(1) In these booming economic times, I'm sure we'll see plenty of new cell phone companies going into business as a result of the increased spectrum availability (NOT).
(2) ABC already turned on the broadcast bit "accidently" for a number of shows in the SF Bay area, freventing them from being recorded by DVRs, last August.
Was tried many times before and failed miserably. As long as majority of files are blobs, versioning on level of file system makes no sense. Versioning on level of applications is implemented already more or less everywhere it was needed and SVN/git is there for the rest of applications.
People who argue about putting VMS-style versioning in filesystems in UNIX Just Don't Get It(tm).
This worked in VMS solely because in VMS, the globbing pattern was passed to the VMS kernel, which acted on it, rather than being expanded in user space, and having the expansions passed down to the kernel iteratively, which is the fundamental UNIX tools model. So, for example, if you were to do a:
rename foo.* bar.*
this worked in VMS because the ability to expand corresponding values and correlate them worked. In UNIX, you can't expand the non-existant corresponding "bar.*" values in the shell and then pass them to the "mv" command.
Versions in VMS took strict advantage of this, implying a ";most recent version" as a suffix to all unversioned names pased to the kernel for resolution or expansion - because the expansion happened in the kernel, it was possible to "do the right thing", because there was sufficient context for the kernel to impute what "the right thing" was, without having to guess at it after the fact.
This is very similar to the argument between "composed" and "uncomposed" Unicode, and which one is obviously superior to the other: if the semantics aren't tied down until the contextual point at which it matters that they be tied down, then you can do more clever things.
I don't see any of this changing in UNIX any time soon, until it's not actually UNIX any more; the best anyone is going to be able to do is namespace folding hacks, for which they will need shell (and anything else that does globbing) cooperating in the versioning "conspiracy". This is not really something doable at the kernel level without some serious namespace escape trickery.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this title.
When that doesn't apply, then you have to consider provisional damages:
35 USC 154.(d)(1)(B) Provisional damages:
(d) Provisional Rights.--
(1) In general.-- In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122 (b), or in the case of an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued--
(B) had actual notice of the published patent application and, in a case in which the right arising under this paragraph is based upon an international application designating the United States that is published in a language other than English, had a translation of the international application into the English language
The intent of willful ignorance is to insulate the company against statutory and provisional damages. As an engineer, this protects you, as well:
35 USC 271.(b):
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.
Still, wouldn't you LIKE to find out who's sending you spam/phishing attacks/etc... so you can, if nothing else, impolitely ask them to stop at 0100 in the morning?
Hm. Probably not as much as I'd like to prevent some nut-job on the Internet taking offense to something I say online in a political forum and making me his personal projects because I no longer have deniability for the information about my location or who I am because some idiot wanted to build non-repudiation into IP packets. You might as well start implanting RFIDs, if you want non-repudiation everywhere, and just make keyboards not work without an RFID in range. I think Google does a pretty good job of filtering SPAM; maybe you need a different email provider?
"Unlike Apple and the iPhone however, you can get applications from other places that aren't subject to the kill-switch"
This is not precisely true. The "kill switch" is implemented by the host OS contacting back and getting a CRL from a central server (whether Google controls that server, or your phone company does, is an open question). All they have to do is post a Certificate Revocation in their list for a given applications signing cert and that application is disabled.
In reality, Android is in fact much more locked down that the iPhone currently is. The fact of the matter is that Android does not support native applications, it only supports applications written in the Google JVM-alternative that they used to get out from under the Java mobile license restrictions, which is about the only place Sun has been able to attach Java to a revenue stream. As a result, you aren't actually allowed to write to the glass. The applications themselves are signed, and the OS is signed; you can get the Android source code, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able to recompile Android from sources and load it onto your T-Mobile handset, and expect it to boot.
Basically, you are limited to a much smaller set of APIs than the iPhone has been able to limit you to, and if you want to add APIs, you are out of luck unless you write them in Java.
Seriously, you're canning the old one because you say it no longer fits your needs. Since software doesn't mutate, then your needs must have changed, so pick something that meets your needs. The questions you should ask are "Can it do what the old one does?" and "Can it do X, Y, Z", where X, Y, Z are the needs you've added that are making you jump boat in the first place.
