Yup, those were my thoughts. As long as you're not obvious about being a vexatious litigant you can make things pretty painful.
When you've filed your 5th nuisance lawsuit the courts might block you from filing more, and maybe then award costs. However, if you keep everything plausible on the surface you can cause somebody huge headaches even if it is dismissed with prejudice every time.
The fact that our legal system is broken in this way is a whole separate matter - it ought to be reformed. However, in my eyes that doesn't excuse those who abuse it.
I'll agree with everything you said. I think the key is better R&D. However, for the price of sending a rocket up into space think about how much R&D could be done on the ground, in conditions simulating everything but zero-G.
There is a place for manned missions to orbit, but until we get way beyond where we are now that's about it. Rather than building big manned stations, spend the money on actually developing technology that will change the way the game is played. For the cost of sending up one of today's big rockets you can probably do quite a bit of R&D into the rockets of tomorrow.
Well, the same files play perfectly fine on my ION without trouble on a different distro. So, the trick is figuring out which of the 4700 differences between them introduced the regression (the one with problems is newer - and I don't want to be running a two year old version of Myth forever...).
It has worked in practice in many times and places. I doubt it would work in the current US climate, since people vote for whoever the shiny ads tell them to, and those ads are paid for by the beneficiaries of the current policies.
Once the US manages to bankrupt its treasury, loses the ability to pay police, and society collapses, you might see a different form of law enforcement where these kinds of approaches would be VERY common. If you fail to pay the local warlord the proper tribute I wouldn't count on a lawyer to be of much help...
The point is that it was a transaction that was made for no business purpose at all, but purely as a means to pay less in taxes (I doubt they made it to pay more in taxes). I see no reason that the US taxpayers should tolerate it.
Slide to Unlock - It's not apples fault it was patented, they're using the system that that's there to be used. It's a crap system, but it's the one their is and that isn't apples fault.
The thing is, none of the other major vendors has been doing that with phones. I don't see vendors suing each other over having green call and red disconnect buttons, and so on. I'm sure one of the vendors had that first.
Just because a system allows you to be a sociopath doesn't mean I can't call you one when you abuse it.
There's some guy living in a home down the street. I have never met him and have no idea if he is a nice guy or not. I can probably ruin his day by filing a lawsuit against him right now for some creatively-devised offense. It probably costs me all of $50 to do it if I'm willing to put in the time, and it will cost him thousands of dollars to fight off. Oh, I doubt I'll get anything for it, but I can certainly ruin his day, and there isn't a thing in the world he can do about it, and it is perfectly legal.
So why don't I do it, even if the guy cuts me off on the road? Simple, I'm not a sociopath. If I were to start acting like one then I'd expect those around me to call me out on it (well, if I really were a sociopath I might not expect them to, but they'd be just as right to do it).
What is legal has nothing to do with what is right. Being evil is a choice.
Yup, the executive floor of my company headquarters has bulletproof glass, and the CEO travels with a contingent of guards who even clear elevators for him assuming that he didn't get on from the private parking area where the car is programmed to ensure a private ride. The secretary desks around the executive area come complete with panic buttons.
What would the company do with a few less executives? I'm sure they live in fear for their lives on their helicopter rides home...
Wish I could say the same. I have no idea if it is myth, X11, the kernel, or what, but I keep getting artifacts when trying to use my ION to play HD video. It varies considerably based on where the stream came from, and what software I'm using to play it...
I'd go a step further and limit the size of banks to something the government can reasonably deal with should things go south.
If the biggest banks had tens or hundreds of millions in deposits it wouldn't be such a big deal when one of them has an issue like this. Just have the government step in and take care of the people affected, and then fine the living daylights out of whoever messed up once it is all sorted out.
The problem is that these banks are getting so large that you can fit those responsible for 80% of the world's wealth into a single room. That means that they talk to each other, adopt similar policies, and so on. We have far more systemic risk, and even when you get a random failure like this the impact is enormous.
Sure, it would get interesting, but I doubt any of that is going to stop MS from revoking a key used by Malware if they have control over the revocation list.
