>>> Cressey added that he couldn't imagine a scenario where the reports would be valuable to terrorists.
How about if the report highlights single points of failure that are a bit dicey already and could be targeted to wipe out the network causing untold damage to businesses.
It didn't exactly take much imagination to come up with that.
All it needs is a large explosion somewhere (not necessarily with any loss of life) added to a communication blackout and you've got pandemonium. Yeah I've heard of landlines, satellite phones and VoIP but these aren't what the majority will use to check up on their relatives and loved ones.
OK. I don't think it's just the Masai; the Nandi for example and the Suri and Hamar that were featured in the "Tribes" series. But I guess that your point probably still stands.
I'd have thought "healthy" cattle would be quite hard to come by.
As others have said.. by linking to this guy you are effectively increasing the PR that his site will achieve as it will leech some from Slashdot (and the myriad other sites/blogs that run this story). This will give his domain a higher rank which can then be passed on to whoever he links to (his customers) which will give his business greater efficacy. It's a pity that you can't provide an anti-link to a site.
Couldn't FF have a feature which would allow the sending of stats (on the users active behest) to Mozilla on the "add-ons" used. That way they could issue a request for stats via the same system that is used to say that updates are available. Then FF could include the most prolifically used add-ons (possible after they've been checked over for stability, compatibility and low resource use).
>>> It's important to know where your raw milk is coming from and the process by which it's being produced.
No doubt. Now I didn't RTFA (gasp!) but this being East Africa you'll recall that oftentimes that milk is mixed with raw blood. Would you really be worried about where the milk came from?
In the series "Tribe" with Bruce Parry (IIRC) he visited with some of these tribes - he had the honour of being served with a stick of blood clots gained by stirring the milk/blood mix (candy-floss style!). Yum!
The classic piece of prior art as taught to UK examiners (it might be UKPO folk-lore!) is that a doggy doorbell, IIRC, was deemed to lack Novelty due to a citation of the Beano (a long running UK comic featuring Dennis-the-Menace and his dog Gnasher as the figurehead characters).
I once had some youths messing about on my roof (which has velux windows - sloped skylights basically). I called the police and they didn't see what the problem was... invasion of privacy, harassment, trespass, potential for criminal damage (by either party!)... I swear unless you sound on the phone like you're being stabbed they just write a post-it and stick it on someone's desk.
Metaphysical notions are also subject to review. However, metaphysics is axiomatic and so review simply causes the opposition of opinions which can't be proved. I think this is the area that Jesus is speaking of when he says (through the author of John's gospel, paraphrasing) "I am the logos" [the word of understanding, the same word that spoke into the darkness to create all things - cf Heraclatus] "I am light of the world, I shine in the darkness".
This is a heliocentric astrolabe style device from about 80BC; an advance from geocentric designs. Yet most people on/. appear to espouse the view that everyone before the middle-ages thought the earth was flat. Now granted - the rotation of planets around a common star doesn't necessarily imply the understanding of rotation of a non-flat planet but as soon as you consider other planets rising and setting you're going to start getting some major clues... really, we've not developed that much.
>>> Thus, if the storyteller performs that same story in public, he is violating the law.
Nonsense. He may be convicted by an ignoramus court but he is not violating the Berne Convention from which I quote:
"Article 11ter Certain Rights in Literary Works: 1. Right of public recitation and of communication to the public of a recitation; 2. In respect of translations
(1) Authors of literary works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
(i) the public recitation of their works, including such public recitation by any means or process;
(ii) any communication to the public of the recitation of their works. "
>>> The person who did the publishing has the copyright for those recordings, not the original storyteller.
Indeed and so the publisher has protection of the recordings - which they can only make with the permission of the storyteller - but not protection over the original work. Aural works are still artistic creations. By making a copy the publisher is potentially breaching the artists rights (unless he has a contract, which could be a "1: can I record you"; 2: "sure" contract). Unless the artist gives up their rights in the original work they're fine. Even if they grant the right to the publisher to reproduce the work electronically they're not giving up their rights as author of the work. That's why you're not allowed to record a live concert (held in private) - you're copying an original artists work.
