Simple, straightforward, honest thanks for getting the job done, particularly in times of limited resources and increasing demands.
Of course this implies management that knows what's going on, who is doing it, and actually gives a sh*t. That may be a problem.
But even in that situation, you can help your cow-orkers by letting them know when they've done a good job; recognition by your peers can be a big help.
And it's a race you will lose, should you choose to enter.
But if you really want to play -- take a look at Untangle (http://www.untangle.com) for a Linux-based appliance (free versions available) that will do other things such as spam filtering, basic AV, and more. Paid modules (inexpensive) let you add web caching, which cuts down on traffic, especially when you have a bunch of kids in a computer lab accessing the same web resources. So you can solve the problem for the hard-connected machines that are fairly well locked down individually.
But in the end, it's a pain in the ass. My wife is a middle school teacher, and she complained about their school's filtering "solution" keeping her from researching and accessing useful sites until my son reconfigured her laptop to use a proxy that he and some friends run so that they can get around school filtering solutions...
Set expectations early and often -- you will be able to block most of the kids (and adults). Some will always get around the barriers you put in place, often just for the sport of it.
Unless you set expectations, you will successfully block things for 598 students -- 2 will get through and you will be castigated as a FAILURE.
Publication after 18 months was done to put the U.S. patent system more on par with the rest of the world, such as the EC, where patent applications are published after 18 months.
While that change was made, inventors still have the option to keep the entire proceeding secret, without the 18 month publication. This decision must be made at filing -- it can't be done afterwards. And if you request no publication when you file your U.S. Patent application, then that application can not be filed outside the U.S.
So you (or your employer) have a choice -- allow publication at 18 months and also be able to file in Estonia (and the rest of the world), or request no publication, and be satisfied with only a U.S. patent.
The USPTO also has a fast track system which allows you to pay an extra fee (currently around $4k, if I remember correctly) which is supposed to get you a final determination on your application within one year. So if your application is so important, put your money where your mouth is!
My take on it -- Google is being more explicit about what they are going to do with data that you mark public.
Example: you post a document. A friend in Germany wants to look at it, and asks Google to display the document (which you wrote in English) in her native German. This requires Google to make at least one intermediate copy, leading to a German translation, which would be considered a derivative work, which is then displayed.
Sounds like they've done an admirable job of covering the bases, to me, rather than the shorthand that others use.
Oh, it goes without saying that when you use/visit a website, if you can't find the product being sold, then you are the product being sold.
He gives a very nice spectrum on slide 4 -- note the little bump at the bottom labeled "Starfire/Omnistar" -- that's the correction signal used by the John Deere precision GPS system, and others, broadcast by Inmarsat III. It's f*ing buried under the proposed LightSquared 10H signal at 1550.2, and still under the skirts of their 10L signal at 1531!
You can't design around that!
ANYTHING carried by Inmarsat III in that band just below GPS L1 is so screwed if LightSquared uses those frequencies!
this is also a pretty clear indication that FCC was bought off at a high level, and their technical types didn't get to look at it -- they would have screamed.
Nope, it's not adjacent channel interference -- the precision positioning people use a correction signal (from a satellite) in L band, below the GPS L1 signal, that is completely swamped by the LightSquared system -- these precision positioning systems, which are also used in highway construction and other large developments as well as in large scale agriculture, are among the systems that the study identified as impossible to make work even with a redesign -- these bands were meant for weak signal reception of satellite signals, NOT for multi-kilowatt ground stations.
And when you talk about adjacent channel, remember that GPS boxes aren't so much receivers as correlators -- and they are working with signals that are effectively below the noise floor -- that's why correlation techniques have to be used. What might be acceptable as adjacent channel in other modes is devastating to correlator-based designs.
Band saw with a metal blade -- goes through case, platters, circuit boards. A one to two inch cut should be good, but if you want to be sure, slice off a corner.
A nice thing about using a band saw is you can do a bunch of drives in rapid succession.
Not as satisfying as using a 12-gauge or a 9mm, but still satisfying.
Google takes these patents subject to existing cross licenses. How many competitors (such as Apple and MS) already have cross licenses with IBM that cover these?
This information is available on the USPTO's website under Public PAIR. You can look at the entire prosecution history of the patent -- and notice that they have submitted a sh*tload of prior art to the USPTO on this one.
Whether you like it or not, it looks like they've spent a lot of money setting this one up.
Start plowing through that prosecution history and start looking for prior art -- early prior art that isn't already on the list.
Hey, at least it will make the jobs of the virus, trojan, and rootkit writers easier -- cover multiple platforms with a single zero-day! That's progress!
I thought they already had a secured network -- SIPRNET?
Or do they just want a spam-free network?
