like this much better than the entire CCTV surveillance. The camera just sees what the officer sees.
The only way to do that would be "robocop". About the closest you could get otherwise would be to have a camera which tracked their eye movments fixed to their nose. Even then you have the problem that cameras respond to light differently.
I do not like the idea that the state is sending roving cameras looking for antisocial behaviour. And the head-mounted cam does not just see what 'the guy' is seeing; it records whatever comes into focus in the direction that his head is turned.
Actually what matters is where the camera is pointing, which need not equate to where anyone's head is pointing.Of course, head-mounted cameras do not constitute part of a panopticon (ubiquitous remote cams), because, by definition, in a panopticon, the subjects must never know for sure if they are under observation.
You don't know if any given headset is connected to a working recording device or even if it contains a working camera
But I'd rather have fewer police, much better trained and paid and held to much higher standards, and dedicated to stopping actual crime (that is, threats to other people's rights) rather than locking up drug users and prostitutes.
They's probably better start with politicans and crooked cops then move on to corporate criminals. Instead of dogs these police are likely to be helped by winged pigs.
Last week, I took a flight from Shanghai to Xiamen (SSS airline). Due to air traffic issues, we were stranded on the ground for an hour or so. In fact, the same amount of time it would have taken to fly to Xiamen had we left as scheduled. Needless to say, one guy was shouting and yelling about this.
This can be a good way to get kicked off the plane.
You could also hear everyone's irate attitude toward this airline even through it wasn't there fault.
Sure the crew, especially the flight attendants, were delighted too:)
1) According to the FCC, it's perfectly legal to receive ANY BROADCAST TRANSMISSION. I can set up a radio receiver and pick up whatever happens to be in the air.
IIRC there are issues if you evesdrop on police radios or if you decrypt stuff.
2) But, it's also illegal in most areas to "access computers or computer networks without permission". They stand in contradiction to each other.
In order to use a wireless access point you have to transmit yourself, maybe that makes the difference.
I've seen lots of signs on private property "Posted, No Tresspassing", and "Posted, No Hunting or Fishing".
You also see signs saying "Parking for Customers Only". Which appears far more applicable in this situation. Assuming the coffee shop had such a sign, or indicated in some other way that only customers should be parking there, then there would be an issue of tresspass. (Though probably as a civil issue.) The whole WIFI issue is really just so much bovine excrement, it really shouldn't be of any relevence.
Uh, why? Crops used for biofuels can be grown as sustainably as any other crops.
What's needed is the right choice of crop. e.g. one which is not also used for food and if the idea is to produce ethanol by fermentation one where sugar isn't just present in the fruit or seeds.
It also kind of creeps me out that "sex offenders" have become a completely separate class of criminal. Why shouldn't burglars, drunk drivers, embezzlers or other white collar criminals be kept on a registry and be exposed to any community into which they move?
What about people who have murdered or seriously (non sexually) assaulted someone (including a child)?
Why not shoplifters or people who've been convicted of any drug offense?
The latter would include a lot of things at the "unrinating in a bush" level.
Isn't any restriction unconstitutional? The constitution allows for criminals serving a sentence to have their freedoms restricted, but why are people who have served their time still having those freedoms restricted?
Presumably the same way that people who have supposedly "paid their debt to society" can be barred from being able to vote. (Yet oddly can still stand for office.)
Unless, there is a minor involved under the age of 16 and the other "partner" is at least 10 years senior. If that is the case, than maybe, the minor is speaking out of fear. However, if after diligent questioning, the minor insists that it was consensual, then there should be no charges.
How would you address situations where the younger person mislead the older about their age?
I put "sex offender" in quotes for that exact reason. There are many things that can get someone on that list, many of them completely petty. I think very few people want to be lenient on child predators or offenders, on the contrary, they need serious help from the government.
There is still often an issue of sexism inolved in both definition and even enforcement here though. e.g. consider the case of Mary Kay Laturno
It's a political tool, plain and simple, and it's only a matter of time before it is struck as unconstitutional and, hopefully, some "offenders" will have a free shot at the governments that put them on the list.
Maybe they could in the process identify which of the politicans involved should themselves be on such a list. Maybe advocating such a list should in itself be cause to investigate the advocate.
Did everyone in this thread miss the term "superconductor"?
This would be fine if you could make a superconductor which worked an ambient temperatures. Otherwise lose the cooling an you wind up with a "super-insulator".
A common misconception (especially within a certain old-fashioned left) is that those which are not rich are inheritely better people and if they found themselfs in a positions of power/influence they would somehow behave differently from the current elites. Countless cases of ex-revolutionaries holding on to power (and the special treatment that comes with it) or previously "opressed" common workers which by luck or skill became bosses and turned into "oppressors" should have disavowed people of those notions.