The Pentium sound for example is a trademark. So an invocation could be a trademark. However you can't effectively sue unless someone using that mark is passing off goods as being from you when they really aren't (or some other nasty things). Just using the mark is not infringement.
>>> "systems" are ineligible for copyright
Maybe a patent then? Though I'm not sure what technical advance has been made.
>>> The article provides a more obvious and rational answer for a profit-motive: This was a joint project with the Chilean government; and the Mapuches have been complaining about the lack of support of their language for a while. Making a government happy with support for a minority language is both politically and commercially wise, because it is more likely for the government to buy windows licenses for the schools/universities/etc, where the Mapuches were complaining they were under-represented.
That's what the parent said. By supporting party B (Mapuches) for a loss they enamour party A (Chile) for a profit. The fact that it's internal to the deal is neither here-nor-there. If they costed the elements of the contract and suggested a saving it could be "ditch Mapudungun" [or whatever it's called]. They couldn't do that and keep the contract though.
I'm curious how do you define custard? What's the depth at which the custard starts? Do you accept the existence of magma - at least in the outer core areas?
I'm with the parent - I believe agnosticism is the default scientific mode. The problem I have is that my experience proves to me God's existence as surely as it proves the existence of a computer in front of me. Sadly that experience is not objectively defensible - until one creates a device to replay memories and establish their verity.
So I believe that the son of God, Jesus died for my sins. But I'm also somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to other minds and existence of an external world. I believe in recent evolution of non-human animals but am agnostic on humans and extended past evolution. I believe that the worlds core is made of molten rock (all the way in!) because it's consistent with my understanding of planetary formation, creation of matter from nuclear stellar reactions and my understanding of creation by God as alluded to in Genesis... sadly I'm dismissive about it being custard because I know that custard is made from milk and cornflour (and other stuff, depending on whether it's packet custard or real egg-custard) and doubt strongly that there is a) enough milk and cornflour ever made to fill the earth; b) a mechanism to conglomerate and bind in earth that much custard; c) assuming gravitational equations to be correct the custard would have to be quite dense... or perhaps it has dark matter mixed in with it.
PS: I look forward to reading your custard-theory in Nature. PPS: Average yearly cow milk yield is now approx 7 KLitres (substantially lower in the past!). Approx volume of the earth (-10% for crust) is about 9.75 * 10e23 litres... this gives 1.4*10^20 cow years. Which I think means it takes a hundred million cows about a million million years to make enough milk. It's going to take a big saucepan. Also where do the cows live?
It's just a localised spherical area of space that causes us to believe otherwise. Sure the world looks like an oblate spheroid and behaves like one for all normal traversals, but if you were small enough you'd be able to slip inside at the point at which it balloons out from an otherwise flat-ish local space.
PS: Scientists can still be good scientists and believe the world is flat. If I'm the best microbiologist that ever lived but believe the world is flat should you discount my awesome understanding of synaptic chemistry?
If it was the other way around and the education system was advocation a religious world-view would you really want teachers to toe-the-line, or would you want them to openly express their beliefs along with the beliefs that they were instructed to purvey.
Try looking up Atheism in a good dictionary. The form of the word gives it away, it's the opposite of believing a god exists, it's believing no god exists. The middle ground (the scientific ground) is called agnosticism. If you've come across any greek words in the past you may recognise the stem "gnost" which indicates something about knowledge, basically I take it to mean "don't know" - this word is used for those that are neither theist nor atheist.
And incidentally physics (the purest science IMHO as a physicist;0) is based on assumptions about basic elements of the universe. We call them axioms they are principles that are accepted as true without rigorous proof. For example Einsteins relativity has the axioms: 1) there is no absolute frame of reference (Lorentz invariance); 2) speed of light is a constant. From these axioms / assumptions we can build time dilation (for example) a measurable effect but we can't certainly say that the axioms are true. Indeed every now and again someone proposes a theory that counters major axioms - like non-constancy of c - which makes things very interesting. Other axioms inhabit a more metaphysical realm, such as existence of other minds, existence of an external reality (brains in vats and all that).