What would be more interesting is if OEMs just published a keypair for their machines for anybody to use. The win7 requirements state that secure boot must be on, and the MS key must be in the list of trusted keys. The specs also state that the OEM can include other keys, and do not stipulate any controls for those. The master key must be protected, but you don't need the master key to boot something using secure boot - just any of the trusted keys (not even MS will have an OEM's master key).
Google does not control the use of Android. They do control the use of their Logo, access to unreleased versions of Android, and non-Android applications like the Market. Keep in mind that Android itself lacks many key features that people associate with Android.
He didn't say that the patented method doesn't work. He said that the patented idea wasn't how his product worked.
That is pretty typical in many industries. A method of creating the patented claim is divulged to prove that it has been done, but the method that is publicized is suboptimal in some way.
This is very common in the chemical industry. Often the chemical itself is what is being patented. The only reason a method is divulged is because it is required by law, but the patent would cover any method of producing the same or a similar product. So, you just produce some method that produces the compound (provable by spectroscopy), but usually in some miniscule yield. Often things like catalysts or clever optimizations are left out.
I once had to reproduce a patented compound (the patent was ancient), and the method given was a 1-2 step process that yielded the desired product, but it was 99% gunk and barely enough of the product to be detectable. The product itself was flourscent, but such things can be visible to the naked eye in vanishingly small amounts.
Maybe. On traditional subs you're right, and I think that in future subs in traditional roles it will remain the case.
On the other hand, imagine a submarine drone that blasts into the middle of a convoy at speed and launches torpedos or missiles. Sure, everybody would see it coming, but what could they do about it? Since the thing moves fast only a supercavitating torpedo could hit it, and the ability of those against submarines isn't really well-known (does sonar work when the transducer is surrounded by air/etc?).
Stealth has been important for subs historically because all naval vessels are slow compared to the weapons used against them, and there is no cover on the ocean. On land troops use cover, and in the air to date the missiles aren't THAT much faster than the planes (oh, they're several times faster, but not 1-2 orders of magnitude as with ships vs missiles or shells). On the surface of the ocean some pundits would simply say that you die. Defensive capabilities are definitely better on surface ships than subs, but there is no question that stealthy surface ships would be far more survivable.
As weapons technology improves stealth is of course gaining importance in other domains, as destruction begins to inevitably follow detection. Any technology that makes a detected platform more survivable is going to reduce the importance of stealth to some degree.
Yeah, and all those Ubuntu users will be happy one day when their key gets revoked, after it turns out some rootkit uses it to infect the MBR.
MBR runs trusted Ubnutu bootloader. Ubuntu bootloader looks at its virus-written config file and loads the rootkit. The rootkit goes on and boots windows.
Oh, it will be pretty easy. The Win7 spec requires that doing a full firmware reset restores the MS keys. So, going away from Windows requires all kinds of key loading, and going away requires hitting the big factory reset option.
As much as I resent not having control over my own device, I have to concede that you have a point.
If my employer loses the ability to install non-MS-approved garbage on the devices they issue me I'll be a happy man. By the time Mc-Everything loads it is about time to go grab lunch...
As funny as this is, I think it could actually happen - though not on the desktop PC. MS has announced that they're cutting out the OEM vendors on tablets, not PCs. So, anybody making a PC will probably stay in bed with them. Anybody making tablets, however, can either decide not to make them, or put something other than Windows on them.
So, 2013 is likely to be the year of the Android tablet, not the Linux Desktop.
Yup. If Apple retains their tablet advantage for a few years I'd expect them to start getting looked at from an anti-trust standpoint. Right now things are too up in the air - they have huge marketshare, but the market is young enough that nobody can say for sure it will stay that way. Once upon a time anybody with a DVR owned a Tivo...
And if Google announced that they planned to only allow Android to be sold by a few vendors, and only under their licensing, then I'd be quite critical of them.
I have no issues with MS making a branded computer. My concern is when OS vendors want to control the hardware experience to a point where the computer aisle in any store has 5 models to choose between.
And my point was that the life support/engineering requirements are no different than they would be on Earth. Laws of physics don't change as you go from Earth to space.
