As correct as your comments are, you're missing the point.
It's true, the editors are not obligated to remove anything. Or for that matter, check for non-dupes, etc.
BUT... One primary reason of slashdot's success is the high signal to noise ratio. Articles are posted that consistently reach a cohesive demographic. Moderation and Meta-Moderation provide methods of locating user comments which have the highest likelyhood of consisting of signal, and not noise.
That being said, I believe the point of the parent post is that we don't care if the editor needs to renew his subscription. We want signal, not noise, and are merely providing feedback to help promote that practice.
I'm saying that MP3 may not have existed (or would be much delayed) without Fraunhofer knowing that it can make some money back.
You're correct, theoretically. However, many companies patents ideas which arose as a consequence of another business directive, not the primary cause.
For example, IBM has a patent on the method by which a "fat" line can be drawn on a computer by taking a "thin" line and widening it. I seriously doubt IBM saw a business opportunity for fat lines, and thus spent R&D resources to develop and then patent the idea. Instead, they developed the algorithm as a natural course of doing some other business. Their IP lawyers then went in afterwards and patented every line of code they could.
The point of which is, companies invest very little resources specifically for the purpose of creating a patentable artifact. Instead, they go about their normal daily competitive business processes, and then "lock up the industry" if they happen to be the first to market with an idea.
Case in point, Amazon and the 1-click patent. Amazon spent resources competing with other online retailers. An artifact of that competition is a process to which they were given entitlement to patent, no matter how broad or obvious it might seem to the rest of the world.
This leaves us with a scenario in which every business tries to find patentable artifacts with which to compete. Instead of competing on factors such as quality, cost, and efficiency, companies now can sit back and smile and say "yeah, well we can stay in business regardless of how poorly our company is run, simply because no one else has the right to attach pink bowties to their products!"
So what choice is the consumer left with? The consumer can purchase the shoddy products that have pink bowties, or the consumer can buy an exceptional product that doesn't have the pink bowties.
It's obvious that if the company really screws up their operations, they won't survive, pink bowties or not. But at the same time, all they need to do is survive by the slimmest of margins in order to prevent pink bowties from being used in other products which could really benefit from it. That, to me, is screwing the consumer.
A global warming activist just told me that if we release gas into Mar's atmosphere, all the ice would melt and flood the planet, starting the planet on a unstoppable trend which would make the planet totally inhabitable in 100 years. His projection is based upon measurements of pollution emitted by the Mars rover "Spirit" during the past year.
Of course, since the Mars rover uses solar panels for energy, I'm not sure I believe him.
Wait, Bjorn Lomborg just called and told me that global warming is not a priority for Mars. He's come up with a list of urgent Mars needs that take precedence.
I'm so confused. Why isn't there a single answer for pressing issues like this?
Isn't that the audio format patented by Fraunhofer, which delayed the adoption of compressed music due to patent license fees which many companies couldn't afford?
I speculate that Ogg Vorbis would have been much more popular, and highly adopted, had it come out much earlier.
Pretty sure the US Patent Office has a say in what is and isn't patentable.
Not really. They approve pretty much any patent these days, collect the fees, and then wait until the patent is challenged before spending any significant time thinking about it.
first, paying for something like this is just strange, in my opinion.
It's not strange, really. Granted, most consumerism is focused around the sale of tangible goods.
The sale of virtual goods exists primarily to provide convenience to the buyer. The buyer could spend several hours each day earning enough gold points to buy that magic armour plate of hardening, but some players don't have that luxury.
This ultimately comes down to the sale of non-tangible goods for entertainment purposes, which itself is quite popular (pay-per view events, etc.)
Those types of trojans and phishing attacks are already very widespread. My friend's account got jacked when he downloaded a "utility" that was supposedly designed to let him earn gold pieces quicker. In reality, all it did was steal his password.
In a game like Ultima Online, many of the Game Masters (in-game customer support representatives) spend most of their time dealing with cheaters, scammers, and the like.
More than a month after Walton was buried in Beckley, a group of record companies named her as the only defendant in a federal lawsuit.
When Walton died on Dec. 11 after a long illness, she was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, according to her obituary.
If the RIAA had done a little more research, they could have had 55 defendants instead of 1.
Anyone who disagrees with the RIAAs tactics should boycott legal music downloads on April 1, 2005.
Re:I doubt this would work very well
on
Blink
·
· Score: 1
4,294,967,297 is 2^32 + 1, which is divisible by 641. Any programmer knows that.