Oh, maybe they mean NIPRNET -- why not let the banks and such on that?
Or maybe it's just that these bozos don't like sharing the ball OR the sandbox with anybody else and they want their own for just them and their good friends.
With the effective stalemate in Lybia curtailing energy exports, the Germans walking away from an operating nuclear power industry, and the Italians taking what is mostly a ceremonial vote on the issue, Western Europe has all but handed the energy market and a great deal of their destiny to Emperor Putin.
Putin is also putting the squeeze on Belarus, forcing them to "privatize" their energy industry in exchange for Russia's economic "assistance" -- which will result in Russian (or Russian-controlled interests) owning and controlling the Belarus energy industry as well.
Go 5GHz with WPA2 and 802.11n -- you'll have great performance until all your neighbours do the same.
Go wired (gigabit) when you can -- that's faster and more secure.
If you're forced to run on 2.4, don't expect great things in crowded (spectrum) areas. Do spectrum scans, and if you can't work with one of the non-overlapping 2.4GHz channels (1,6,11), and can't use a directional antenna (you can build your own corner reflector or parabolic reflector for under $1) try 3 or 8 and don't worry about HT (high throughput) datarates.
That was the beauty of the Cole patent and the raster-scan character generator chip! One chip contained the character generator ROM and the high-speed shift register, so you addressed it with the character code and the raster line and shifted out the row of bits to the CRT. You didn't have to clock your memory at the raster's bit-clock; only a portion of the raster scan character generator chip had to run that fast.
Some of those early 80x24 CRT displays used boards full of shift registers to store character data for the display. (I had to maintain a room full of Datapoint terminals used in the uni's timesharing lab in the early 70's.) Later they went to DRAMs.
Still a 9600-baud Datapoint terminal was much preferable than an old, stinking, noisy 110-baud Teletype 33!
Cole at RCA developed the technology as part of a response to an FAA RFQ (request for quote) -- the FAA wanted to display flight information on screens at airports. RCA bid on the system, relying on a design that used Cole's hardware raster scan character generator.
Before memory prices dropped through the floor and made bit-mapped graphics standard, the 80x24 character CRT display using a hardware raster-scan character generator a la Cole was the standard. This was a long, long, time ago, back in the dark ages, the 1970's.
In the decades of litigation which followed, RCA's FAA bid proved to be the undoing of the Cole patent -- the courts concluded (eventually) that RCA's offer to the FAA was an offer for sale made more than one year prior to the filing of the Cole patent application, thus invalidating the patent.
Cheap memory and fast processors -- in the early to mid 80's systems such as the Xerox Star, and then the Lisa and the Mac changed the way information was displayed. Oh, the SInclair did CPU-based character generation, as did a lot of software on the Apple ][ putting characters on the graphics screen; Apple's Pilot and Super-Pilot are good examples of this. The Cole patent expired, and its day had passed, with a CPU now stuffing bits into a bitmap to put characters on a display.
The RCA patent was known as the Cole patent -- RCA went after everybody that did raster-scan displays at the time. This patent was invalidated by the courts -- twice -- the second time it stayed dead. Apple paid some money to RCA, but that's a long story in and of itself.
Woz had three early Apple patents -- two on the way color was generated on the motherboard, and one on the disk controller. Woz figured out how to do NTSC color video, including the color burst, with almost no parts. Woz developed an incredibly clever way to do a GCR disk controller with a few $ of parts when everybody else in the industry was doing MFM and MMFM using expensive disk controller chips.
When Apple was faced with an onslaught of cheap clones of the Apple ][ coming in from Taiwan and Hong Kong in the early 1980's, it was the Woz patents that made the difference in protecting the Apple ][ line, and the company.
Slashdot Mirror
A very good site to monitor is Retraction Watch - https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
They not only follow retractions in journals, but dig into them, and track them to other papers and publications by the same authors.
For those of us in industry, we forget there are areas of Academia that are dog-eat-dog, publish or perish.
Under such pressures, authors make up data, manipulate data and/or images, and more.
Take a look at Retraction Watch for the sordid details -- for us outsiders, it's like a soap opera for the geeky set!
No, the other kind...
Simple, straightforward, honest thanks for getting the job done, particularly in times of limited resources and increasing demands.
Of course this implies management that knows what's going on, who is doing it, and actually gives a sh*t. That may be a problem.
But even in that situation, you can help your cow-orkers by letting them know when they've done a good job; recognition by your peers can be a big help.
Right off the bat -- 51% of those surveyed?
That's not especially overwhelming, to start with.
But what is the sample size? Number of responses? ANY information on the statistical validity of this piece of shit "news" release?
Yeah, people are stupid; we knew that already.
And that class includes the folks who put together this steaming pile!