Hence "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". There's a Sci-Fi short story entitled "For the Duration" which covers this, though Orwell's "Animal Farm" is probably better known. Sometimes you come across a situation where members of an "opressed group" have actually been kept away from positions of power because they are more likely to abuse them than anyone else.
In a free society, the job of the policeman is not supposed to be an easy one.
Also if you make their job too easy (especially with the addition of such stupidity as "arrest quotas") how much effort would you expect them to put into daling with "real criminals".
Why would you have mass-protests for police entities procuring increasingly more technologically sophisticated equipment to do their jobs more effectively? Because you also need suitable oversight to ensure that the police are doing their jobs effectivly at all. Whilst many tools could be used to make police more efficent. They can also be used for the police to waste their time not doing their jobs. "Inefficency" can often have the effect of keeping public servants focused on their job. e.g. if following people takes a lot of resources it won't be done for trivial reasons whereas if it is easy it will only be done for trivial reasons.
These days you can get shot dead on the Tube for lookiong vaguely like someone the police are looking for, and the killers get away scot-free. That one was a really good lesson. The people who put up CCTV to watch over you also have the legal right to kill you, even if you are innocent of any crime. Yes, I do find it unsettling.
Not only did what amounts to a gang of thugs (the shooters wern't even wearing police uniforms) they also then lie about having "lost the tape".
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it is time to search the patent database, pull out any Patents tied to Microsoft and list them on the web. Let people vote up or down the patents that could conflict with current standard and try to identify them ourselves instead of waiting...
This would probably not be a good idea. Since it could help Microsoft's case. If you are going to trawl the patent database far better to look for patents Microsoft might be infringing and tip off the patent holders.
Linux and other Open Source software projects almost unquestionably transgress patents owned both by Microsoft and others. This is not the real issue. The real question is, are these patents defensible?
It's probably best to wait until Microsoft can be bothered to enumerate what they think are the patents and violations are. Worst case senario would for someone to discover something serious Microsoft havn't thought of.
Or would they fall due to "prior art" or other well known / common patent flaws?
Including cases where the OSS code actually is the prior art.
it seems suspicious that they can count them, yet cannot identify them. "yes, 235 of them, but we have no idea which ones, and where they are. it would be too difficult to find out." yeah right.
Rather difficult to sue anyone on that basis. Together with a good chance of Microsoft getting sucessfully countersued.
For example, a man was arrested for being in possession of an egg with intent to throw. A pregnant woman was fined for being 1cm over a parking bay line, and a mother was fined for not seeing a single crisp (potato chip) that her child dropped.
Amongst the people who think this is daft are the police themselves.
Here in England, a huge number of people have a huge problem with parking laws and seem to believe that abuse and violence will get there ticket canceled. If I was a warden, I'd want the evendance that some chav really DID spend 20 mins shouting death threats at me.
In which case a radio might be of more use than a camera. Especially since it can be used to summon aid, e.g. a crew to remove the car. Thus sending the message that such behaviour is likely to result in the loss of their car and/or licence.
If you believe what you said, you should have no problem stripping naked, telling people
It isn't even random people, the set of people who have access to such survaillance tends to include a higher than average proportion of the untrustworthy.
what school your kids go to, where they are now, where you work, how much you earn, what you're listening to on your iPod, what medical problems you have, etc.
As well as the full details of any bank accounts (including PINs and other secrets) anything proving their title to any property, etc.
I like this much better than the entire CCTV surveillance. The camera just sees what the officer sees.
The only way to do that would be "robocop". About the closest you could get otherwise would be to have a camera which tracked their eye movments fixed to their nose. Even then you have the problem that cameras respond to light differently.
I do not like the idea that the state is sending roving cameras looking for antisocial behaviour. And the head-mounted cam does not just see what 'the guy' is seeing; it records whatever comes into focus in the direction that his head is turned.
Actually what matters is where the camera is pointing, which need not equate to where anyone's head is pointing.Of course, head-mounted cameras do not constitute part of a panopticon (ubiquitous remote cams), because, by definition, in a panopticon, the subjects must never know for sure if they are under observation.
You don't know if any given headset is connected to a working recording device or even if it contains a working camera
But I'd rather have fewer police, much better trained and paid and held to much higher standards, and dedicated to stopping actual crime (that is, threats to other people's rights) rather than locking up drug users and prostitutes.
They's probably better start with politicans and crooked cops then move on to corporate criminals. Instead of dogs these police are likely to be helped by winged pigs.
Last week, I took a flight from Shanghai to Xiamen (SSS airline). Due to air traffic issues, we were stranded on the ground for an hour or so. In fact, the same amount of time it would have taken to fly to Xiamen had we left as scheduled. Needless to say, one guy was shouting and yelling about this.
:)
This can be a good way to get kicked off the plane.
You could also hear everyone's irate attitude toward this airline even through it wasn't there fault.
Sure the crew, especially the flight attendants, were delighted too
How long 'til a plane runs out of fuel because someone forgot to add some more to cover the extra distance?
