Google said the attacks "originated from within China". They said there were "sophisticated attacks" against human rights activists, which involved accessing their accounts by use of the "correct username and password". I have yet to find where they have said there is any evidence to believe it was the Chinese government "as a nation" who carried this out
Google isn't going to say that outright as long as they have employees in China. You're supposed to connect the dots.
Verisign, on the other hand, apparently has no problem pointing the finger at China:
I'm going to guess that he doesn't break the sound barrier. The term "barrier" isn't entirely fanciful, as power required to go faster increases enormously as you approach it.
On the other hand, if he DOES break the sound barrier, I'm going to bet it does him some injury.
If you believe in the science that brings you modern medicine to begin with, then more knowledge is always better.
It's not the science I object to; it's the politics. The Vioxx study, subsequent FDA action, and subsequent lawsuits resulted in nearly every COX-2 inhibitor being taken off and kept off the market, despite the tiny magnitude of the risks. Given that, I think it's better to not seek out knowledge of such small risks rather than risk that kind of overreaction.
If you really think Bill Clinton has any trouble getting Cuban cigars (likely absolutely legally), you're incredibly naive. The people in power always have loopholes for themselves. Anyway, the special thing about Clinton's cigars isn't where they were made, it's what he does with them.
New announcement from the Secretary of State: The Secretary of State will say what she wishes about Internet Freedom. And if Ma Zhaoxu continues to object, the State Department is NOT going to send the Secretary of State's husband over with the Dallas Cowgirls and a few cases of cigars. That is all.
Micropayments. Yes I know it's been mentioned before, but one rarely hears of paying *each other* (rather than the host or government). It would be a good idea anyway even if spam didn't exist.
Because, as one of those irritating but often accurate form rejections points out, transaction costs make this impractical. You'd spend far more administering the payments than you would actually making them, so if you had a system where you paid someone $0.05 to receive your email, and they paid you $0.05 to receive theirs, you'd also each end up paying $0.50 in transaction costs to whoever handled the payments.
If you suspect PTSD, you can just MRI their head. No need to look at the images; if they go apeshit as soon as the thing starts up, they've got PTSD. (if they go apeshit before it starts up, they're claustrophobic and you'll have to try something else).
Since she can't get rid of the judgment by declaring bankruptcy, she has no incentive to ever earn money that will only be taken away from her.
Unless the RIAA snuck in an extra provision to the Bankruptcy Act (and I wouldn't put it past them), civil judgements ARE generally dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Act ReForm bill passed a few years ago does make it more difficult to declare real bankruptcy (Chapter 7) rather than slavery bankruptcy (Chapter 13). I'm sure the RIAA would prefer to have the only option be Chapter.45, but if they got their way a few RIAA execs might end up on the receiving end of that as well.
Dig through a huge dataset like this looking for problems and you will find them. For everything. And with the FDA and court's approach, that means that even tiny effects will end up getting drugs knocked off the market. The COX-2 inhibitors are a perfect example. Sure, for a tiny number of people taking them they increased the risk of heart attack. But for untold numbers of people taking them, they relieved pain either where nothing else would, or with far fewer side effects than other pain medications like opoids. But in today's society, we're not allowed to trade a tiny risk of death versus an enormous chance of pain relief. So even the very tiny risks one can find this way will end up getting whole classes of non-lifesaving drugs off the market. No more analgesics, no more antihistamines, no more decongestants (oh, wait, they already virtually banned those for the War on Drugs), no more cough medicines, etc.
... under 35 USC 102, but it could well under 35 USC 103(a).
Non-obviousness? The patent office and patent defenders take such a narrow view of obviousness that it doesn't help either. When pressed, you always jeer "well if it's so obvious why hadn't it been done before, in exactly that way?"
As it stands, it's perfectly possible to patent something which is equivalent to the prior art, have someone build something else equivalent to the prior art, and have both the prior art ruled non-anticipatory and the second thing ruled infringing.
That's one heck of a detailed claim. Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.
Anticipation is narrow. Infringement, however, is broad. A slight difference between the purported prior art and the claim means the prior art doesn't invalidate the claim. A slight difference between the device claimed to infringe and the claim, however, doesn't make the device non-infringing. This means that while it should be that prior art leaves broad areas of technology unpatentable, what actually happens is the other way around -- the patent leaves broad areas of prior art unusable, because just about any use of that prior art which hasn't been done exactly that way before is interpreted as infringing.
