1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a : often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b : often capitalized : a controlling group
3: a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established
The language states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The language does NOT state "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion."
An established religion would be a state sponsored religious organization. This is one of the items "establishment of religion" refers to. An establishment of religion refers to any organized relgious system. The article you refer to fails to make any distinction, and that is the flaw in their logic.
The constitution of the United States essentially lists powers that the CITIZENS of this country grant the federal government. If the government were meant to declare which faith (or general belief system) was right, it would have been clearly enumerated in the constitution. The fact that the constitution was created by people of many different faiths re-inforces the interpretation that NO faith should be promoted above any others (or determined to be the "correct" faith). If that doesn't twist your arm, feel free to read many of the comments the constitutional authors had on the role of religion in government. You won't like them.
If the government "acknowledges" the existance of God, it is promoting certain branches of religion above others. If you're too stupid to see that this is wrong in the land of the free, go spend some time in a country where you don't have the right to decide which faith you want to follow (one that respects a faith other than your own) and tell me that you think that this is a slippery slope we should start to go down.
I guess that depends on how badly you want the new office apps.:) SA is good for some people. It isn't for others. It isn't like it is the only liscensing option available...(though it may very well be the one that sucks the least...).
The next version of Office is slated to be a Longhorn only release. Considering they just released Office 2k3, and 2006 is just a hair over 2 years away, this isn't an unexpectedly large amount of time between releases.
So I suppose that Win2k3 doesn't count then? Or the next versin of exchange server? Or sharepoint? Or SQLServer? Or DevStudio? All which should arrive before Longhorn ships...
As a side note, SA isn't soley a software liscense program -- it is also a support contract.
It has been proven time and again and again and again that vendors, especially monopoly vendors, will not fix their systems in a timely manner unless they're pressured to. And by "timely manner", I mean within four weeks.
How can 4 weeks be considered a reasonable amount of time to fix a bug and issue a patch when IT people who merely DEPLOY the frick'in patch complain that 4 weeks isn't enough time to deploy a patch?
I'm all for quick turn around, but I wish people would be a bit more consistent with their analasys of the problem...
It's NT 5.2.3790 where 3790 is the build number (which represents the delta [in days] from the date NT was first built to that particular build, if I remember correctly).
Not to mention that the guy running Eolas knew about existing prior art (Viola) and didn't let the pattent office know about it (if you know about possible prior art you have to discose it to the pattent office).
(MS actually tried to get the case dismissed due to inequitable conduct on the part of Eolas... the judges ruling regarding this motion was amusing, and basically amounts to "I think Eolas knew about Viola, intentionally didn't notify the pattent office about it, lied about knowing on it on the stand, but since they have more to lose in this case than Microsoft I'm going to rule in Eolas's favor")
...it make something happen on someone else's computer in conjunction with IM software in a manner that displays the status of the first user. They key point to this "invention" is that it is supposed to reduce network traffic ($$) over alternative methods. Now, if it's useful or interesting or obvious to you, it doesn't really matter -- the USPO granted it.
"Obvious" is difficult to prove. Mainly because if something is so obvious, the question "well, why didn't anyone do it before now?" arises.
But I would agree that a collection of applications would function as part of the evidence required to show obviousness.
Though most of the applications being referenced here aren't so much different pieces, rather they show the evolution of IM/chat products so I don't think they'd be very useful in demonstrating the "obviousness" (if that is such a word) of this patent.
Displaying the text would be "rendering user input", not "an activity indicator". Even if you did want to argue that they were one in the same, keep in mind the following:
A patent doesn't cover all of those claims individually -- it covers all of those pieces together. The mere fact that something else has an activity indicator (ex: aim) doesn't mean that it applies to this patent (unless they were just patenting the idea of having an activity indicator, which they are not); what matters are the details of that implementation, which is what the patent covers.
For example, not using a timer to govern the activity indicator's display would result in an implementation that does not fall under the patent. Having the client send a "user is not typing" message to remove the activity indicator wouldn't fall under the patent. And so on.
If you can find something that implements ALL aspects of the claim, it would be prior art. If you find a piece of software that implements part of the claim, it is NOT prior art. If you can find a bunch of different pieces of software that fill parts of the claim so that they, in sum, cover the claim, it is NOT prior art.
Don't know anything about powwow, but talk doesn't.
This pattent covers a very specific way of showing activity to the user -- a message at the bottom of the screen "the user is typing"; talk just shows what the user is typing.
