It would be kinda nice if they where required to get the sign off of a judge before submitting a pre-settlement offer. But thats just not how civil cases work. More's the pity, but often the defendant in a civil case needs to go to court and ask for a dismissal if the person leveling the suite has no actual grounds. Just doing so can cost a fair amount, so it boils down to "pay us or we'll sue you can it'll cost more".
That is one of my pet peeves about these frivolous lawsuits. The amount of time/money it can cost to go against an empire with limitless resources seems very prohibitive. Who can afford it? Basically you are damned if you go after them and damned if you don'y (financially).
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed. Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed. There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
Of course if it was granted, it would be licensed so it would not stop spam. But......
the licensee of the patents would be identifiable, hopefully allowing the identification of the spammers.
Judging by the disregard spammers already show for the law and how far they go to cloak their identities I highly doubt that this patent would have dented the market if it had been upheld.
But dont i have a resonable expectation of privacy for my facebook
it is not publicly searchable, only certain people on my friends list (Access Control List) can see the information i share
this would make it more like an email communication medium, not a public information source?
It may not be publicly searchable but I do not think that alone guarantees you it will remain private. If it is requested in certain ways it will be revealed.
Second point: I had my first hands-on with Windows 7 today. I'm somewhat bewildered. In what way is this not Vista 1.1? Sure, okay, there are some cosmetic changes to the taskbar but really, I fail to find anything revolutionary. Certainly nothing that justifies the same folks who've said all along that Vista was "bad" to say that 7 is "awesome". Is a slight reduction in UAC prompts really enough?
I think that MS did that intentionally. Vista was such a pain because it was such a sharp break from XP. Porting any reasonably complex application from XP to Vista is a difficult task; especially if that application has existed since the 9x days. I think MS is trying to do smaller more incremental releases now.
The biggest worry to me is the line "...not to disclose the request". They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels. But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.
Well, obviously a valuable tool for finding bugs is a valuable tool for improving software. But perhaps not by itself.
You are right. This tool does help developers find bugs.
I guess my beef is the claim of the headline that this software will fix bugs and bypass the source code. It does highlight and cut off potential vulnerabilities without accessing the source code. But it does not "fix" anything and may cut off legitimate uses of the software. It just gives you notice and a dirty work around until a real fix can be developed and deployed.
The program does not really "fix software bugs" at all. What it does is notice if a program starts taking an abnormal code path. The "normality" of a path is based on how the program operates. If a program starts taking an abnormal path then it is terminated.
This is good in preventing an attack or code injection. But as far as bug fixing nothing could be further from the truth. Some developer still needs to look at the assembly generated to identify the bad path taken, find that place in the code, figure out how the program got there, apply a fix, test the fix, then deploy the new application. If anything this is a QA tool for software to avoid attacks.
A valuable tool for exposing bugs. Bug as far as actually improving software I do not see it.
Dell's business computers can be ordered plain vanilla or without the OS loaded, if you wish. I always recommend their business line, whether the person asking is a business or home user.
Business lines can be expensive though and hard to justify to a home user who surfs the web three times a week.
It is unfortunate but this is how PC manufacturers make most of there money.
Here we say "just build your own" but to most of the world that is not an option. They have no choice but ot buy a pre-build system and manufacturers have realized that. People will be pissed off if you laden their machine with malware but they will not stop buying it.
The problem is that when computers get to that point, they won't do what you want, they'll do what *they* (and the people who made them) want.
I think that is one of the big hurdles for Linux adaption in mainstream society. People don't want an O(1) scheduler. They don't want nifty commands. They don't to fiddle with things. They just want it to work with the least effort on their part.
Security is only one of many issues that could be vastly improved if people cared more than they currently do.
I think you have identified the major problem with security: people do not care. They do not want to spend time setting up a firewall, evaluating sites, or patching a system. They want a computer to be like a toaster: you take it out of the box and it works right away. And it keeps working with no intervention. Until computers get to that point it will be a continual problem.