The only finnicky part is getting your fingerprint pattern key (the raw info is not sent, it gets crunched down by the scanner,) into the database on somebody ELSE's account. HE will be the one stuck with the bill.
Few problems with your theory:
Identification forgery is a problem for all systems, not just fingerprint systems. Identification forgery can be accomplished by hacking or social engineering. If a criminal stole someone's credit card statement and changed the account PIN (by calling customer service), he would be able to accomplish the same level of fraud as if he had changed a fingerprint on file.
Once the identification token has been swapped within the merchant's system, the original customer would get an error when he next tried to use the system (because the authentication would no longer match up). This would lead to a customer support inquiry, which in turn would result in the identification of the problem.
Once the merchant realizes that identification forgery has been committed (by the presence of a non-matching fingerprint or fingerprint key in the system), the merchant would proceed along the normal paths of fraud response. Most likely, the customer would not be held accountable for charges associated with the fraud.
When the merchant resolves the issue and removes the forged identification token, the hacker then loses all ability to access the customer's account. The danger has been eliminated because the hacker has "inserted" a foreign object into the merchant's system; the hacker has not "stolen" a customer's object from the system.
If a merchant was really worried about fraud, it would keep the customer's fingerprint scan on file within the database. The database would regularly (in a weekly batch job, perhaps) rehash the fingerprint and compare the new fingerprint hash with the existing fingerprint hash. If a mismatch was detected, fraud response would occur. This architecture would require the criminal to submit his own fingerprint into the system in order to forge identification, which I would argue is infinitely more risky than stealing credit card numbers. The fingerprint database could be securely isolated from the purchasing system, so that the danger of hacking is reduced.
The scope of access granted by a single fingerprint identification system is quite limited. If a criminal performed identification swapping at GAP, the criminal would only be able to commit fraud at GAP, and would not be able to walk down the street and commit fraud with the customer's Abercrombie & Fitch account. Therefore, as soon as any given store identifies a fraud occurrence, it would probably implement additional security measures such as requiring photo ID for a particular customer. This is similar to security measures that are required when a customer's credit card has been compromised.
Many new fingerprint scanners (used in security installations) measure biometric electrical conductance/resistance capacity in addition to the fingerprint. This means an 160lb man with 12% body fat and a healthy heart can't chop the finger off a 180lb man and stick it up to the scanner.
Regarding your comment about muttering something about a new scar on your finger, let's see how funny it is when you refuse to provide photo ID to the clerk, walk out of the store, and then the clerk hands over the security camera footage to the police.
Patents server a purpose, to encourage innovation and to enable you ot I to profit from it. What's wrong with that?
The purpose of given concept is not a guarantee that the concept will be used in accordance with the intentions of the concept's founders. In other words, we know why the patent system was created, but knowing that purpose doesn't mean that patents will be used towards that end. Why? The proper enforcing mechanisms are not in place.
Some corroborating factors:
Short of historical analysis, no economic model can accurately predict how effective patents will be in encouraging innovation. Since patents are a barrier, only the prevention of innovation can be estimated.
The rules and process by which patents are examined, evaluated, and enforced are not clear, consistent, or free of error. Egregious patents have been granted in the past. Example? "Swinging sideways on a swing." Many patents are contentious because the majority of non-patent holders feel the patents are overly broad and obvious.
Software patents are granted which cover critical and central functionalities common to many software technologies. I actually know someone who won $15m in lawsuits against Sony and Nintendo, because he holds a patent for a game device to communicate via IR. IMHO, when someone invents a technology like IR, there's only 10 or 15 broad patents which can be granted before the entire use of IR is locked up in patent licensing.
The people who "profit" from the "encouraged innovation" are companies who deposit the spoils of war directly into their coffers. It would be much better if the community "profited" through the availability of technologies that are central to the ongoing development of software and technologies.
Pretty soon, phishers will be sending scam emails to patent holders, saying "URGENT notice from the USPTO - Please login and confirm your Social Security Number and Date of Birth in order to keep your patent."
The Green Party argues that the former patent criteria, which has been abandoned, is adequate in protecting innovation. For example, there's a clause that states that an idea can't be patented if the idea is obvious to a typical practitioner in the field. I recall this from a Green Party interview in a magazine, pardon me for not providing a direct quote.
Torvalds was reluctant to make predictions though. "I'm the anti-visionary. I distrust people with visions," he said. "You don't see what's right in front of your face and you don't see the technical issues that face everyday users."
Speaking of technical issues that face everyday users, my grandmother is still waiting for a version of Linux that she can learn to use.
802.11 sound system? I'll feel sorry for you if your neighbors all go out and buy wireless routers, and keep knocking your music offline due to channel collision.