Honestly, the DMCA is the best thing to happen to the net. Why? Because instead of everyone suing everyone for everything, it provides a fair method of resolving disputes...
Fair? Because the DMCA I know of, the "method of resolving disputes is:
1) Complaintant makes a complaint 2) Work is taken down. 99% of the time, dispute resolved. Not so fair, IMO. But that's a bit unfair to the DMCA, because there is the option of
1) Complaintant makes a complaint 2) Work is taken down 3) Respondent agrees to meet complaintant in US court 4) Complaintant says "OK, we'll sue your ass" 5) Work remains down for duration of dispute 6) Much time passes 7) Respondent loses ass because complaintant has better lawyers.
How nice is it that the plaintiff has to make a statement under penalty of perjury that you need to take something down
All they have to say under penalty of perjury is that they represent the owner of the work they say is being infringed on (not, mind you, the work being taken down!)
What would you prefer?
The rule under the Netcom decision, where the ISP is not liable even without a takedown requirement, and if someone wants something taken down, they can try to get a preliminary injunction rather than just write a letter. It still isn't fair, but at least it's slightly burdensome for the censor.
I think they recently added the PaperBag class (with WetPaperBag subclass) to the Java standard library just for the people mentioned above.
I'd quibble with that. A paper bag is a paper bag. Whether the bag is wet or not is a property of the bag, not an inherent quality which puts it in a subclass of its own.
That's a pretty low bar to entry. Define 'linked list'. Really? If you ask a question such as that, you must either suspect that the entire resume is faked (assuming that there is at least a degree on it) or be pretty brain dead yourself. I wouldn't want to work for someone that paranoid or dumb.
Why not? There are plenty of clueless people with inflated or phony resumes out there; it's not paranoid to realize that and ask a few simple questions to weed them out early (you can ask in a phone screen as well but sometimes the person who takes the phone screen isn't the person who shows up for the interview!). If the whole interview is like that it's probably not a position you want, but a few softball questions at the beginning shouldn't be cause for offense.
What's the student supposed to get counseling for? The trauma the school put him through for no reason? More likely, so the school authorities can point to the fact that the kid got counseling to show something is wrong with him (and not them)
I'd like to recommend the authorities get some counseling. Either that, or a clue, but counseling is easier to come by.
....that if you really need data to be secure, end to end security is the only way to go. That way, no matter what happens in the network (short of man in the middle attacks by a trusted or very resourceful attacker), either only you get your data, or nobody does.
Of course I'm here on slashdot via a non-secure connection, but the worst that happens here is someone steals my account to post obnoxious shit. (and who would notice?)
Mapping larger resolution images to a smaller resolution preview screen is not necessarily trivial, and the patent appears to possibly mention it in claims 6 and 7. There is not a one-to-one correlation of pixels, and simple rounding or truncation after division makes for a pixelish-looking preview. One must somehow sample multiple source pixels per single pixel in the destination grid, with varying results and speed depending on the algorithm used.
There are (and were) many algorithms for that known, however; bilinear interpolation was invented a LONG time ago. And in any case, I was concerned with claim 1, which doesn't mention any of that.
What you propose would be the death of picking up girls in bars, that's for sure. How do you propose to convince them to spend that much time writing down their number?
You've ferretted out our evil plan to make everyone else as unable to pick up girls in bars as slashdotters are. Bwa ha ha ha... (twirls miserable imitation of bad-guy mustache)
No-one in Ethopia is starving because of the RIAA cartel overpricing the latest fucking Jonah Bros CD.
Yawn. The old "if it ain't as bad as the worst evil I can think of, you're just whining about it" argument. It remains invalid.
Sure, these guys aren't murderers, most of them. They're still thieves on a massive scale (mostly from the "talent" they claim to be protecting). They're still willing to sue people into bankruptcy for bucking them. They'd still like to put people in jail for writing computer programs they don't like. They'd still like to ban entire classes of technology to maintain their profits. They're still evil, even if Idi Amin makes them look like pikers.
What the/. community needs to understand, is that not *every* patent is invalid just because its being used to sue.
Perhaps not, but that's the way to bet.