Sure, but the environmental conditions are different.
A rat can engineer suitable living conditions on Earth. I'd like to see one design a habitat for living on Mars. The required conditions are no different, but the lack of 1atm of 20% O2 everywhere, and water falling from the sky, and stuff you can eat literally lying all over the place sure is different.
In any case, if you're looking to privately fund a mission to Mars don't let me discourage you. As long as you're not asking me to pay for it and my elected representatives can safety inspect your rockets if they're going to pass anywhere near my house, you're welcome to do whatever you want and to try to convince others to help...
Yes and no. Judges ought to apply the law and constitution as they were intended to be applied. Whether this is 100% consistent with their wording is not as much of a concern for me.
It seems like the US legal system has become one big game, where people do stuff that clearly harms the public, with the only justification being "but I'm obligated to be selfish and the letter of the law lets me get away with it..."
The solution is to simply apply common sense. If somebody deducts $300M from their taxes because they bought a sewer system in France and leased it back to the municipality, then simply rule that they owe the taxes anyway plus penalties so that the company is out the penalties and whatever loss they incurred on sewer deal. If you quit letting people abuse loopholes they'll stop doing it. When they complain that the letter of the law allows it, the answer is "so what."
When my computer crashes because it blindly follows an algorithm that is imperfect, I'll accept that this is one of the limitations of computers that we accept because they're so much cheaper. When human beings behave in the same way, then I have to wonder why we bother to pay them...
I think the fact is that if you wanted an algorithm for predicting the success of a start-up you could implement it as this:
1. Input business case. Direct to/dev/null. 2. Output "Start-up will fail."
It would be right 99.999% of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people get rich from start-ups all the time. The key is not perfect prediction, but good enough so that on the whole you get a return.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, those were my thoughts. As long as you're not obvious about being a vexatious litigant you can make things pretty painful.
When you've filed your 5th nuisance lawsuit the courts might block you from filing more, and maybe then award costs. However, if you keep everything plausible on the surface you can cause somebody huge headaches even if it is dismissed with prejudice every time.
The fact that our legal system is broken in this way is a whole separate matter - it ought to be reformed. However, in my eyes that doesn't excuse those who abuse it.
I'll agree with everything you said. I think the key is better R&D. However, for the price of sending a rocket up into space think about how much R&D could be done on the ground, in conditions simulating everything but zero-G.
There is a place for manned missions to orbit, but until we get way beyond where we are now that's about it. Rather than building big manned stations, spend the money on actually developing technology that will change the way the game is played. For the cost of sending up one of today's big rockets you can probably do quite a bit of R&D into the rockets of tomorrow.
Well, the same files play perfectly fine on my ION without trouble on a different distro. So, the trick is figuring out which of the 4700 differences between them introduced the regression (the one with problems is newer - and I don't want to be running a two year old version of Myth forever...).
It has worked in practice in many times and places. I doubt it would work in the current US climate, since people vote for whoever the shiny ads tell them to, and those ads are paid for by the beneficiaries of the current policies.
Once the US manages to bankrupt its treasury, loses the ability to pay police, and society collapses, you might see a different form of law enforcement where these kinds of approaches would be VERY common. If you fail to pay the local warlord the proper tribute I wouldn't count on a lawyer to be of much help...
The point is that it was a transaction that was made for no business purpose at all, but purely as a means to pay less in taxes (I doubt they made it to pay more in taxes). I see no reason that the US taxpayers should tolerate it.
Slide to Unlock - It's not apples fault it was patented, they're using the system that that's there to be used. It's a crap system, but it's the one their is and that isn't apples fault.
The thing is, none of the other major vendors has been doing that with phones. I don't see vendors suing each other over having green call and red disconnect buttons, and so on. I'm sure one of the vendors had that first.
Just because a system allows you to be a sociopath doesn't mean I can't call you one when you abuse it.