The idea goes back at least as far as 1803, and was recognized as being old then (some attribute the idea to Newton). Robert W. Wood, a University of Baltimore physicist, built the first one recorded (using mercury as the reflector) in 1909, but could not keep the spinning base spinning at a constant rate.
Borra has a tendency to announce these things again every so many years as if they are newly invented; here's an article from 1986: ahref=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4371602/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1rel=url2html-6340http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4371602/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1>...note that it predates the 1990 date where the article linked in the posted story claims he's only started studying them 4 years after that.
I think if the person is, for example, a lawyer, the data in question could be protected by attorney/client privilege, and therefore they could face disbarrment for disclosure, even were it done under color of authority.
I imagine, in fact, that this is a real issue for lawyers attempting to operate on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
But I'll also answer the question in the subject, as to why it should not simply have an exclusion cause for lawyers, instead of being struck down for everyone: because it's in my head and they have no right to search my head. What's the difference between data in your head and data encrypted with a password stored in your head? To me, the data is in your head, and the data on the hard drive is just a useful memory aid.
Oh, and if the original poster is more concerned about them getting his data than about losing the laptop, make a one time pad, make a copy of it, put the copy of it in a safe deposit box, travel outside the US, and then after encrypting the data with the OTP, destroy the OTP so it is impossible for you to comply.
This was the company that Larry invested in to build massively (for the time) parallel machines to run Oracle better. He even relocated them to Foster City to get them loser to Oracle corporate headquarters.
A company where I worked (Whistle Communications, and, after they were acquired, IBM) shared the same building with them. When they closed the Foster City office 2002 (after Larry stepped down as CEO), they dumpstered a large number of 19" racks full of interesting hardware.
I will care about non-native species arguments as soon as you exterminate all the pigeons and Rattus Norwegicus in North America and rabbits in Australia.
Where it takes two of them to make a working one, manually disassembling one (destroying the chip) and using solvent on the other (destroying the LCD)?
What's the model number? From that I can tell you whether or not I have a JTAG, or would have to borrow one from a friend. With a JTAG I can keep it from wiping itself and do anything with your data I want.
If it's an 8000 series (not including the 8707), then it's a ARMv5TE PXA900, which is pretty easy to hack.
Just because your average idiot can't hack something doesn't mean that it's magically unhackable. The value in the device is in the data it contains, not in the cost of the hardware.
Again, it's visibly obvious in the video that the chute is failing to inflate because there is not sufficient pressure differential to cause wake turbulence along the bottom edges of the chute body.
Wrongo; it's based on the launch abort chutes from the Apollo program. Those chutes didn't have a lot of testing, and never in launch abort conditions.
I am rather thinking that the parent poster thinks they should have started with chutes that were known to work, not chutes designed in the Apollo era, but never used on real missions. Those would be things like the three capsule chutes that anyone who saw the earth-returns of the Apollo capsules remembers from immediately preceeding splashdown.
If you have ever jumped out of a perfectly good airplane on a chute you packed yourelf, it's pretty clear that the weight relative to the chute area caused the laminar airflow over the closed chute to kee the shroud lines from jockeying in and out enough for the chute to open. In othr words, it's because they used a larger version of an edge connected shroud set in the design, without stay-shrouds to force the center down and therefore the edges out so that they could catch air.
They need to employ some riggers from a good sky-diving team in their design phase, or some umbrella manufacturers.
So basically, you are saying that using a protocol which tells you the port you are supposed to respond to requests on, it's possible to "guess" the port on which responses are expected?
Uh, if you are close enough to see the request, why do you not just use the response port in the request instead of guessing it from the last request?
I'm not understanding how this is any more vulnerable, unless you can predict requests.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you can invent an easy process to turn CO2 in low concentrations back into carbon and oxygen, you have a winner."
Trees?
-- Terry
Hopefully they learn from the mistakes of BioSphere2.
Like: no ordering out for pizza, no leting your SO in for nookie, and concrete takes a very long time to cure and uses oxygen throughout the process.
-- Terry
(1) In these booming economic times, I'm sure we'll see plenty of new cell phone companies going into business as a result of the increased spectrum availability (NOT).
(2) ABC already turned on the broadcast bit "accidently" for a number of shows in the SF Bay area, freventing them from being recorded by DVRs, last August.
-- Terry
Uh border router routing tables?
Am I missing something?
Or won't that work for child porn that's published inside Germany, because they don't track it down or prosecute it?
