I think the FSF's usual approach isn't completely realistic in this case, given so many similar devices are so locked down. We need to support the mostly open platforms like Android (Google) and Maemo (Nokia N900).
p.s. Nokia N900 currently offer the best browsing experience possible on a mobile phone, including solid flash support, as well as the best skype and sip integration for a mobile phone, and they're shipped with linux shell access enabled.
Copyright always had a framework for extensions to 28 years.
You might alternatively create a universal opt-out deal beyond 14 years : Copyright like normal for the first 14 years. After 14 years, the author may still order any entity to cease distribution, but the author is no longer entitled to damages from distribution prior to filing the order. So authors could still make any serious publisher pay up, including google, but overall most works still effectively enter the public domain.
Google does not need the settlement if copyright were restored to the original 14 year timeframe! All books older than 14 years should be indexed by google by virtue of being in the public domain. Authors and publishers should play the search engine game like everyone else during that 14 years.
Paypal is just a horrendous disaster area. Just please DO NOT use paypal, either as merchant, or as purchaser. If a service only supports payments by paypal, just tell them that your sorry but you will not buy their service.
China has almost 1 billion peasants. Peasants are poor simple traditional people who live relatively close to nature. Peasants are also the people whom governments uproot for resource extraction. Sound vaguely like any movies you've seen recently? Good. So now China's 900 screens running the 3D version are located where exactly? I thought so.
China might never openly back down, but China also might not openly censer Google. If China merely blocks all undesirable sites that Google links, well that's how Google finds the list actually, then Chinese citizens see how much they're being censored, but Google also becomes a less useful search engine. To make their search most relevant, Google might minimize the number of blocked sites and/or report those sites as blocked down on the bottom of the page.
All the cynics will say that Google will fire them, China will execute them along with some hackers, and Google will return to censoring Chinese traffic.
China may execute their own "internet soldiers" who participated in the attacks just to save face internally, or even just personally, but I'd imagine that Google won't take China punishing the hackers as reason to stop censoring.
I'd say the most likely long term solution is that Google remains uncensored but China aggressively firewalls any undesirable search results, which both hurts the Chinese government and hurt Google's market share, so Google minimizes the number of blocked search results, while always returning some.
It's worth noting they qualified the suggestion by saying "while waiting on Microsoft to fix the vulnerability". It ain't some global indictment against Microsoft like/. suggested.
IE and Safari improve the security of most power users by presenting easy targets whose code base is unrelated to other browsers.
If you've been living overseas, then you may need your fancy new phone when you visit friends or coworkers overseas. If so, Sprint and Verizon are NOT options. T-mobile and AT&T offer GSM coverage, but you'd need a tri-band phone.
p.s. AT&T are more evil than T-mobile. Sprint is probably less evil than Verizon too.
Apple clearly and knowingly infringed upon GSM for several years. So the courts will eventually award Nokia massive damages, those damages could exceed the total value of all iPhones sold thus far. Nokia was extremely generous to offer merely cross licensing plus royalties going forward to cover this. Nokia presumably offered this based upon Apple being "one of the big boy who are not supposed to sue one another". Apple then started fight. Apple would never have had this problem if they'd merely licensed the patents like everyone else from the beginning.
p.s. Multi-touch is almost worthless as a patents since it's unenforceable in most countries and easy to work around, but owning a license prevents Apple from patent trolling you and saves you from worrying about how much to work around.
Apple does not deliver fundamentally new technology like Nokia; well not during the last 10 years anyways, the Newton was new, original Mac was new, etc.
Applie meditates upon existing technology and works out how to present the technology so that the average user will benefit most. Incremental backups like Time Machine have existed forever, ala rsync, but Apple slapping on a gui with a starscape has saved thousands of users from losing irreplaceable data.
Apple will need to pay royalties for the underlying technology they are using. Indeed, they'll owe Nokia massive damages for the past 3 years, possibly exceeding the total value of all iPhone's sold thus far. Nokia was extremely forgiving by offering merely a cross licensing deal.
Yes, the patent should obviously be overturned, but...
Apple revealed they plan upon suing everyone for infringing upon their equally obvious multi-touch patents. Also, Apple always acts like other people's patents are irrelevant while their own matter. So please do make Apple sweat a little first.
I'll be happiest if Apple's own successful arguments here are eventually used to help overturn their own silly patents.:)
I'm unsure exactly what system is used but public keys may be used more thoroughly than you describe.
Example 1 : There are perhaps both presever and preclient keys that must be xored together, which are created separately on each side, and sent using the other's public key, thus ensuring that an eavesdropper must break both server and client public keys.