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
Yes, yes, it does sound like a steaming pile. But reading the article they compared people yelling profanities with other people "chanting neutral words". Both subjects had their hands immersed in cold water. It sounds like have an outlet to relieve stress has a lot more to do with the outcome then whatever they said.
What limitations exist in current solutions that justifying developing a new one from scratch ?
Exactly! Too often people just jump in and redo everything without actually investigating what needs to be fixed. Quote from George Santayana "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it,' seems very appros here.
They set up a system that required multiple credentials to transfer money, but one of those credentials could be used to reset the other? Give me a break!
To be fair the article says that the malware created the direct connection. The direct connection was probably not there by default.
The case of Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. was one of the first of it kind and set an important precedent for online BBS. In that case CompuServe was sued because they hosted a BBS where defamatory content was posted. The court rules that although CompuServe provided the medium they were not responsible for the content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby_v._CompuServe).
"Experimental" generally means "full of tons of bugs."
Not necessarily. Recently companies have been redefining what words like "experimental", "beta", and "release" mean. Just look at GMail (the obvious example).
My main point is that the software may not be as bad as we think.
Unfortunately I suspect that the billions of people in Chine will be too big a market for a company like Google to pass up. A non-profit company like wikipedia may refuse to censor but I doubt you will get a similar response from a for-profit business. That big a market is too big to pass up.
Painting the hundreds of thousands of editors and millions of readers as "idiots" may be a little extreme. Some wikipedia pages provide an excellent reference. And especially where readers do not pay for the info that they receive I think we need to relax a bit. In terms of value wikipedia is one of the best deals on the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be kinda nice if they where required to get the sign off of a judge before submitting a pre-settlement offer. But thats just not how civil cases work. More's the pity, but often the defendant in a civil case needs to go to court and ask for a dismissal if the person leveling the suite has no actual grounds. Just doing so can cost a fair amount, so it boils down to "pay us or we'll sue you can it'll cost more".
That is one of my pet peeves about these frivolous lawsuits. The amount of time/money it can cost to go against an empire with limitless resources seems very prohibitive. Who can afford it? Basically you are damned if you go after them and damned if you don'y (financially).
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed. Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed. There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
early adopters of prototypes experienced problems?
I personally will wait until at lease the first service pack.
Of course if it was granted, it would be licensed so it would not stop spam. But...... the licensee of the patents would be identifiable, hopefully allowing the identification of the spammers.
Judging by the disregard spammers already show for the law and how far they go to cloak their identities I highly doubt that this patent would have dented the market if it had been upheld.
But dont i have a resonable expectation of privacy for my facebook it is not publicly searchable, only certain people on my friends list (Access Control List) can see the information i share this would make it more like an email communication medium, not a public information source?
It may not be publicly searchable but I do not think that alone guarantees you it will remain private. If it is requested in certain ways it will be revealed.
snip
Second point: I had my first hands-on with Windows 7 today. I'm somewhat bewildered. In what way is this not Vista 1.1? Sure, okay, there are some cosmetic changes to the taskbar but really, I fail to find anything revolutionary. Certainly nothing that justifies the same folks who've said all along that Vista was "bad" to say that 7 is "awesome". Is a slight reduction in UAC prompts really enough?
I think that MS did that intentionally. Vista was such a pain because it was such a sharp break from XP. Porting any reasonably complex application from XP to Vista is a difficult task; especially if that application has existed since the 9x days. I think MS is trying to do smaller more incremental releases now.
I wonder how many of those are people who bought Windows 7 and how many are just people who bought a computer that came with Windows 7?
I guess that the important this is that this process will make a dent in the spammers processes.
Until now attempts to actually trace and shut down have not been fruitful. I think the face that something was done is very positive.
The biggest worry to me is the line "...not to disclose the request". They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels. But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.