And it's a race you will lose, should you choose to enter.
But if you really want to play -- take a look at Untangle (http://www.untangle.com) for a Linux-based appliance (free versions available) that will do other things such as spam filtering, basic AV, and more. Paid modules (inexpensive) let you add web caching, which cuts down on traffic, especially when you have a bunch of kids in a computer lab accessing the same web resources. So you can solve the problem for the hard-connected machines that are fairly well locked down individually.
But in the end, it's a pain in the ass. My wife is a middle school teacher, and she complained about their school's filtering "solution" keeping her from researching and accessing useful sites until my son reconfigured her laptop to use a proxy that he and some friends run so that they can get around school filtering solutions...
Set expectations early and often -- you will be able to block most of the kids (and adults). Some will always get around the barriers you put in place, often just for the sport of it.
Unless you set expectations, you will successfully block things for 598 students -- 2 will get through and you will be castigated as a FAILURE.
Still want to play the game?
Publication after 18 months was done to put the U.S. patent system more on par with the rest of the world, such as the EC, where patent applications are published after 18 months.
While that change was made, inventors still have the option to keep the entire proceeding secret, without the 18 month publication. This decision must be made at filing -- it can't be done afterwards. And if you request no publication when you file your U.S. Patent application, then that application can not be filed outside the U.S.
So you (or your employer) have a choice -- allow publication at 18 months and also be able to file in Estonia (and the rest of the world), or request no publication, and be satisfied with only a U.S. patent.
The USPTO also has a fast track system which allows you to pay an extra fee (currently around $4k, if I remember correctly) which is supposed to get you a final determination on your application within one year. So if your application is so important, put your money where your mouth is!
My take on it -- Google is being more explicit about what they are going to do with data that you mark public.
Example: you post a document. A friend in Germany wants to look at it, and asks Google to display the document (which you wrote in English) in her native German. This requires Google to make at least one intermediate copy, leading to a German translation, which would be considered a derivative work, which is then displayed.
Sounds like they've done an admirable job of covering the bases, to me, rather than the shorthand that others use.
Oh, it goes without saying that when you use/visit a website, if you can't find the product being sold, then you are the product being sold.
Hardware is much better, but software?
We're still using
print "I got to #1" \ print "I got to #2" for debugging!
Google APCO-25 decoder.
Sorry, also look at the Parkinson presentation from the same Stanford Precision Time and Position Conference --
http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT11/2011_presentation_files/01_Parkinson-PNT2011.pdf
He gives a very nice spectrum on slide 4 -- note the little bump at the bottom labeled "Starfire/Omnistar" -- that's the correction signal used by the John Deere precision GPS system, and others, broadcast by Inmarsat III. It's f*ing buried under the proposed LightSquared 10H signal at 1550.2, and still under the skirts of their 10L signal at 1531!
You can't design around that!
ANYTHING carried by Inmarsat III in that band just below GPS L1 is so screwed if LightSquared uses those frequencies!
this is also a pretty clear indication that FCC was bought off at a high level, and their technical types didn't get to look at it -- they would have screamed.
Look at the docs posted for the recent symposium at Stanford:
http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/
Opening comments on how LightSquared destroys GPS:
http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT11/2011_presentation_files/01_Parkinson-PNT2011.pdf
the FAA report on testing:
http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT11/2011_presentation_files/09_Bunce-PNT2011.pdf
The LightSquared idea is a good one, but not on the frequencies they've selected!
Nope, it's not adjacent channel interference -- the precision positioning people use a correction signal (from a satellite) in L band, below the GPS L1 signal, that is completely swamped by the LightSquared system -- these precision positioning systems, which are also used in highway construction and other large developments as well as in large scale agriculture, are among the systems that the study identified as impossible to make work even with a redesign -- these bands were meant for weak signal reception of satellite signals, NOT for multi-kilowatt ground stations.
And when you talk about adjacent channel, remember that GPS boxes aren't so much receivers as correlators -- and they are working with signals that are effectively below the noise floor -- that's why correlation techniques have to be used. What might be acceptable as adjacent channel in other modes is devastating to correlator-based designs.
See for example the FAA report at:
http://scpnt.stanford.edu/pnt/PNT11/2011_presentation_files/09_Bunce-PNT2011.pdf
Band saw with a metal blade -- goes through case, platters, circuit boards. A one to two inch cut should be good, but if you want to be sure, slice off a corner.
A nice thing about using a band saw is you can do a bunch of drives in rapid succession.
Not as satisfying as using a 12-gauge or a 9mm, but still satisfying.
Google takes these patents subject to existing cross licenses. How many competitors (such as Apple and MS) already have cross licenses with IBM that cover these?