You can't figure out what a patent covers from the summary. You just learn enough to know if you should be worried about it.
Does the AIM client send a second message "JoeBob has entered text", or does the receiving client have a timeout used to update the display? If it's the former, it's a different implementation.
I think you're hearing something other than whats being said. The points I've heard is that attachments have to be handled smarter. In the case of binaries and scripts, that means there should be extra steps required to execute them. The end user should be completely aware of what they're dealing with (which doesn't even get in to the ways one can hide the true nature of a file within common Windows email environments).
I somehow doubt that most email apps on the unix side of things made a conscious choice to save "executables" without setting the executable bit -- executables were probably an oversight that the programmers never accounted for, and how people claim "it's not a bug, it's a feature!".
I don't have problems making it harder to save an executable. Make the user click a checkbox that says "enable execute permissions" or something when they save the file. Making it hard to execute something you save is NOT a security feature. Making ignorant users afraid to user your software is not a security feature either. It just means your UI is poor.
Anything that depends on a poor UI for "security" will be defeated as the user educates themselves. And trust me, when a user "educuates" themselves, they'll learn to do things like "chmod 777 *"...
It seems that the reaction from a Windows-centric viewpoint is that this makes it hard to install software. The misunderstanding is that in a *nix world, installing software generally doesn't involve executable files. They involve a different application handling a binary package - the actual file being transfered is pure data.
It has nothing to do with being hard to install software. It has everything to do with deliberatly cripping it in the name of "security." Why the hell should a computer be hard to for me to use because some schmuck can't tell the difference between a boobs.jpg and a boobs.jpg.exe?
For all the crap people give outlook, the damn thing today with an the option which filters out executable attachments enabled. Yet, the ability to save them is still there for those that really want it. This is the RIGHT way to do it, instead of saying "No, because stupid lusers can't be trusted".
I see office documents attached to emails all the time at work. Our folks make extensive use of network shares, web sites, etc but they just can't get away from using email as another file transfer medium. But having said that - its all documents and data files. No executables.
This would be the usage I would expect 99% of the time.
Seen the memory watches with the USB cable in the wristband?
Actually, I have... those are a bit over the top for my taste. I've got a friend who wants one though...:)
Everyone is always saying that in order to open an attachment in a linux mail app you have to follow 50 different steps, and that complexity is "good" because it makes it hard to open up dangerous attachments. Doesn't matter if it's true or not -- all the linux advocates claim that this is the way their world works.
A poor ui does not good security make.
I personally don't deal with attachments much at all these days. Most emails reference documents inline as network shares. I've got a nifty little usb keychain drive thingy that I use to copy files from home to work, so I don't email things back and forth...
The last mail client I used on unix was pine back in college. And for it, it DID take like 50,000 steps to get a frick'in attachment out of an email... *whimpers in pain from the memory*
Communist countries are 2nd world nations by definition.
Originally "3rd world" was what non-industrialized nations were referred to. There wasn't any such thing and 1st & 2nd world countries. As the 3rd world term became a popular way to refer to non-industrialized (poor) countires, industrialized nations started to be referred to as 1st world countries. With the rise of communism (and the idea that "we" were better than "them"), cold war communist countries were referred to as 2nd world countries.
If I remember right from my poly sci classes in college (which, mind you, were taken several years ago) the distinction is thus:
3rd world countries: generally poor, unindustrialized nations (ex: most of africa and south america) 2nd world countries: communist nations (ex: china) 1st world countries: industrialized/westernized countires (ex: south korea, japan, europpean countries, etc).
There should be some sort of SMTP authentication available. It's present in most mail servers I've seen; I'd have a hard time imagining most ISPs didn't use it...
You've got to pay for that domain somehow...and it's usually done with a credit card. If you can link the credit card to the domain, then it doesn't matter if the domain has valid data in it or not -- you can still track it down to the person who payed for it (when you buy something online you have to enter a billing address for the cc, which is where the "valid" information comes from).
This does of course assume that the card wasn't stolen in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Look up the definition for establishment.
:
Hell, I'll do it for you:
1 : something established : as
a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws
b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH
c : a permanent civil or military organization
d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff
e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as
a : often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation)
b : often capitalized : a controlling group
3
a : the act of establishing
b : the state of being established
The language states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The language does NOT state "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion."
An established religion would be a state sponsored religious organization. This is one of the items "establishment of religion" refers to. An establishment of religion refers to any organized relgious system. The article you refer to fails to make any distinction, and that is the flaw in their logic.