There's some guy living in a home down the street. I have never met him and have no idea if he is a nice guy or not. I can probably ruin his day by filing a lawsuit against him right now for some creatively-devised offense. It probably costs me all of $50 to do it if I'm willing to put in the time, and it will cost him thousands of dollars to fight off. Oh, I doubt I'll get anything for it, but I can certainly ruin his day, and there isn't a thing in the world he can do about it, and it is perfectly legal.
So why don't I do it, even if the guy cuts me off on the road? Simple, I'm not a sociopath. If I were to start acting like one then I'd expect those around me to call me out on it (well, if I really were a sociopath I might not expect them to, but they'd be just as right to do it).
What is legal has nothing to do with what is right. Being evil is a choice.
Yup, the executive floor of my company headquarters has bulletproof glass, and the CEO travels with a contingent of guards who even clear elevators for him assuming that he didn't get on from the private parking area where the car is programmed to ensure a private ride. The secretary desks around the executive area come complete with panic buttons.
What would the company do with a few less executives? I'm sure they live in fear for their lives on their helicopter rides home...
Wish I could say the same. I have no idea if it is myth, X11, the kernel, or what, but I keep getting artifacts when trying to use my ION to play HD video. It varies considerably based on where the stream came from, and what software I'm using to play it...
I'd go a step further and limit the size of banks to something the government can reasonably deal with should things go south.
If the biggest banks had tens or hundreds of millions in deposits it wouldn't be such a big deal when one of them has an issue like this. Just have the government step in and take care of the people affected, and then fine the living daylights out of whoever messed up once it is all sorted out.
The problem is that these banks are getting so large that you can fit those responsible for 80% of the world's wealth into a single room. That means that they talk to each other, adopt similar policies, and so on. We have far more systemic risk, and even when you get a random failure like this the impact is enormous.
Btrfs has all the layering violations of ZFS.
As far as I can tell the main fundamental features of Btrfs over ZFS are:
1. GPL2-compatible license.
2. Use of B-trees, which should scale better on very large filesystems.
I am very concerned about Apple, and I'm very concerned about the direction that MS is going.
You don't have to be a fanboy to recognize anti-consumer behavior.
Sure, it would get interesting, but I doubt any of that is going to stop MS from revoking a key used by Malware if they have control over the revocation list.
What would be more interesting is if OEMs just published a keypair for their machines for anybody to use. The win7 requirements state that secure boot must be on, and the MS key must be in the list of trusted keys. The specs also state that the OEM can include other keys, and do not stipulate any controls for those. The master key must be protected, but you don't need the master key to boot something using secure boot - just any of the trusted keys (not even MS will have an OEM's master key).
Google does not control the use of Android. They do control the use of their Logo, access to unreleased versions of Android, and non-Android applications like the Market. Keep in mind that Android itself lacks many key features that people associate with Android.
He didn't say that the patented method doesn't work. He said that the patented idea wasn't how his product worked.
That is pretty typical in many industries. A method of creating the patented claim is divulged to prove that it has been done, but the method that is publicized is suboptimal in some way.
This is very common in the chemical industry. Often the chemical itself is what is being patented. The only reason a method is divulged is because it is required by law, but the patent would cover any method of producing the same or a similar product. So, you just produce some method that produces the compound (provable by spectroscopy), but usually in some miniscule yield. Often things like catalysts or clever optimizations are left out.
I once had to reproduce a patented compound (the patent was ancient), and the method given was a 1-2 step process that yielded the desired product, but it was 99% gunk and barely enough of the product to be detectable. The product itself was flourscent, but such things can be visible to the naked eye in vanishingly small amounts.
Maybe. On traditional subs you're right, and I think that in future subs in traditional roles it will remain the case.
On the other hand, imagine a submarine drone that blasts into the middle of a convoy at speed and launches torpedos or missiles. Sure, everybody would see it coming, but what could they do about it? Since the thing moves fast only a supercavitating torpedo could hit it, and the ability of those against submarines isn't really well-known (does sonar work when the transducer is surrounded by air/etc?).