This information is available on the USPTO's website under Public PAIR. You can look at the entire prosecution history of the patent -- and notice that they have submitted a sh*tload of prior art to the USPTO on this one.
Whether you like it or not, it looks like they've spent a lot of money setting this one up.
Start plowing through that prosecution history and start looking for prior art -- early prior art that isn't already on the list.
One Ring to rule them all...
Hey, at least it will make the jobs of the virus, trojan, and rootkit writers easier -- cover multiple platforms with a single zero-day! That's progress!
I thought they already had a secured network -- SIPRNET?
Or do they just want a spam-free network?
Oh, maybe they mean NIPRNET -- why not let the banks and such on that?
Or maybe it's just that these bozos don't like sharing the ball OR the sandbox with anybody else and they want their own for just them and their good friends.
With the effective stalemate in Lybia curtailing energy exports, the Germans walking away from an operating nuclear power industry, and the Italians taking what is mostly a ceremonial vote on the issue, Western Europe has all but handed the energy market and a great deal of their destiny to Emperor Putin.
Putin is also putting the squeeze on Belarus, forcing them to "privatize" their energy industry in exchange for Russia's economic "assistance" -- which will result in Russian (or Russian-controlled interests) owning and controlling the Belarus energy industry as well.
So to the EU -- Well played! NOT!
Go 5GHz with WPA2 and 802.11n -- you'll have great performance until all your neighbours do the same.
Go wired (gigabit) when you can -- that's faster and more secure.
If you're forced to run on 2.4, don't expect great things in crowded (spectrum) areas. Do spectrum scans, and if you can't work with one of the non-overlapping 2.4GHz channels (1,6,11), and can't use a directional antenna (you can build your own corner reflector or parabolic reflector for under $1) try 3 or 8 and don't worry about HT (high throughput) datarates.
Take up arc welding as a hobby.
Ran this thing on a server that lives in the closet. It complained that my custom hosts file was very suspicious. It also didn't like the VNC client.
So this machine was infested with malware? I don't think so!
Yet another scareware scanner!
Tax paper, pens, and pencils and stop this music madness at its source!
887 F.2d 1056, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1449
That was the beauty of the Cole patent and the raster-scan character generator chip! One chip contained the character generator ROM and the high-speed shift register, so you addressed it with the character code and the raster line and shifted out the row of bits to the CRT. You didn't have to clock your memory at the raster's bit-clock; only a portion of the raster scan character generator chip had to run that fast.
Some of those early 80x24 CRT displays used boards full of shift registers to store character data for the display. (I had to maintain a room full of Datapoint terminals used in the uni's timesharing lab in the early 70's.) Later they went to DRAMs.
Still a 9600-baud Datapoint terminal was much preferable than an old, stinking, noisy 110-baud Teletype 33!
Cole at RCA developed the technology as part of a response to an FAA RFQ (request for quote) -- the FAA wanted to display flight information on screens at airports. RCA bid on the system, relying on a design that used Cole's hardware raster scan character generator.
Before memory prices dropped through the floor and made bit-mapped graphics standard, the 80x24 character CRT display using a hardware raster-scan character generator a la Cole was the standard. This was a long, long, time ago, back in the dark ages, the 1970's.
In the decades of litigation which followed, RCA's FAA bid proved to be the undoing of the Cole patent -- the courts concluded (eventually) that RCA's offer to the FAA was an offer for sale made more than one year prior to the filing of the Cole patent application, thus invalidating the patent.
Cheap memory and fast processors -- in the early to mid 80's systems such as the Xerox Star, and then the Lisa and the Mac changed the way information was displayed. Oh, the SInclair did CPU-based character generation, as did a lot of software on the Apple ][ putting characters on the graphics screen; Apple's Pilot and Super-Pilot are good examples of this. The Cole patent expired, and its day had passed, with a CPU now stuffing bits into a bitmap to put characters on a display.
The RCA patent was known as the Cole patent -- RCA went after everybody that did raster-scan displays at the time. This patent was invalidated by the courts -- twice -- the second time it stayed dead. Apple paid some money to RCA, but that's a long story in and of itself.
Woz had three early Apple patents -- two on the way color was generated on the motherboard, and one on the disk controller. Woz figured out how to do NTSC color video, including the color burst, with almost no parts. Woz developed an incredibly clever way to do a GCR disk controller with a few $ of parts when everybody else in the industry was doing MFM and MMFM using expensive disk controller chips.
When Apple was faced with an onslaught of cheap clones of the Apple ][ coming in from Taiwan and Hong Kong in the early 1980's, it was the Woz patents that made the difference in protecting the Apple ][ line, and the company.
But... But... But...
/rimshot...
How are they going to make it compatible with all those viruses and trojans out there?