Of course they cheat you, they shit you. You think they're running this thinggy up there for *you*? They only want *you* for the army. Or, for paying your taxes.
Serious, what I don't like in the article is this ugly 'conspiration theory' stuff. Of course, Columbia came down for very normal reasons: negligence, faulty engineering, you name it.
You're not sufficient stupid to believe they don't run extra&secret stuff parallel to the scientific stuff, are you !?
'Apparently': MIT-dictionary server: Apparently Ap*par"ent*ly, adv. ""
3. Seemingly; in appearance; as, a man may be apparently
friendly, yet malicious in heart.
Apparently they only want their encryption back. Commander Taco, sure you know what you're saying here? No dupe, but did you read the links of earlier and the outdated equipment? You don't really think that a 8"x8"x8" box (or whatsoever) contains an encryption algorithm worth this fuss?? "if you had kept your mouth shut, we might have considered you a knowledgeable man", as the Greek proverb goes. Or doesn't it ?
... Cowboy McNeal! Did you have a good sleep, last few days? Read your breaking news just now. It's a helluvolotf great story and an important lesson for us pirates. Never ever pirate! All your caps will start leaking like hell and turn brownish like - whatwoosdat?
Eh, anyway, what we learned in school: repetition is everything. You simply cannot overdo repeating the multiplication tables. You simply cannot overdo repeating that *you must not pirate*. Espionage is worse. Full stop. Thanks, Comboy Neal for the enlightenment. Better: do it again, oh yeah, please, over two days, we're getting old and forgetful. The Register is a shit, they only bring their stories once and a day later: forgotten. Yeah, keep us updated. A good Alzheimer enjoys a great story by any day.
I'm so happy going through all these posts !
At least, not to feel too lonely. At times I am under the impression, that I was the only one in here (and in the world) to insist on *some* academic standards.
It is my pleasure to cite from a post of a leading US professor of education - a very respected and even adored scholar - in another mailing list to which I belong:
"Failure is avoidable; one might even say it is undemocratic to have students fail. The traditional stance is to blame failure on the student, but I do not accept this. It is the problem with the learning provided."
When I first read this, I had to wipe my eyes: Is this true? Have I lost the ability to read? Do I happen to be too old? Should I retire? Or is this chap braindead?
Honestly, I settled for the last assumption.
Thank you everyone for providing some support for my weak position and showing that I'm not the only conservatist educator !
You're so right ! - KDE is technically superior, but I am and will remain with GNOME.
Because I don't feel like throwing out when I look at the interface. 3rd grade schoolkiddies' stuff.
It makes my headaches, and plus,
yes, it is in competition to M$. For the gold medal of who creates the ugliest interface ever. KDE 3.1 gets even closer to that shit. If I wanted Luna, I'd install Luna (or whatever this childish effort in saturated colours is called).
What do these f...ers think !!!??? Can they not pay anyone for reasonable icons, colours, layout ? Can they think at all in terms of HCI (except trying to blindly imitate Windoze ??)
As long as their GUIs are a clear 'Fail', how can they expect to 'win' ?
Writing this from a Gnome 1.4.X, the cleanest and most useable / configurable interface so far.
2 sen, but my 2 sen !
Can, dear all!! Thanks to a guy by the name of
Dmitry Rozmanov [SMTP:dima@xenon.spb.ru]
He has created a ridiculous nice utility:
http://www.geocities.com/rozmanov/ntlm/
Works really great!
Wished, someone else had done the same for X400; so that we could read our addresses from Exchange without $69 plus OWA!
Uwe
Oh, yes. Probably better Prior Art than the stuff cited by the USPTO. But nevertheless, no anticipation of the so-called invention. They link the key-generation directly with issuing "Save" or "Exit", not with the storage process itself. That is, before the data are ever sent to the storage medium, in your case it happened at a different piece of the chain and to all data on the harddisk.
*Did* you read it?? - Thanks for the link, anyway! I read it and - IMHO - the examiner should have kicked out independant claim 1 at least! Actually, this describes a general purpose computer running any application which transparently (to the user) encrypts data while storing the data (as file). The "Document Management System" ought not have been granted, even in the light of the description. The trickier stuff is, that they claim this "event-interception-keygeneration" which is probably more difficult to find in the Prior Art. Even though it is quite obvious; but you know the lawyers! So, before shouting BS, you better think about a system known before 1998 that precisely encrypted any data when storing / exiting automatically by intercepting the store / close command and creating an encryption-key which is used to encrypt the data transparent to the user before storing the data to any file storage. This precisely is what they claim. And as long as there is not precisely this system, the examiner can / could not attack the applicant. Patent examination is *not* on common sense, but on a (single) document anticipating this ("said") idea. Over. Like it or not.