Given that you already have 1) The technology for a digital still camera 2) The technology for a digital movie camera
is it really patent worthy to have a device which works like a movie camera until a button is pressed, at which point it takes a picture like a still camera? Because that's what Claim 1 of patent 6292218 covers. Oddly enough it only covers it for cameras with mosaic sensors, so you can use the same technology in a camera with a Foveon sensor, or with a monochrome camera, with no patent issues.
These are real patents designed to incentivise R&D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.
Strip away the detailed descriptions of the prior art and claim 1 covers having a button to take a photo while seeing a live preview. That's not a "real patent designed to incentivise R&D", that's patenting a feature.
Well...considering that there have been public announcements that DHS et al are trying (with only limited success) to hire huge numbers of "security" techs it sure seems like they were caught with their pants down.
Sure. Do you think the actual competent cyber warfare people in the US government are going to screw things up by talking to the Keystone Kops over at DHS? Despite the new era of interagency co-operation the USA PATRIOT act was supposed to bring in, I'd guess the NSA still keeps things close to the vest... and it's NOT part of DHS, but rather Defesne.
Slashdot Mirror
Google isn't going to say that outright as long as they have employees in China. You're supposed to connect the dots.
Verisign, on the other hand, apparently has no problem pointing the finger at China:
Verisign blames China
I'm going to guess that he doesn't break the sound barrier. The term "barrier" isn't entirely fanciful, as power required to go faster increases enormously as you approach it.
On the other hand, if he DOES break the sound barrier, I'm going to bet it does him some injury.
It's not the science I object to; it's the politics. The Vioxx study, subsequent FDA action, and subsequent lawsuits resulted in nearly every COX-2 inhibitor being taken off and kept off the market, despite the tiny magnitude of the risks. Given that, I think it's better to not seek out knowledge of such small risks rather than risk that kind of overreaction.
If you really think Bill Clinton has any trouble getting Cuban cigars (likely absolutely legally), you're incredibly naive. The people in power always have loopholes for themselves. Anyway, the special thing about Clinton's cigars isn't where they were made, it's what he does with them.
New announcement from the Secretary of State: The Secretary of State will say what she wishes about Internet Freedom. And if Ma Zhaoxu continues to object, the State Department is NOT going to send the Secretary of State's husband over with the Dallas Cowgirls and a few cases of cigars. That is all.
Because, as one of those irritating but often accurate form rejections points out, transaction costs make this impractical. You'd spend far more administering the payments than you would actually making them, so if you had a system where you paid someone $0.05 to receive your email, and they paid you $0.05 to receive theirs, you'd also each end up paying $0.50 in transaction costs to whoever handled the payments.
If you suspect PTSD, you can just MRI their head. No need to look at the images; if they go apeshit as soon as the thing starts up, they've got PTSD. (if they go apeshit before it starts up, they're claustrophobic and you'll have to try something else).
Unless the RIAA snuck in an extra provision to the Bankruptcy Act (and I wouldn't put it past them), civil judgements ARE generally dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Act ReForm bill passed a few years ago does make it more difficult to declare real bankruptcy (Chapter 7) rather than slavery bankruptcy (Chapter 13). I'm sure the RIAA would prefer to have the only option be Chapter .45, but if they got their way a few RIAA execs might end up on the receiving end of that as well.
Dig through a huge dataset like this looking for problems and you will find them. For everything. And with the FDA and court's approach, that means that even tiny effects will end up getting drugs knocked off the market. The COX-2 inhibitors are a perfect example. Sure, for a tiny number of people taking them they increased the risk of heart attack. But for untold numbers of people taking them, they relieved pain either where nothing else would, or with far fewer side effects than other pain medications like opoids. But in today's society, we're not allowed to trade a tiny risk of death versus an enormous chance of pain relief. So even the very tiny risks one can find this way will end up getting whole classes of non-lifesaving drugs off the market. No more analgesics, no more antihistamines, no more decongestants (oh, wait, they already virtually banned those for the War on Drugs), no more cough medicines, etc.
Non-obviousness? The patent office and patent defenders take such a narrow view of obviousness that it doesn't help either. When pressed, you always jeer "well if it's so obvious why hadn't it been done before, in exactly that way?"
As it stands, it's perfectly possible to patent something which is equivalent to the prior art, have someone build something else equivalent to the prior art, and have both the prior art ruled non-anticipatory and the second thing ruled infringing.