Depends if the pilots are from Canada, in which case it would probably not be too much of a problem.
1) According to the FCC, it's perfectly legal to receive ANY BROADCAST TRANSMISSION. I can set up a radio receiver and pick up whatever happens to be in the air.
IIRC there are issues if you evesdrop on police radios or if you decrypt stuff.
2) But, it's also illegal in most areas to "access computers or computer networks without permission". They stand in contradiction to each other.
In order to use a wireless access point you have to transmit yourself, maybe that makes the difference.
I've seen lots of signs on private property "Posted, No Tresspassing", and "Posted, No Hunting or Fishing".
You also see signs saying "Parking for Customers Only". Which appears far more applicable in this situation. Assuming the coffee shop had such a sign, or indicated in some other way that only customers should be parking there, then there would be an issue of tresspass. (Though probably as a civil issue.)
The whole WIFI issue is really just so much bovine excrement, it really shouldn't be of any relevence.
Uh, why? Crops used for biofuels can be grown as sustainably as any other crops.
What's needed is the right choice of crop. e.g. one which is not also used for food and if the idea is to produce ethanol by fermentation one where sugar isn't just present in the fruit or seeds.
I wonder how many politicians or their spouses employ illegal household help. As they say about glass houses and stones...
It would probably save quite a lot of money just to put they all of the list.
It also kind of creeps me out that "sex offenders" have become a completely separate class of criminal. Why shouldn't burglars, drunk drivers, embezzlers or other white collar criminals be kept on a registry and be exposed to any community into which they move?
What about people who have murdered or seriously (non sexually) assaulted someone (including a child)?
Why not shoplifters or people who've been convicted of any drug offense?
The latter would include a lot of things at the "unrinating in a bush" level.
Isn't any restriction unconstitutional? The constitution allows for criminals serving a sentence to have their freedoms restricted, but why are people who have served their time still having those freedoms restricted?
Presumably the same way that people who have supposedly "paid their debt to society" can be barred from being able to vote. (Yet oddly can still stand for office.)
Unless, there is a minor involved under the age of 16 and the other "partner" is at least 10 years senior. If that is the case, than maybe, the minor is speaking out of fear. However, if after diligent questioning, the minor insists that it was consensual, then there should be no charges.
How would you address situations where the younger person mislead the older about their age?
I put "sex offender" in quotes for that exact reason. There are many things that can get someone on that list, many of them completely petty. I think very few people want to be lenient on child predators or offenders, on the contrary, they need serious help from the government.
There is still often an issue of sexism inolved in both definition and even enforcement here though. e.g. consider the case of Mary Kay Laturno
It's a political tool, plain and simple, and it's only a matter of time before it is struck as unconstitutional and, hopefully, some "offenders" will have a free shot at the governments that put them on the list.
Maybe they could in the process identify which of the politicans involved should themselves be on such a list. Maybe advocating such a list should in itself be cause to investigate the advocate.
Did everyone in this thread miss the term "superconductor"?
This would be fine if you could make a superconductor which worked an ambient temperatures. Otherwise lose the cooling an you wind up with a "super-insulator".
A common misconception (especially within a certain old-fashioned left) is that those which are not rich are inheritely better people and if they found themselfs in a positions of power/influence they would somehow behave differently from the current elites. Countless cases of ex-revolutionaries holding on to power (and the special treatment that comes with it) or previously "opressed" common workers which by luck or skill became bosses and turned into "oppressors" should have disavowed people of those notions.
Hence "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". There's a Sci-Fi short story entitled "For the Duration" which covers this, though Orwell's "Animal Farm" is probably better known.
Sometimes you come across a situation where members of an "opressed group" have actually been kept away from positions of power because they are more likely to abuse them than anyone else.
In a free society, the job of the policeman is not supposed to be an easy one.
Also if you make their job too easy (especially with the addition of such stupidity as "arrest quotas") how much effort would you expect them to put into daling with "real criminals".
Why would you have mass-protests for police entities procuring increasingly more technologically sophisticated equipment to do their jobs more effectively?
Because you also need suitable oversight to ensure that the police are doing their jobs effectivly at all. Whilst many tools could be used to make police more efficent. They can also be used for the police to waste their time not doing their jobs. "Inefficency" can often have the effect of keeping public servants focused on their job. e.g. if following people takes a lot of resources it won't be done for trivial reasons whereas if it is easy it will only be done for trivial reasons.
These days you can get shot dead on the Tube for lookiong vaguely like someone the police are looking for, and the killers get away scot-free. That one was a really good lesson. The people who put up CCTV to watch over you also have the legal right to kill you, even if you are innocent of any crime. Yes, I do find it unsettling.
Not only did what amounts to a gang of thugs (the shooters wern't even wearing police uniforms) they also then lie about having "lost the tape".