Example 2 : A sever could generate a session RSA key, digitally sign the session public key, and send both the session public and the server public key as well as the certificate authority's signature for the server public key. The client first verifies the signature for the server's public key and the session public key, then creates a symmetric session prekey like you describe, encrypts that symmetric key with the session public key, and send it to the server.
You may break this in three ways according to conventional wisdom : (1) quickly break the session public key and listen live, (2) slowly break the server public key and execute a man-in-the-middled attack to listen live, (3) record the whole conversation, slowly break the session public key, and listen offline.
I'm pretty sure people breaking these large keys are not breaking them fast enough for (1), which already provides significant privacy.
You may also force them to break both the server and client key for (2) or (3) by symmetrizing the process with preserver and preclient keys, as described in Example 1 above.
Indeed, Example 2 may offer minimal advantages over Example 2 if virtually all connections originate from strangers, ala online banks. Remember, if you make the attacker break n separate keys, your increasing the computations cost for both attacker and legit users by the same factor. If otoh you just use larger key size, then attackers spend far more additional time than users.
A simple random culling algorithm would be extremely close to fair the vast majority of the time.. no reason to favor players already in the system.
If you must favor players in the system, the only sane method is placing ships into the system only once the system can handle them. So, if two many ships jump into a system, then additional ships jumping into the system either end up elsewhere or else their jump simply fails.
It's just downright lazy & stupid to place ships into the system without granting their pilots control.
True, but CCP also has a long history of favoring the Band of Brothers. People can quite reasonably accuse CCP of continuing to favor BoB's playing style here.
A fleetfight should simply not become unbalanced. If players are lagging out, they should cull players evenly from each side, ideally offering non-culled players the option to give their slot to a culled player.
Apple & everyone have vastly underestimated fashion. Apple does make sexy looking gear, but just consider how many luxury car companies exist. Ferrari, Porche, Jaguar, Lexus, etc. all sell cars that look distinctive.
I hear like a dozen phone makers are designing Android based phones. All are poche well equipped smartphone. All offer almost the same vast array of applications. All will look distinctive and sexy.
If the drug is truly life saving, then poor countries with pharmaceutical industries like Brazil will just threaten to break the patent, and force the price down. It's very not perfect, but national boundaries and interests do help immeasurably, despite the treaties.
There are millions of aids patients alive today because morality trumps foreign intellectual property in Brazil.
Not necessarily. Nokia's FRAND obligations may permit them to require cross-licensing deals, but that doesn't stop Nokia from granting the licenses for less and/or cross-licensing with companies that own no valuable IP. I don't think anyone in the thread knows those FRAND obligations, but yes Nokia's lawyers know them better than anyone else.
I think the two important points are :
(1) Apple has inadvertently indicated that they plan on suing other companies, presumably over multi-touch patents, which will now make Apple's case harder no matter Nokia's FRAND obligations.
(2) Nokia is now suing Apple over GSM patent violation in non GSM products, making any FRAND obligations irrelevant. Apple is suing Nokia over similarly broad patents. It sounds like both companies better suck it up and work out a deal.
We already discourage even the most promising young writers as strongly as possible, even their professors discourage them. It'd be cruel to encourage even the best of the best, their chances of making it are simply way too slim.
It's best they focus upon a more lucrative career only tangentially related to writing, while those that are truly called to write will write on the side.
Apple definitely cannot hold Nokia to any FRAND obligations because Apple is not party to the contracts involved in forming the GSM Association.
Sorry, that's how contracts work. You cannot sue your landlord for renting an identical unit to yours to his cousin for half your rent, as you are not party to that contract. Similarly, you cannot sue various OSS companies who offer their software under the GPL for also offering their software under commercial licenses. Contracts inherently work that way.
I'd imagine their additional brain served some function, maybe mating related, maybe just carrying out other tasks less efficiently, very unclear exactly how they differed from us.
Nevertheless, Apple just reveled they plan on being a patent troll about their silly multi-touch patents. So nobody will back them. If nobody backs them, they cannot appeal to the RAND licensing component of Nokia's GSM Association membership, which makes Apple just another patent infringer.
Nokia play it well, by tricking Apple into revealing their true colors. Apple will now need to cross license.
I doubt Apple could appeal to the RAND licensing terms, that was a deal between Nokia and the GSM Association. Who controls the GSM Association? Well, other handset maker and telephone companies! So the RAND license obligations are likely irrelevant now that Apple has shown their true colors.
AT&T is likely Apple's only friend in the GSM Association, if they are even a member. But even AT&T does not benefit from Apple suing every other handset maker over Apple's silly multi-touch patents, which was doubtless Apple's plan all alone.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean all the feminine hygiene jokes? ;)
I think the FSF's usual approach isn't completely realistic in this case, given so many similar devices are so locked down. We need to support the mostly open platforms like Android (Google) and Maemo (Nokia N900).
p.s. Nokia N900 currently offer the best browsing experience possible on a mobile phone, including solid flash support, as well as the best skype and sip integration for a mobile phone, and they're shipped with linux shell access enabled.