OK. If you take that the Bible is a compendium, or codex, of books then the Bible as we know it is about 1800 years old. However some of the books, I only know about Isaiah were written substantially before Christs life. Isaiah is believed by Christians / Jews to contain many prophecies about Jesus / The Messiah and was written IIRC about 500 years BC.
As you point out you're likely to get a near match with many fingerprints in the national crimes database. However what is not likely is that you'll also match the general description of the criminal for an outstanding unsolved crime... also I imagine the police will need more than just a near-match of an index print to haul you in. You might get a Mondeo or Ford Transit parked outside your house for a day or two though!
>>> The default assumption is they're right, and you're not.
I think I must of been responding to a detected undercurrent... You're right of course. But if I have dated documentary evidence of a pre-existing disclosure before the priority date then in a patent litigation procedure I can question the validity of the patent. I could also apply to the Comptroller (sic) in the UK for a revocation. I gather in the US you can ask for re-examination if you present evidence of invalidity.
>>> anyone who would later be inconvenienced by the patent is supposed to magically know about this
Publication is such that all patent docs are available via eg Espacenet. Companies can subscribe to a DB with all patent applications published in them. You can also get all abstracts in a particular field sent to you by the UK Patent Office as they are published. Granted for private individuals this is no use, but larger companies can keep track quite easily.
>>> whatcha gonna do?
Check if their patent priority date is before I was doing my-thang. If not, I'm OK and I'll represent myself in court and win costs and invalidate their patent. If they do have priority, I'll check the docs and if it looks like I'm infringing then I guess I forestall the proceedings by cease-and-desisting when asked (they could still sue but a sane court will not award damages unless the appellants prove I knew about the patent) or I go for a license.
>>> The only reason they don't do this is because it would come to attention of politics much quicker
And I warrant because they'd start invalidating a lot of their patents and so weaken their position.
I agree completely the big boys just use money to bully the little guys but I don't think this depends much on the validity, or otherwise, of granted patents.
>>> "Patents are considered valid until proven - at great expense - otherwise."
That's actually not true. Patents are a contract between the state and a legal person granting a monopoly in exchange for a disclosure of a novel or non-obvious technical advance.
The technical nature of a patent is examined before the patent is granted. The validity is put into question in terms of the novelty and fullness of the disclosure. Documents are often cited against an application - the applicant must then demonstrate and advance beyond the disclosure of the documents in order to gain a granted patent.
I guess you're right in that if no citations (documentary, pictorial or otherwise) can be found then it is assumed that no citations exist... but I can't see how else you could do it? You'd have to prove things like there not being a disclosure written on a microdot behind my ear... absurd things.
It's like Popper-ian scientific method. Proving validity is hard. Proving invalidity is easy - if you have a good citation.
I'm writing from a UK stand point - but last I looked into it this type of process was carried out in UK, EPO and US. It's easy, however, to be confused by the publication of "A-documents" which give an early disclosure of the subject matter of the application (usually) several years before it is granted or refused.
Slashdot Mirror
>>> Cressey added that he couldn't imagine a scenario where the reports would be valuable to terrorists.
How about if the report highlights single points of failure that are a bit dicey already and could be targeted to wipe out the network causing untold damage to businesses.
It didn't exactly take much imagination to come up with that.
All it needs is a large explosion somewhere (not necessarily with any loss of life) added to a communication blackout and you've got pandemonium. Yeah I've heard of landlines, satellite phones and VoIP but these aren't what the majority will use to check up on their relatives and loved ones.
>>> Fresh blood out of healthy living cattle
m l
OK. I don't think it's just the Masai; the Nandi for example and the Suri and Hamar that were featured in the "Tribes" series. But I guess that your point probably still stands.
I'd have thought "healthy" cattle would be quite hard to come by.
----
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/tribes/hamar/index.sht
As others have said .. by linking to this guy you are effectively increasing the PR that his site will achieve as it will leech some from Slashdot (and the myriad other sites/blogs that run this story). This will give his domain a higher rank which can then be passed on to whoever he links to (his customers) which will give his business greater efficacy. It's a pity that you can't provide an anti-link to a site.
pbhj
Couldn't FF have a feature which would allow the sending of stats (on the users active behest) to Mozilla on the "add-ons" used. That way they could issue a request for stats via the same system that is used to say that updates are available. Then FF could include the most prolifically used add-ons (possible after they've been checked over for stability, compatibility and low resource use).