I just moved into an apartment complex and I can see 20 other routers, when my 802.11b connection is stable. I've heard of horror stories much worse.
No offense to the original poster, but this is not exactly a compliment. It's like saying, "Your dog's ass smells the best of any dog's ass I've ever smelled."
Well, if there existed a female slashdotter (however unlikely), and I ever met one (however unlikely), and I was attracted to her (however unlikely), and I felt like trying to pick her up with a line (however unlikely), I would clearly hope the parent's compliment would work better than the comment about dog asses.
CAPTCHA = Create APhrase Then Create Humongous Acronym.
Of course that's not the way it currently is done. Glitzy marketing folks tend to generate the acronym first, and then come up with humongous phrases that retrofits into the acronym.
Am I the only one who doesn't have problems playing Steam games offline? According to my experience, when my network cable is unplugged I have no problems playing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true, the editors are not obligated to remove anything. Or for that matter, check for non-dupes, etc.
BUT... One primary reason of slashdot's success is the high signal to noise ratio. Articles are posted that consistently reach a cohesive demographic. Moderation and Meta-Moderation provide methods of locating user comments which have the highest likelyhood of consisting of signal, and not noise.
That being said, I believe the point of the parent post is that we don't care if the editor needs to renew his subscription. We want signal, not noise, and are merely providing feedback to help promote that practice.
You're correct, theoretically. However, many companies patents ideas which arose as a consequence of another business directive, not the primary cause.
For example, IBM has a patent on the method by which a "fat" line can be drawn on a computer by taking a "thin" line and widening it. I seriously doubt IBM saw a business opportunity for fat lines, and thus spent R&D resources to develop and then patent the idea. Instead, they developed the algorithm as a natural course of doing some other business. Their IP lawyers then went in afterwards and patented every line of code they could.
The point of which is, companies invest very little resources specifically for the purpose of creating a patentable artifact. Instead, they go about their normal daily competitive business processes, and then "lock up the industry" if they happen to be the first to market with an idea.
Case in point, Amazon and the 1-click patent. Amazon spent resources competing with other online retailers. An artifact of that competition is a process to which they were given entitlement to patent, no matter how broad or obvious it might seem to the rest of the world.
This leaves us with a scenario in which every business tries to find patentable artifacts with which to compete. Instead of competing on factors such as quality, cost, and efficiency, companies now can sit back and smile and say "yeah, well we can stay in business regardless of how poorly our company is run, simply because no one else has the right to attach pink bowties to their products!"
So what choice is the consumer left with? The consumer can purchase the shoddy products that have pink bowties, or the consumer can buy an exceptional product that doesn't have the pink bowties.
It's obvious that if the company really screws up their operations, they won't survive, pink bowties or not. But at the same time, all they need to do is survive by the slimmest of margins in order to prevent pink bowties from being used in other products which could really benefit from it. That, to me, is screwing the consumer.
Of course, since the Mars rover uses solar panels for energy, I'm not sure I believe him.
Wait, Bjorn Lomborg just called and told me that global warming is not a priority for Mars. He's come up with a list of urgent Mars needs that take precedence.
I'm so confused. Why isn't there a single answer for pressing issues like this?
Does anybody know?
I'm sure it's for a feature that helps encourage competition by being locked up by a single vendor.
Monkey see, monkey do?
Isn't that the audio format patented by Fraunhofer, which delayed the adoption of compressed music due to patent license fees which many companies couldn't afford?
I speculate that Ogg Vorbis would have been much more popular, and highly adopted, had it come out much earlier.
That's very true. Please share with us your knowledge of all the good patents from which society benefits.
Not really. They approve pretty much any patent these days, collect the fees, and then wait until the patent is challenged before spending any significant time thinking about it.
It's not strange, really. Granted, most consumerism is focused around the sale of tangible goods.
The sale of virtual goods exists primarily to provide convenience to the buyer. The buyer could spend several hours each day earning enough gold points to buy that magic armour plate of hardening, but some players don't have that luxury.
This ultimately comes down to the sale of non-tangible goods for entertainment purposes, which itself is quite popular (pay-per view events, etc.)
In a game like Ultima Online, many of the Game Masters (in-game customer support representatives) spend most of their time dealing with cheaters, scammers, and the like.
When Walton died on Dec. 11 after a long illness, she was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, according to her obituary.
If the RIAA had done a little more research, they could have had 55 defendants instead of 1.
Anyone who disagrees with the RIAAs tactics should boycott legal music downloads on April 1, 2005.