What about Prior Art ?? - As long as I was with the EPO at least, I'm proud to say, "we" were better / stricter than USPTO. I surely remember some cases, but cannot mention those here. Sure, EPO is self-funded and needs applications. But "we" always had more than enough. On the other hand, US policy in general is more business-focused and business-friendly. Even more: like DoJ seems to side with M$ to keep it running ("World Domination"), my impression was USPTO grants patents with preference to US companies ("conquer the world market" / "keep foreign products out"). Decide for yourself, which is worse!
Having been patent examiner in the European Patent Office from 1991-1997 I am completely disillusioned by the system; be it in US or EU. It was meant to help the little inventor but has been turned into one of the main weaponry for the multis to fend competition off.
What we experience here is a case of many to come: investors started a few years ago to file for ridiculous, general stuff. For the sole purpose to be able one day to present their bills in case the ridiculous is being granted. Try to get a huge portfolio of patents covering a good deal of everyday-life-stuff; pay a lot for it; but finally sue unsuspicious Tom and Harry for royalties!
I'd like to see the patent (which US-does it have?), because US law demands the applicant to cite the best prior art available to him. (EPO law does not.) If you can *prove* he didn't, you can file for throwing it it (it is difficult, though). Or just finding a relevant document published in time identifying precisely the same concept (USPTO is usually leniant in granting for microscopic inventiveness. That is, if you cannot attack the novelty, be prepared to spend a fortune.
I'm sure, one day they'll come sfter OpenSource as well; especially those who now start to charge. Does anyone know the current case law for infringement if you distribute the patented stuff for free?? In earlier days, that had been really difficult!
Slashdot Mirror
Not to forget the victims of some intervention in Palestine and the looming invasion of Irak.
Thanks.
Thanks for updating me on what you think.
You're right, somehow. It's my - I'd say - third language and I did dare to try the definition to make sure it was ambiguous. Or not.
You're not exactly a friend of variations, are you?
If you were one (philosophus), you might have noticed, that actually, it's Latin.
Talis hominibus fuit oratio qualis vita.
Of course they cheat you, they shit you.
You think they're running this thinggy up there for *you*? They only want *you* for the army. Or, for paying your taxes.
Serious, what I don't like in the article is this ugly 'conspiration theory' stuff. Of course, Columbia came down for very normal reasons: negligence, faulty engineering, you name it.
You're not sufficient stupid to believe they don't run extra&secret stuff parallel to the scientific stuff, are you !?
'Apparently': MIT-dictionary server:
Apparently Ap*par"ent*ly, adv.
""
3. Seemingly; in appearance; as, a man may be apparently
friendly, yet malicious in heart.
Apparently they only want their encryption back. Commander Taco, sure you know what you're saying here? No dupe, but did you read the links of earlier and the outdated equipment? You don't really think that a 8"x8"x8" box (or whatsoever) contains an encryption algorithm worth this fuss?? "if you had kept your mouth shut, we might have considered you a knowledgeable man", as the Greek proverb goes. Or doesn't it ?
... Cowboy McNeal!
Did you have a good sleep, last few days? Read your breaking news just now.
It's a helluvolotf great story and an important lesson for us pirates. Never ever pirate! All your caps will start leaking like hell and turn brownish like - whatwoosdat?
Eh, anyway, what we learned in school: repetition is everything. You simply cannot overdo repeating the multiplication tables.
You simply cannot overdo repeating that *you must not pirate*. Espionage is worse. Full stop.
Thanks, Comboy Neal for the enlightenment.
Better: do it again, oh yeah, please, over two days, we're getting old and forgetful. The Register is a shit, they only bring their stories once and a day later: forgotten. Yeah, keep us updated. A good Alzheimer enjoys a great story by any day.