Just a thought.
pbhj
>>> It's important to know where your raw milk is coming from and the process by which it's being produced.
No doubt. Now I didn't RTFA (gasp!) but this being East Africa you'll recall that oftentimes that milk is mixed with raw blood. Would you really be worried about where the milk came from?
In the series "Tribe" with Bruce Parry (IIRC) he visited with some of these tribes - he had the honour of being served with a stick of blood clots gained by stirring the milk/blood mix (candy-floss style!). Yum!
The classic piece of prior art as taught to UK examiners (it might be UKPO folk-lore!) is that a doggy doorbell, IIRC, was deemed to lack Novelty due to a citation of the Beano (a long running UK comic featuring Dennis-the-Menace and his dog Gnasher as the figurehead characters).
s 6_patent.html for tentative corroboration.
See http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/PD/sw/IP/st_right
I once had some youths messing about on my roof (which has velux windows - sloped skylights basically). I called the police and they didn't see what the problem was ... invasion of privacy, harassment, trespass, potential for criminal damage (by either party!) ... I swear unless you sound on the phone like you're being stabbed they just write a post-it and stick it on someone's desk.
Tau-neutrino.
...err yeah, pressure-frozen molten rock in places ;0)>
If you let it out it's molten or custard, I forget which.
chuckle...
>>> They are subject to peer review.
2 01:1-5;&version=46;
Metaphysical notions are also subject to review. However, metaphysics is axiomatic and so review simply causes the opposition of opinions which can't be proved. I think this is the area that Jesus is speaking of when he says (through the author of John's gospel, paraphrasing) "I am the logos" [the word of understanding, the same word that spoke into the darkness to create all things - cf Heraclatus] "I am light of the world, I shine in the darkness".
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
I find it amusing.
/. appear to espouse the view that everyone before the middle-ages thought the earth was flat. Now granted - the rotation of planets around a common star doesn't necessarily imply the understanding of rotation of a non-flat planet but as soon as you consider other planets rising and setting you're going to start getting some major clues ... really, we've not developed that much.
This is a heliocentric astrolabe style device from about 80BC; an advance from geocentric designs. Yet most people on
I guess at 1:43am I'm easily amused!
>>> Thus, if the storyteller performs that same story in public, he is violating the law.
Nonsense. He may be convicted by an ignoramus court but he is not violating the Berne Convention from which I quote:
"Article 11ter
Certain Rights in Literary Works:
1. Right of public recitation and of communication to the public of a recitation; 2. In respect of translations
(1) Authors of literary works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
(i) the public recitation of their works, including such public recitation by any means or process;
(ii) any communication to the public of the recitation of their works.
"
>>> The person who did the publishing has the copyright for those recordings, not the original storyteller.
Indeed and so the publisher has protection of the recordings - which they can only make with the permission of the storyteller - but not protection over the original work. Aural works are still artistic creations. By making a copy the publisher is potentially breaching the artists rights (unless he has a contract, which could be a "1: can I record you"; 2: "sure" contract). Unless the artist gives up their rights in the original work they're fine. Even if they grant the right to the publisher to reproduce the work electronically they're not giving up their rights as author of the work. That's why you're not allowed to record a live concert (held in private) - you're copying an original artists work.
IANA-Copyright-L.
The Pentium sound for example is a trademark. So an invocation could be a trademark. However you can't effectively sue unless someone using that mark is passing off goods as being from you when they really aren't (or some other nasty things). Just using the mark is not infringement.
>>> "systems" are ineligible for copyright
Maybe a patent then? Though I'm not sure what technical advance has been made.
>>> The article provides a more obvious and rational answer for a profit-motive:
This was a joint project with the Chilean government; and the Mapuches have been complaining about the lack of support of their language for a while.
Making a government happy with support for a minority language is both politically and commercially wise, because it is more likely for the government to buy windows licenses for the schools/universities/etc, where the Mapuches were complaining they were under-represented.