The constitution of the United States essentially lists powers that the CITIZENS of this country grant the federal government. If the government were meant to declare which faith (or general belief system) was right, it would have been clearly enumerated in the constitution. The fact that the constitution was created by people of many different faiths re-inforces the interpretation that NO faith should be promoted above any others (or determined to be the "correct" faith). If that doesn't twist your arm, feel free to read many of the comments the constitutional authors had on the role of religion in government. You won't like them.
If the government "acknowledges" the existance of God, it is promoting certain branches of religion above others. If you're too stupid to see that this is wrong in the land of the free, go spend some time in a country where you don't have the right to decide which faith you want to follow (one that respects a faith other than your own) and tell me that you think that this is a slippery slope we should start to go down.
Actively endorsing the atheistic viewpoint would entail the phrase "under no God".
Not mentioning God isn't an endorsement of atheisim. Actively proclaiming that there is no God would be.
What, you forget about Atari? You C= bastard. :p
I guess that depends on how badly you want the new office apps. :) SA is good for some people. It isn't for others. It isn't like it is the only liscensing option available...(though it may very well be the one that sucks the least...).
The next version of Office is slated to be a Longhorn only release. Considering they just released Office 2k3, and 2006 is just a hair over 2 years away, this isn't an unexpectedly large amount of time between releases.
So I suppose that Win2k3 doesn't count then? Or the next versin of exchange server? Or sharepoint? Or SQLServer? Or DevStudio? All which should arrive before Longhorn ships...
As a side note, SA isn't soley a software liscense program -- it is also a support contract.
It has been proven time and again and again and again that vendors, especially monopoly vendors, will not fix their systems in a timely manner unless they're pressured to. And by "timely manner", I mean within four weeks.
How can 4 weeks be considered a reasonable amount of time to fix a bug and issue a patch when IT people who merely DEPLOY the frick'in patch complain that 4 weeks isn't enough time to deploy a patch?
I'm all for quick turn around, but I wish people would be a bit more consistent with their analasys of the problem...
It's NT 5.2.3790 where 3790 is the build number (which represents the delta [in days] from the date NT was first built to that particular build, if I remember correctly).
Not to mention that the guy running Eolas knew about existing prior art (Viola) and didn't let the pattent office know about it (if you know about possible prior art you have to discose it to the pattent office).
... the judges ruling regarding this motion was amusing, and basically amounts to "I think Eolas knew about Viola, intentionally didn't notify the pattent office about it, lied about knowing on it on the stand, but since they have more to lose in this case than Microsoft I'm going to rule in Eolas's favor")
(MS actually tried to get the case dismissed due to inequitable conduct on the part of Eolas
...it make something happen on someone else's computer in conjunction with IM software in a manner that displays the status of the first user. They key point to this "invention" is that it is supposed to reduce network traffic ($$) over alternative methods. Now, if it's useful or interesting or obvious to you, it doesn't really matter -- the USPO granted it.
"Obvious" is difficult to prove. Mainly because if something is so obvious, the question "well, why didn't anyone do it before now?" arises.
But I would agree that a collection of applications would function as part of the evidence required to show obviousness.
Though most of the applications being referenced here aren't so much different pieces, rather they show the evolution of IM/chat products so I don't think they'd be very useful in demonstrating the "obviousness" (if that is such a word) of this patent.
Displaying the text would be "rendering user input", not "an activity indicator". Even if you did want to argue that they were one in the same, keep in mind the following:
A patent doesn't cover all of those claims individually -- it covers all of those pieces together. The mere fact that something else has an activity indicator (ex: aim) doesn't mean that it applies to this patent (unless they were just patenting the idea of having an activity indicator, which they are not); what matters are the details of that implementation, which is what the patent covers.
For example, not using a timer to govern the activity indicator's display would result in an implementation that does not fall under the patent. Having the client send a "user is not typing" message to remove the activity indicator wouldn't fall under the patent. And so on.
If you can find something that implements ALL aspects of the claim, it would be prior art. If you find a piece of software that implements part of the claim, it is NOT prior art. If you can find a bunch of different pieces of software that fill parts of the claim so that they, in sum, cover the claim, it is NOT prior art.
Don't know anything about powwow, but talk doesn't.
This pattent covers a very specific way of showing activity to the user -- a message at the bottom of the screen "the user is typing"; talk just shows what the user is typing.
You can't figure out what a patent covers from the summary. You just learn enough to know if you should be worried about it.