-- Terry
Clippy the Lexus says...
"It looks like you are driving to your ex-girlfriends house; should I contact the highway patrol to schedule a breathalyzer test?"
-- Terry
It makes sense if you are Dell.
He ordered September 17th.
October 17th: 30 days
November 16th: 60 days
December 16th: 90 days.
Thank you for the free money.
-- Terry
People who argue about putting VMS-style versioning in filesystems in UNIX Just Don't Get It(tm).
This worked in VMS solely because in VMS, the globbing pattern was passed to the VMS kernel, which acted on it, rather than being expanded in user space, and having the expansions passed down to the kernel iteratively, which is the fundamental UNIX tools model. So, for example, if you were to do a:
this worked in VMS because the ability to expand corresponding values and correlate them worked. In UNIX, you can't expand the non-existant corresponding "bar.*" values in the shell and then pass them to the "mv" command.
Versions in VMS took strict advantage of this, implying a ";most recent version" as a suffix to all unversioned names pased to the kernel for resolution or expansion - because the expansion happened in the kernel, it was possible to "do the right thing", because there was sufficient context for the kernel to impute what "the right thing" was, without having to guess at it after the fact.
This is very similar to the argument between "composed" and "uncomposed" Unicode, and which one is obviously superior to the other: if the semantics aren't tied down until the contextual point at which it matters that they be tied down, then you can do more clever things.
I don't see any of this changing in UNIX any time soon, until it's not actually UNIX any more; the best anyone is going to be able to do is namespace folding hacks, for which they will need shell (and anything else that does globbing) cooperating in the versioning "conspiracy". This is not really something doable at the kernel level without some serious namespace escape trickery.
-- Terry
Willful violation invokes statutory damages:
35 USC 284
When that doesn't apply, then you have to consider provisional damages:
35 USC 154.(d)(1)(B) Provisional damages:
The intent of willful ignorance is to insulate the company against statutory and provisional damages. As an engineer, this protects you, as well:
35 USC 271.(b):
-- Terry
Hm. Probably not as much as I'd like to prevent some nut-job on the Internet taking offense to something I say online in a political forum and making me his personal projects because I no longer have deniability for the information about my location or who I am because some idiot wanted to build non-repudiation into IP packets. You might as well start implanting RFIDs, if you want non-repudiation everywhere, and just make keyboards not work without an RFID in range. I think Google does a pretty good job of filtering SPAM; maybe you need a different email provider?
-- Terry
"Unlike Apple and the iPhone however, you can get applications from other places that aren't subject to the kill-switch"
This is not precisely true. The "kill switch" is implemented by the host OS contacting back and getting a CRL from a central server (whether Google controls that server, or your phone company does, is an open question). All they have to do is post a Certificate Revocation in their list for a given applications signing cert and that application is disabled.
In reality, Android is in fact much more locked down that the iPhone currently is. The fact of the matter is that Android does not support native applications, it only supports applications written in the Google JVM-alternative that they used to get out from under the Java mobile license restrictions, which is about the only place Sun has been able to attach Java to a revenue stream. As a result, you aren't actually allowed to write to the glass. The applications themselves are signed, and the OS is signed; you can get the Android source code, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able to recompile Android from sources and load it onto your T-Mobile handset, and expect it to boot.
Basically, you are limited to a much smaller set of APIs than the iPhone has been able to limit you to, and if you want to add APIs, you are out of luck unless you write them in Java.
-- Terry
One that meets your needs?
Seriously, you're canning the old one because you say it no longer fits your needs. Since software doesn't mutate, then your needs must have changed, so pick something that meets your needs. The questions you should ask are "Can it do what the old one does?" and "Can it do X, Y, Z", where X, Y, Z are the needs you've added that are making you jump boat in the first place.
Yes, it really is that dirt simple.
-- Terry
Prior Art
The idea goes back at least as far as 1803, and was recognized as being old then (some attribute the idea to Newton). Robert W. Wood, a University of Baltimore physicist, built the first one recorded (using mercury as the reflector) in 1909, but could not keep the spinning base spinning at a constant rate.
Borra has a tendency to announce these things again every so many years as if they are newly invented; here's an article from 1986: ahref=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4371602/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1rel=url2html-6340http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v130/ai_4371602/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1> ...note that it predates the 1990 date where the article linked in the posted story claims he's only started studying them 4 years after that.