4,294,967,297 is 2^32 + 1, which is divisible by 641. Any programmer knows that.
Few problems with your theory:
Identification forgery is a problem for all systems, not just fingerprint systems. Identification forgery can be accomplished by hacking or social engineering. If a criminal stole someone's credit card statement and changed the account PIN (by calling customer service), he would be able to accomplish the same level of fraud as if he had changed a fingerprint on file.
Once the identification token has been swapped within the merchant's system, the original customer would get an error when he next tried to use the system (because the authentication would no longer match up). This would lead to a customer support inquiry, which in turn would result in the identification of the problem.
Once the merchant realizes that identification forgery has been committed (by the presence of a non-matching fingerprint or fingerprint key in the system), the merchant would proceed along the normal paths of fraud response. Most likely, the customer would not be held accountable for charges associated with the fraud.
When the merchant resolves the issue and removes the forged identification token, the hacker then loses all ability to access the customer's account. The danger has been eliminated because the hacker has "inserted" a foreign object into the merchant's system; the hacker has not "stolen" a customer's object from the system.
If a merchant was really worried about fraud, it would keep the customer's fingerprint scan on file within the database. The database would regularly (in a weekly batch job, perhaps) rehash the fingerprint and compare the new fingerprint hash with the existing fingerprint hash. If a mismatch was detected, fraud response would occur. This architecture would require the criminal to submit his own fingerprint into the system in order to forge identification, which I would argue is infinitely more risky than stealing credit card numbers. The fingerprint database could be securely isolated from the purchasing system, so that the danger of hacking is reduced.
The scope of access granted by a single fingerprint identification system is quite limited. If a criminal performed identification swapping at GAP, the criminal would only be able to commit fraud at GAP, and would not be able to walk down the street and commit fraud with the customer's Abercrombie & Fitch account. Therefore, as soon as any given store identifies a fraud occurrence, it would probably implement additional security measures such as requiring photo ID for a particular customer. This is similar to security measures that are required when a customer's credit card has been compromised.
Many new fingerprint scanners (used in security installations) measure biometric electrical conductance/resistance capacity in addition to the fingerprint. This means an 160lb man with 12% body fat and a healthy heart can't chop the finger off a 180lb man and stick it up to the scanner.
Regarding your comment about muttering something about a new scar on your finger, let's see how funny it is when you refuse to provide photo ID to the clerk, walk out of the store, and then the clerk hands over the security camera footage to the police.
In the meantime, he gets sued by Canon for using ink that doesn't cost $35 per cartridge.
Patents server a purpose, to encourage innovation and to enable you ot I to profit from it. What's wrong with that?
The purpose of given concept is not a guarantee that the concept will be used in accordance with the intentions of the concept's founders. In other words, we know why the patent system was created, but knowing that purpose doesn't mean that patents will be used towards that end. Why? The proper enforcing mechanisms are not in place.
Some corroborating factors:
WMD = Words of Media Distraction
Pretty soon, phishers will be sending scam emails to patent holders, saying "URGENT notice from the USPTO - Please login and confirm your Social Security Number and Date of Birth in order to keep your patent."
The Green Party argues that the former patent criteria, which has been abandoned, is adequate in protecting innovation. For example, there's a clause that states that an idea can't be patented if the idea is obvious to a typical practitioner in the field. I recall this from a Green Party interview in a magazine, pardon me for not providing a direct quote.
Speaking of technical issues that face everyday users, my grandmother is still waiting for a version of Linux that she can learn to use.
You won't necessarily know when your ID card is readable by anyone, if it uses RFID. Even if it's in your pocket.
I just moved into an apartment complex and I can see 20 other routers, when my 802.11b connection is stable. I've heard of horror stories much worse.
No offense to the original poster, but this is not exactly a compliment. It's like saying, "Your dog's ass smells the best of any dog's ass I've ever smelled."
Well, if there existed a female slashdotter (however unlikely), and I ever met one (however unlikely), and I was attracted to her (however unlikely), and I felt like trying to pick her up with a line (however unlikely), I would clearly hope the parent's compliment would work better than the comment about dog asses.
CAPTCHA = Create A Phrase Then Create Humongous Acronym.
Of course that's not the way it currently is done. Glitzy marketing folks tend to generate the acronym first, and then come up with humongous phrases that retrofits into the acronym.
Thank god he doesn't play video games. If he ever gets the itch, he can pull out his old Atari 2600 with just 1 joystick button.
Am I the only one who doesn't have problems playing Steam games offline? According to my experience, when my network cable is unplugged I have no problems playing.