I'm so happy going through all these posts ! At least, not to feel too lonely. At times I am under the impression, that I was the only one in here (and in the world) to insist on *some* academic standards. It is my pleasure to cite from a post of a leading US professor of education - a very respected and even adored scholar - in another mailing list to which I belong: "Failure is avoidable; one might even say it is undemocratic to have students fail. The traditional stance is to blame failure on the student, but I do not accept this. It is the problem with the learning provided." When I first read this, I had to wipe my eyes: Is this true? Have I lost the ability to read? Do I happen to be too old? Should I retire? Or is this chap braindead? Honestly, I settled for the last assumption. Thank you everyone for providing some support for my weak position and showing that I'm not the only conservatist educator !
You're so right ! - KDE is technically superior, but I am and will remain with GNOME. Because I don't feel like throwing out when I look at the interface. 3rd grade schoolkiddies' stuff. It makes my headaches, and plus, yes, it is in competition to M$. For the gold medal of who creates the ugliest interface ever. KDE 3.1 gets even closer to that shit. If I wanted Luna, I'd install Luna (or whatever this childish effort in saturated colours is called). What do these f...ers think !!!??? Can they not pay anyone for reasonable icons, colours, layout ? Can they think at all in terms of HCI (except trying to blindly imitate Windoze ??) As long as their GUIs are a clear 'Fail', how can they expect to 'win' ? Writing this from a Gnome 1.4.X, the cleanest and most useable / configurable interface so far. 2 sen, but my 2 sen !
Can, dear all!! Thanks to a guy by the name of Dmitry Rozmanov [SMTP:dima@xenon.spb.ru] He has created a ridiculous nice utility: http://www.geocities.com/rozmanov/ntlm/ Works really great! Wished, someone else had done the same for X400; so that we could read our addresses from Exchange without $69 plus OWA! Uwe
Oh, yes. Probably better Prior Art than the stuff cited by the USPTO. But nevertheless, no anticipation of the so-called invention. They link the key-generation directly with issuing "Save" or "Exit", not with the storage process itself. That is, before the data are ever sent to the storage medium, in your case it happened at a different piece of the chain and to all data on the harddisk.
*Did* you read it?? - Thanks for the link, anyway!
I read it and - IMHO - the examiner should have kicked out independant claim 1 at least! Actually, this describes a general purpose computer running any application which transparently (to the user) encrypts data while storing the data (as file). The "Document Management System" ought not have been granted, even in the light of the description. The trickier stuff is, that they claim this "event-interception-keygeneration" which is probably more difficult to find in the Prior Art. Even though it is quite obvious; but you know the lawyers!
So, before shouting BS, you better think about a system known before 1998 that precisely encrypted any data when storing / exiting automatically by intercepting the store / close command and creating an encryption-key which is used to encrypt the data transparent to the user before storing the data to any file storage. This precisely is what they claim. And as long as there is not precisely this system, the examiner can / could not attack the applicant. Patent examination is *not* on common sense, but on a (single) document anticipating this ("said") idea. Over. Like it or not.
What about Prior Art ?? - As long as I was with the EPO at least, I'm proud to say, "we" were better / stricter than USPTO. I surely remember some cases, but cannot mention those here.
Sure, EPO is self-funded and needs applications. But "we" always had more than enough. On the other hand, US policy in general is more business-focused and business-friendly. Even more: like DoJ seems to side with M$ to keep it running ("World Domination"), my impression was USPTO grants patents with preference to US companies ("conquer the world market" / "keep foreign products out").
Decide for yourself, which is worse!
Having been patent examiner in the European Patent Office from 1991-1997 I am completely disillusioned by the system; be it in US or EU. It was meant to help the little inventor but has been turned into one of the main weaponry for the multis to fend competition off. What we experience here is a case of many to come: investors started a few years ago to file for ridiculous, general stuff. For the sole purpose to be able one day to present their bills in case the ridiculous is being granted. Try to get a huge portfolio of patents covering a good deal of everyday-life-stuff; pay a lot for it; but finally sue unsuspicious Tom and Harry for royalties! I'd like to see the patent (which US-does it have?), because US law demands the applicant to cite the best prior art available to him. (EPO law does not.) If you can *prove* he didn't, you can file for throwing it it (it is difficult, though). Or just finding a relevant document published in time identifying precisely the same concept (USPTO is usually leniant in granting for microscopic inventiveness. That is, if you cannot attack the novelty, be prepared to spend a fortune. I'm sure, one day they'll come sfter OpenSource as well; especially those who now start to charge. Does anyone know the current case law for infringement if you distribute the patented stuff for free?? In earlier days, that had been really difficult!