Well, obviously a valuable tool for finding bugs is a valuable tool for improving software. But perhaps not by itself.
You are right. This tool does help developers find bugs.
I guess my beef is the claim of the headline that this software will fix bugs and bypass the source code. It does highlight and cut off potential vulnerabilities without accessing the source code. But it does not "fix" anything and may cut off legitimate uses of the software. It just gives you notice and a dirty work around until a real fix can be developed and deployed.
The program does not really "fix software bugs" at all. What it does is notice if a program starts taking an abnormal code path. The "normality" of a path is based on how the program operates. If a program starts taking an abnormal path then it is terminated.
This is good in preventing an attack or code injection. But as far as bug fixing nothing could be further from the truth. Some developer still needs to look at the assembly generated to identify the bad path taken, find that place in the code, figure out how the program got there, apply a fix, test the fix, then deploy the new application. If anything this is a QA tool for software to avoid attacks.
A valuable tool for exposing bugs. Bug as far as actually improving software I do not see it.
Dell's business computers can be ordered plain vanilla or without the OS loaded, if you wish. I always recommend their business line, whether the person asking is a business or home user.
Business lines can be expensive though and hard to justify to a home user who surfs the web three times a week.
It is unfortunate but this is how PC manufacturers make most of there money.
Here we say "just build your own" but to most of the world that is not an option. They have no choice but ot buy a pre-build system and manufacturers have realized that. People will be pissed off if you laden their machine with malware but they will not stop buying it.
The problem is that when computers get to that point, they won't do what you want, they'll do what *they* (and the people who made them) want.
I think that is one of the big hurdles for Linux adaption in mainstream society. People don't want an O(1) scheduler. They don't want nifty commands. They don't to fiddle with things. They just want it to work with the least effort on their part.
Security is only one of many issues that could be vastly improved if people cared more than they currently do.
I think you have identified the major problem with security: people do not care. They do not want to spend time setting up a firewall, evaluating sites, or patching a system. They want a computer to be like a toaster: you take it out of the box and it works right away. And it keeps working with no intervention. Until computers get to that point it will be a continual problem.
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
I call bullshit...
Yes, yes, it does sound like a steaming pile. But reading the article they compared people yelling profanities with other people "chanting neutral words". Both subjects had their hands immersed in cold water. It sounds like have an outlet to relieve stress has a lot more to do with the outcome then whatever they said.
What limitations exist in current solutions that justifying developing a new one from scratch ?
Exactly! Too often people just jump in and redo everything without actually investigating what needs to be fixed. Quote from George Santayana "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it,' seems very appros here.
They set up a system that required multiple credentials to transfer money, but one of those credentials could be used to reset the other? Give me a break!
To be fair the article says that the malware created the direct connection. The direct connection was probably not there by default.
The case of Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. was one of the first of it kind and set an important precedent for online BBS. In that case CompuServe was sued because they hosted a BBS where defamatory content was posted. The court rules that although CompuServe provided the medium they were not responsible for the content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby_v._CompuServe).
"Experimental" generally means "full of tons of bugs."
Not necessarily. Recently companies have been redefining what words like "experimental", "beta", and "release" mean. Just look at GMail (the obvious example).
My main point is that the software may not be as bad as we think.
Seems like the classic example. More people are right handed then left handed, left handed people are more assertive.. who knows.
To hell with China.
Unfortunately I suspect that the billions of people in Chine will be too big a market for a company like Google to pass up. A non-profit company like wikipedia may refuse to censor but I doubt you will get a similar response from a for-profit business. That big a market is too big to pass up.
Painting the hundreds of thousands of editors and millions of readers as "idiots" may be a little extreme. Some wikipedia pages provide an excellent reference. And especially where readers do not pay for the info that they receive I think we need to relax a bit. In terms of value wikipedia is one of the best deals on the Internet.
The clinical trial page linked off the main page of the submission has a list: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00890500
Right now I guess they do not know which one helped, just that it was one of them did.