-- Terry
why data on one's person should be excluded...
I think if the person is, for example, a lawyer, the data in question could be protected by attorney/client privilege, and therefore they could face disbarrment for disclosure, even were it done under color of authority.
I imagine, in fact, that this is a real issue for lawyers attempting to operate on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
But I'll also answer the question in the subject, as to why it should not simply have an exclusion cause for lawyers, instead of being struck down for everyone: because it's in my head and they have no right to search my head. What's the difference between data in your head and data encrypted with a password stored in your head? To me, the data is in your head, and the data on the hard drive is just a useful memory aid.
Oh, and if the original poster is more concerned about them getting his data than about losing the laptop, make a one time pad, make a copy of it, put the copy of it in a safe deposit box, travel outside the US, and then after encrypting the data with the OTP, destroy the OTP so it is impossible for you to comply.
-- Terry
With respect...
I own the atoms.
I paid for them.
They will damn well do what I tell them to do.
-- Terry
One is enforced by a carrier not willing to build out its infrastructure, and the second two are enforced by physics?
-- Terry
Except it's not really their first foray:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCUBE
This was the company that Larry invested in to build massively (for the time) parallel machines to run Oracle better. He even relocated them to Foster City to get them loser to Oracle corporate headquarters.
A company where I worked (Whistle Communications, and, after they were acquired, IBM) shared the same building with them. When they closed the Foster City office 2002 (after Larry stepped down as CEO), they dumpstered a large number of 19" racks full of interesting hardware.
-- Terry
I will care about non-native species arguments as soon as you exterminate all the pigeons and Rattus Norwegicus in North America and rabbits in Australia.
Thanks,
-- Terry
You mean like the SecureID FOBs?
Where it takes two of them to make a working one, manually disassembling one (destroying the chip) and using solvent on the other (destroying the LCD)?
-- Terry
Reading out "secure" blackberry data...
What's the model number? From that I can tell you whether or not I have a JTAG, or would have to borrow one from a friend. With a JTAG I can keep it from wiping itself and do anything with your data I want.
If it's an 8000 series (not including the 8707), then it's a ARMv5TE PXA900, which is pretty easy to hack.
Just because your average idiot can't hack something doesn't mean that it's magically unhackable. The value in the device is in the data it contains, not in the cost of the hardware.
-- Terry
Whoops, I stand corrected.
I was aware of the Little Joe shots for the Mercury program, but had not heard of the Little Joe II shots. Learn something new every day! Thank you!
-- Terry
Or you don't know why circular parachutes inflate.
It required non-laminar flow to generate sufficient wake turbulence that there is enough of a pressure differential to cause the inflation to occur.
http://www.pcprg.com/inflate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow
Again, it's visibly obvious in the video that the chute is failing to inflate because there is not sufficient pressure differential to cause wake turbulence along the bottom edges of the chute body.
-- Terry
Turn it on end and paint a Tardis on it!
Who wouldn't want the Doctor visiting their neighborhood?
-- Terry
Wrongo; it's based on the launch abort chutes from the Apollo program. Those chutes didn't have a lot of testing, and never in launch abort conditions.
I am rather thinking that the parent poster thinks they should have started with chutes that were known to work, not chutes designed in the Apollo era, but never used on real missions. Those would be things like the three capsule chutes that anyone who saw the earth-returns of the Apollo capsules remembers from immediately preceeding splashdown.
If you have ever jumped out of a perfectly good airplane on a chute you packed yourelf, it's pretty clear that the weight relative to the chute area caused the laminar airflow over the closed chute to kee the shroud lines from jockeying in and out enough for the chute to open. In othr words, it's because they used a larger version of an edge connected shroud set in the design, without stay-shrouds to force the center down and therefore the edges out so that they could catch air.
They need to employ some riggers from a good sky-diving team in their design phase, or some umbrella manufacturers.
-- Terry
The actual problem is where to find someone *who is willing to make the changes while working at minimum wage*.
-- Terry
So basically, you are saying that using a protocol which tells you the port you are supposed to respond to requests on, it's possible to "guess" the port on which responses are expected?
Uh, if you are close enough to see the request, why do you not just use the response port in the request instead of guessing it from the last request?
I'm not understanding how this is any more vulnerable, unless you can predict requests.
Also, what do Windows and Linux boxes do?
-- Terry