Does the AIM client send a second message "JoeBob has entered text", or does the receiving client have a timeout used to update the display? If it's the former, it's a different implementation.
I think you're hearing something other than whats being said. The points I've heard is that attachments have to be handled smarter. In the case of binaries and scripts, that means there should be extra steps required to execute them. The end user should be completely aware of what they're dealing with (which doesn't even get in to the ways one can hide the true nature of a file within common Windows email environments).
... those are a bit over the top for my taste. I've got a friend who wants one though ... :)
I somehow doubt that most email apps on the unix side of things made a conscious choice to save "executables" without setting the executable bit -- executables were probably an oversight that the programmers never accounted for, and how people claim "it's not a bug, it's a feature!".
I don't have problems making it harder to save an executable. Make the user click a checkbox that says "enable execute permissions" or something when they save the file. Making it hard to execute something you save is NOT a security feature. Making ignorant users afraid to user your software is not a security feature either. It just means your UI is poor.
Anything that depends on a poor UI for "security" will be defeated as the user educates themselves. And trust me, when a user "educuates" themselves, they'll learn to do things like "chmod 777 *"...
It seems that the reaction from a Windows-centric viewpoint is that this makes it hard to install software. The misunderstanding is that in a *nix world, installing software generally doesn't involve executable files. They involve a different application handling a binary package - the actual file being transfered is pure data.
It has nothing to do with being hard to install software. It has everything to do with deliberatly cripping it in the name of "security." Why the hell should a computer be hard to for me to use because some schmuck can't tell the difference between a boobs.jpg and a boobs.jpg.exe?
For all the crap people give outlook, the damn thing today with an the option which filters out executable attachments enabled. Yet, the ability to save them is still there for those that really want it. This is the RIGHT way to do it, instead of saying "No, because stupid lusers can't be trusted".
I see office documents attached to emails all the time at work. Our folks make extensive use of network shares, web sites, etc but they just can't get away from using email as another file transfer medium. But having said that - its all documents and data files. No executables.
This would be the usage I would expect 99% of the time.
Seen the memory watches with the USB cable in the wristband?
Actually, I have
Another alternative is some sort of webmail access. Exchange 2k3 has a really nice web interface...can't speak for previous versions though.
The big deal with that search is that the query was restricted to sites from "www.google.com" -- and yet it pulled up a page from an adobe domain.
THAT is definately an indication that something in their backend is fucked...
Everyone is always saying that in order to open an attachment in a linux mail app you have to follow 50 different steps, and that complexity is "good" because it makes it hard to open up dangerous attachments. Doesn't matter if it's true or not -- all the linux advocates claim that this is the way their world works.
... *whimpers in pain from the memory*
A poor ui does not good security make.
I personally don't deal with attachments much at all these days. Most emails reference documents inline as network shares. I've got a nifty little usb keychain drive thingy that I use to copy files from home to work, so I don't email things back and forth...
The last mail client I used on unix was pine back in college. And for it, it DID take like 50,000 steps to get a frick'in attachment out of an email
Communist countries are 2nd world nations by definition.
Originally "3rd world" was what non-industrialized nations were referred to. There wasn't any such thing and 1st & 2nd world countries. As the 3rd world term became a popular way to refer to non-industrialized (poor) countires, industrialized nations started to be referred to as 1st world countries. With the rise of communism (and the idea that "we" were better than "them"), cold war communist countries were referred to as 2nd world countries.
Just the way the terms were defined.
An email client is not a program installer. ...and making it hard to do a common task (saving/opening email attachments) is not a security feature.
If I remember right from my poly sci classes in college (which, mind you, were taken several years ago) the distinction is thus:
3rd world countries: generally poor, unindustrialized nations (ex: most of africa and south america)
2nd world countries: communist nations (ex: china)
1st world countries: industrialized/westernized countires (ex: south korea, japan, europpean countries, etc).
There should be some sort of SMTP authentication available. It's present in most mail servers I've seen; I'd have a hard time imagining most ISPs didn't use it...
You've got to pay for that domain somehow...and it's usually done with a credit card. If you can link the credit card to the domain, then it doesn't matter if the domain has valid data in it or not -- you can still track it down to the person who payed for it (when you buy something online you have to enter a billing address for the cc, which is where the "valid" information comes from).
...
This does of course assume that the card wasn't stolen in the first place
...and if your hosting company doesn't, there are very effective solutions to the dynamic ip problem.
Then setup your SPF server to report your ISP's smtp server as a server permitted to send email for your domain.