Copyright always had a framework for extensions to 28 years.
You might alternatively create a universal opt-out deal beyond 14 years : Copyright like normal for the first 14 years. After 14 years, the author may still order any entity to cease distribution, but the author is no longer entitled to damages from distribution prior to filing the order. So authors could still make any serious publisher pay up, including google, but overall most works still effectively enter the public domain.
Google does not need the settlement if copyright were restored to the original 14 year timeframe! All books older than 14 years should be indexed by google by virtue of being in the public domain. Authors and publishers should play the search engine game like everyone else during that 14 years.
Yes, but google doesn't need the opt-out model if copyright was restored to the original 14 year timeframe.
Paypal is just a horrendous disaster area. Just please DO NOT use paypal, either as merchant, or as purchaser. If a service only supports payments by paypal, just tell them that your sorry but you will not buy their service.
China has almost 1 billion peasants. Peasants are poor simple traditional people who live relatively close to nature. Peasants are also the people whom governments uproot for resource extraction. Sound vaguely like any movies you've seen recently? Good. So now China's 900 screens running the 3D version are located where exactly? I thought so.
China might never openly back down, but China also might not openly censer Google. If China merely blocks all undesirable sites that Google links, well that's how Google finds the list actually, then Chinese citizens see how much they're being censored, but Google also becomes a less useful search engine. To make their search most relevant, Google might minimize the number of blocked sites and/or report those sites as blocked down on the bottom of the page.
All the cynics will say that Google will fire them, China will execute them along with some hackers, and Google will return to censoring Chinese traffic.
China may execute their own "internet soldiers" who participated in the attacks just to save face internally, or even just personally, but I'd imagine that Google won't take China punishing the hackers as reason to stop censoring.
I'd say the most likely long term solution is that Google remains uncensored but China aggressively firewalls any undesirable search results, which both hurts the Chinese government and hurt Google's market share, so Google minimizes the number of blocked search results, while always returning some.
It's worth noting they qualified the suggestion by saying "while waiting on Microsoft to fix the vulnerability". It ain't some global indictment against Microsoft like /. suggested.
IE and Safari improve the security of most power users by presenting easy targets whose code base is unrelated to other browsers.
If you've been living overseas, then you may need your fancy new phone when you visit friends or coworkers overseas. If so, Sprint and Verizon are NOT options. T-mobile and AT&T offer GSM coverage, but you'd need a tri-band phone.
p.s. AT&T are more evil than T-mobile. Sprint is probably less evil than Verizon too.
Apple clearly and knowingly infringed upon GSM for several years. So the courts will eventually award Nokia massive damages, those damages could exceed the total value of all iPhones sold thus far. Nokia was extremely generous to offer merely cross licensing plus royalties going forward to cover this. Nokia presumably offered this based upon Apple being "one of the big boy who are not supposed to sue one another". Apple then started fight. Apple would never have had this problem if they'd merely licensed the patents like everyone else from the beginning.
p.s. Multi-touch is almost worthless as a patents since it's unenforceable in most countries and easy to work around, but owning a license prevents Apple from patent trolling you and saves you from worrying about how much to work around.
Apple does not deliver fundamentally new technology like Nokia; well not during the last 10 years anyways, the Newton was new, original Mac was new, etc.
Applie meditates upon existing technology and works out how to present the technology so that the average user will benefit most. Incremental backups like Time Machine have existed forever, ala rsync, but Apple slapping on a gui with a starscape has saved thousands of users from losing irreplaceable data.
Apple will need to pay royalties for the underlying technology they are using. Indeed, they'll owe Nokia massive damages for the past 3 years, possibly exceeding the total value of all iPhone's sold thus far. Nokia was extremely forgiving by offering merely a cross licensing deal.
Yes, the patent should obviously be overturned, but ...
Apple revealed they plan upon suing everyone for infringing upon their equally obvious multi-touch patents. Also, Apple always acts like other people's patents are irrelevant while their own matter. So please do make Apple sweat a little first.
I'll be happiest if Apple's own successful arguments here are eventually used to help overturn their own silly patents. :)
I'm unsure exactly what system is used but public keys may be used more thoroughly than you describe.
Example 1 : There are perhaps both presever and preclient keys that must be xored together, which are created separately on each side, and sent using the other's public key, thus ensuring that an eavesdropper must break both server and client public keys.