Anticipation is narrow. Infringement, however, is broad. A slight difference between the purported prior art and the claim means the prior art doesn't invalidate the claim. A slight difference between the device claimed to infringe and the claim, however, doesn't make the device non-infringing. This means that while it should be that prior art leaves broad areas of technology unpatentable, what actually happens is the other way around -- the patent leaves broad areas of prior art unusable, because just about any use of that prior art which hasn't been done exactly that way before is interpreted as infringing.
Fair? Because the DMCA I know of, the "method of resolving disputes is:
1) Complaintant makes a complaint
2) Work is taken down.
99% of the time, dispute resolved. Not so fair, IMO. But that's a bit unfair to the DMCA, because there is the option of
1) Complaintant makes a complaint
2) Work is taken down
3) Respondent agrees to meet complaintant in US court
4) Complaintant says "OK, we'll sue your ass"
5) Work remains down for duration of dispute
6) Much time passes
7) Respondent loses ass because complaintant has better lawyers.
All they have to say under penalty of perjury is that they represent the owner of the work they say is being infringed on (not, mind you, the work being taken down!)
The rule under the Netcom decision, where the ISP is not liable even without a takedown requirement, and if someone wants something taken down, they can try to get a preliminary injunction rather than just write a letter. It still isn't fair, but at least it's slightly burdensome for the censor.
I'd quibble with that. A paper bag is a paper bag. Whether the bag is wet or not is a property of the bag, not an inherent quality which puts it in a subclass of its own.
Why not? There are plenty of clueless people with inflated or phony resumes out there; it's not paranoid to realize that and ask a few simple questions to weed them out early (you can ask in a phone screen as well but sometimes the person who takes the phone screen isn't the person who shows up for the interview!). If the whole interview is like that it's probably not a position you want, but a few softball questions at the beginning shouldn't be cause for offense.
What's the student supposed to get counseling for? The trauma the school put him through for no reason? More likely, so the school authorities can point to the fact that the kid got counseling to show something is wrong with him (and not them)
I'd like to recommend the authorities get some counseling. Either that, or a clue, but counseling is easier to come by.
....that if you really need data to be secure, end to end security is the only way to go. That way, no matter what happens in the network (short of man in the middle attacks by a trusted or very resourceful attacker), either only you get your data, or nobody does.
Of course I'm here on slashdot via a non-secure connection, but the worst that happens here is someone steals my account to post obnoxious shit. (and who would notice?)
For some of us, that's a contradiction in terms. Not everyone can feel comfortable in a rat warr..err, "high density urban area".
There are (and were) many algorithms for that known, however; bilinear interpolation was invented a LONG time ago. And in any case, I was concerned with claim 1, which doesn't mention any of that.
Oddly enough, your daughter has it just the other way around.
You've ferretted out our evil plan to make everyone else as unable to pick up girls in bars as slashdotters are. Bwa ha ha ha... (twirls miserable imitation of bad-guy mustache)
Yawn. The old "if it ain't as bad as the worst evil I can think of, you're just whining about it" argument. It remains invalid.
Sure, these guys aren't murderers, most of them. They're still thieves on a massive scale (mostly from the "talent" they claim to be protecting). They're still willing to sue people into bankruptcy for bucking them. They'd still like to put people in jail for writing computer programs they don't like. They'd still like to ban entire classes of technology to maintain their profits. They're still evil, even if Idi Amin makes them look like pikers.
Perhaps not, but that's the way to bet.
Given that you already have
1) The technology for a digital still camera
2) The technology for a digital movie camera
is it really patent worthy to have a device which works like a movie camera until a button is pressed, at which point it takes a picture like a still camera? Because that's what Claim 1 of patent 6292218 covers. Oddly enough it only covers it for cameras with mosaic sensors, so you can use the same technology in a camera with a Foveon sensor, or with a monochrome camera, with no patent issues.
Strip away the detailed descriptions of the prior art and claim 1 covers having a button to take a photo while seeing a live preview. That's not a "real patent designed to incentivise R&D", that's patenting a feature.
At least one of the patents is 6292218.
Claim 1 is a nice example of patenting the goal.
Sure. Do you think the actual competent cyber warfare people in the US government are going to screw things up by talking to the Keystone Kops over at DHS? Despite the new era of interagency co-operation the USA PATRIOT act was supposed to bring in, I'd guess the NSA still keeps things close to the vest... and it's NOT part of DHS, but rather Defesne.