Stealth has been important for subs historically because all naval vessels are slow compared to the weapons used against them, and there is no cover on the ocean. On land troops use cover, and in the air to date the missiles aren't THAT much faster than the planes (oh, they're several times faster, but not 1-2 orders of magnitude as with ships vs missiles or shells). On the surface of the ocean some pundits would simply say that you die. Defensive capabilities are definitely better on surface ships than subs, but there is no question that stealthy surface ships would be far more survivable.
As weapons technology improves stealth is of course gaining importance in other domains, as destruction begins to inevitably follow detection. Any technology that makes a detected platform more survivable is going to reduce the importance of stealth to some degree.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Yeah, and all those Ubuntu users will be happy one day when their key gets revoked, after it turns out some rootkit uses it to infect the MBR.
MBR runs trusted Ubnutu bootloader. Ubuntu bootloader looks at its virus-written config file and loads the rootkit. The rootkit goes on and boots windows.
Oh, it will be pretty easy. The Win7 spec requires that doing a full firmware reset restores the MS keys. So, going away from Windows requires all kinds of key loading, and going away requires hitting the big factory reset option.
Sure I did. If a kid behaved the way lawyers behave in court, their parents would simply smack them. Common sense prevails.
As much as I resent not having control over my own device, I have to concede that you have a point.
If my employer loses the ability to install non-MS-approved garbage on the devices they issue me I'll be a happy man. By the time Mc-Everything loads it is about time to go grab lunch...
As funny as this is, I think it could actually happen - though not on the desktop PC. MS has announced that they're cutting out the OEM vendors on tablets, not PCs. So, anybody making a PC will probably stay in bed with them. Anybody making tablets, however, can either decide not to make them, or put something other than Windows on them.
So, 2013 is likely to be the year of the Android tablet, not the Linux Desktop.
Yup. If Apple retains their tablet advantage for a few years I'd expect them to start getting looked at from an anti-trust standpoint. Right now things are too up in the air - they have huge marketshare, but the market is young enough that nobody can say for sure it will stay that way. Once upon a time anybody with a DVR owned a Tivo...
And if Google announced that they planned to only allow Android to be sold by a few vendors, and only under their licensing, then I'd be quite critical of them.
I have no issues with MS making a branded computer. My concern is when OS vendors want to control the hardware experience to a point where the computer aisle in any store has 5 models to choose between.
And my point was that the life support/engineering requirements are no different than they would be on Earth. Laws of physics don't change as you go from Earth to space.
Sure, but the environmental conditions are different.
A rat can engineer suitable living conditions on Earth. I'd like to see one design a habitat for living on Mars. The required conditions are no different, but the lack of 1atm of 20% O2 everywhere, and water falling from the sky, and stuff you can eat literally lying all over the place sure is different.
In any case, if you're looking to privately fund a mission to Mars don't let me discourage you. As long as you're not asking me to pay for it and my elected representatives can safety inspect your rockets if they're going to pass anywhere near my house, you're welcome to do whatever you want and to try to convince others to help...
Yes and no. Judges ought to apply the law and constitution as they were intended to be applied. Whether this is 100% consistent with their wording is not as much of a concern for me.
It seems like the US legal system has become one big game, where people do stuff that clearly harms the public, with the only justification being "but I'm obligated to be selfish and the letter of the law lets me get away with it..."
The solution is to simply apply common sense. If somebody deducts $300M from their taxes because they bought a sewer system in France and leased it back to the municipality, then simply rule that they owe the taxes anyway plus penalties so that the company is out the penalties and whatever loss they incurred on sewer deal. If you quit letting people abuse loopholes they'll stop doing it. When they complain that the letter of the law allows it, the answer is "so what."
When my computer crashes because it blindly follows an algorithm that is imperfect, I'll accept that this is one of the limitations of computers that we accept because they're so much cheaper. When human beings behave in the same way, then I have to wonder why we bother to pay them...
True enough.
I think the fact is that if you wanted an algorithm for predicting the success of a start-up you could implement it as this:
1. Input business case. Direct to /dev/null.
2. Output "Start-up will fail."
It would be right 99.999% of the time. That doesn't change the fact that people get rich from start-ups all the time. The key is not perfect prediction, but good enough so that on the whole you get a return.