Example 2 : A sever could generate a session RSA key, digitally sign the session public key, and send both the session public and the server public key as well as the certificate authority's signature for the server public key. The client first verifies the signature for the server's public key and the session public key, then creates a symmetric session prekey like you describe, encrypts that symmetric key with the session public key, and send it to the server.
You may break this in three ways according to conventional wisdom :
(1) quickly break the session public key and listen live,
(2) slowly break the server public key and execute a man-in-the-middled attack to listen live,
(3) record the whole conversation, slowly break the session public key, and listen offline.
I'm pretty sure people breaking these large keys are not breaking them fast enough for (1), which already provides significant privacy.
You may also force them to break both the server and client key for (2) or (3) by symmetrizing the process with preserver and preclient keys, as described in Example 1 above.
Indeed, Example 2 may offer minimal advantages over Example 2 if virtually all connections originate from strangers, ala online banks. Remember, if you make the attacker break n separate keys, your increasing the computations cost for both attacker and legit users by the same factor. If otoh you just use larger key size, then attackers spend far more additional time than users.
A simple random culling algorithm would be extremely close to fair the vast majority of the time.. no reason to favor players already in the system.
If you must favor players in the system, the only sane method is placing ships into the system only once the system can handle them. So, if two many ships jump into a system, then additional ships jumping into the system either end up elsewhere or else their jump simply fails.
It's just downright lazy & stupid to place ships into the system without granting their pilots control.
True, but CCP also has a long history of favoring the Band of Brothers. People can quite reasonably accuse CCP of continuing to favor BoB's playing style here.
A fleetfight should simply not become unbalanced. If players are lagging out, they should cull players evenly from each side, ideally offering non-culled players the option to give their slot to a culled player.
Apple & everyone have vastly underestimated fashion. Apple does make sexy looking gear, but just consider how many luxury car companies exist. Ferrari, Porche, Jaguar, Lexus, etc. all sell cars that look distinctive.
I hear like a dozen phone makers are designing Android based phones. All are poche well equipped smartphone. All offer almost the same vast array of applications. All will look distinctive and sexy.
If the drug is truly life saving, then poor countries with pharmaceutical industries like Brazil will just threaten to break the patent, and force the price down. It's very not perfect, but national boundaries and interests do help immeasurably, despite the treaties.
There are millions of aids patients alive today because morality trumps foreign intellectual property in Brazil.
So he's living proof that Christianity has nothing to offer the modern world. :P
Not necessarily. Nokia's FRAND obligations may permit them to require cross-licensing deals, but that doesn't stop Nokia from granting the licenses for less and/or cross-licensing with companies that own no valuable IP. I don't think anyone in the thread knows those FRAND obligations, but yes Nokia's lawyers know them better than anyone else.
I think the two important points are :
(1) Apple has inadvertently indicated that they plan on suing other companies, presumably over multi-touch patents, which will now make Apple's case harder no matter Nokia's FRAND obligations.
(2) Nokia is now suing Apple over GSM patent violation in non GSM products, making any FRAND obligations irrelevant. Apple is suing Nokia over similarly broad patents. It sounds like both companies better suck it up and work out a deal.
We already discourage even the most promising young writers as strongly as possible, even their professors discourage them. It'd be cruel to encourage even the best of the best, their chances of making it are simply way too slim.
It's best they focus upon a more lucrative career only tangentially related to writing, while those that are truly called to write will write on the side.
Apple definitely cannot hold Nokia to any FRAND obligations because Apple is not party to the contracts involved in forming the GSM Association.
Sorry, that's how contracts work. You cannot sue your landlord for renting an identical unit to yours to his cousin for half your rent, as you are not party to that contract. Similarly, you cannot sue various OSS companies who offer their software under the GPL for also offering their software under commercial licenses. Contracts inherently work that way.
I'd imagine their additional brain served some function, maybe mating related, maybe just carrying out other tasks less efficiently, very unclear exactly how they differed from us.
Nevertheless, Apple just reveled they plan on being a patent troll about their silly multi-touch patents. So nobody will back them. If nobody backs them, they cannot appeal to the RAND licensing component of Nokia's GSM Association membership, which makes Apple just another patent infringer.
Nokia play it well, by tricking Apple into revealing their true colors. Apple will now need to cross license.
Very good point!
I doubt Apple could appeal to the RAND licensing terms, that was a deal between Nokia and the GSM Association. Who controls the GSM Association? Well, other handset maker and telephone companies! So the RAND license obligations are likely irrelevant now that Apple has shown their true colors.
AT&T is likely Apple's only friend in the GSM Association, if they are even a member. But even AT&T does not benefit from Apple suing every other handset maker over Apple's silly multi-touch patents, which was doubtless Apple's plan all alone.