That's what the parent said. By supporting party B (Mapuches) for a loss they enamour party A (Chile) for a profit. The fact that it's internal to the deal is neither here-nor-there. If they costed the elements of the contract and suggested a saving it could be "ditch Mapudungun" [or whatever it's called]. They couldn't do that and keep the contract though.
I'm curious how do you define custard? What's the depth at which the custard starts? Do you accept the existence of magma - at least in the outer core areas?
... sadly I'm dismissive about it being custard because I know that custard is made from milk and cornflour (and other stuff, depending on whether it's packet custard or real egg-custard) and doubt strongly that there is a) enough milk and cornflour ever made to fill the earth; b) a mechanism to conglomerate and bind in earth that much custard; c) assuming gravitational equations to be correct the custard would have to be quite dense ... or perhaps it has dark matter mixed in with it.
... this gives 1.4*10^20 cow years. Which I think means it takes a hundred million cows about a million million years to make enough milk. It's going to take a big saucepan. Also where do the cows live?
I'm with the parent - I believe agnosticism is the default scientific mode. The problem I have is that my experience proves to me God's existence as surely as it proves the existence of a computer in front of me. Sadly that experience is not objectively defensible - until one creates a device to replay memories and establish their verity.
So I believe that the son of God, Jesus died for my sins. But I'm also somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to other minds and existence of an external world. I believe in recent evolution of non-human animals but am agnostic on humans and extended past evolution. I believe that the worlds core is made of molten rock (all the way in!) because it's consistent with my understanding of planetary formation, creation of matter from nuclear stellar reactions and my understanding of creation by God as alluded to in Genesis
PS: I look forward to reading your custard-theory in Nature.
PPS: Average yearly cow milk yield is now approx 7 KLitres (substantially lower in the past!). Approx volume of the earth (-10% for crust) is about 9.75 * 10e23 litres
[chuckle]
e tation) then their is an atheist hell.
I guess under the many-worlds interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpr
It's just a localised spherical area of space that causes us to believe otherwise. Sure the world looks like an oblate spheroid and behaves like one for all normal traversals, but if you were small enough you'd be able to slip inside at the point at which it balloons out from an otherwise flat-ish local space.
PS: Scientists can still be good scientists and believe the world is flat. If I'm the best microbiologist that ever lived but believe the world is flat should you discount my awesome understanding of synaptic chemistry?
If it was the other way around and the education system was advocation a religious world-view would you really want teachers to toe-the-line, or would you want them to openly express their beliefs along with the beliefs that they were instructed to purvey.
Just asking.
Hmmm, is this a troll.
;0) is based on assumptions about basic elements of the universe. We call them axioms they are principles that are accepted as true without rigorous proof. For example Einsteins relativity has the axioms: 1) there is no absolute frame of reference (Lorentz invariance); 2) speed of light is a constant. From these axioms / assumptions we can build time dilation (for example) a measurable effect but we can't certainly say that the axioms are true. Indeed every now and again someone proposes a theory that counters major axioms - like non-constancy of c - which makes things very interesting. Other axioms inhabit a more metaphysical realm, such as existence of other minds, existence of an external reality (brains in vats and all that).
i oms/node3.html .
... please point out the flaws in my argument, there are several.
Try looking up Atheism in a good dictionary. The form of the word gives it away, it's the opposite of believing a god exists, it's believing no god exists. The middle ground (the scientific ground) is called agnosticism. If you've come across any greek words in the past you may recognise the stem "gnost" which indicates something about knowledge, basically I take it to mean "don't know" - this word is used for those that are neither theist nor atheist.
And incidentally physics (the purest science IMHO as a physicist
So are axioms true? It depends what you believe. You can't prove them. There's a very readable account at http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/ax
Sorry, I've gone off on one I think
HTH
OK. If you take that the Bible is a compendium, or codex, of books then the Bible as we know it is about 1800 years old. However some of the books, I only know about Isaiah were written substantially before Christs life. Isaiah is believed by Christians / Jews to contain many prophecies about Jesus / The Messiah and was written IIRC about 500 years BC.
Informative?
Cheers.
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible gives an estimate of 1500 years BC for the Pentateuch (first 5 books of Old Testament).
>> ... anyone here ... ?
I don't know why your asking there's only you here.
As you point out you're likely to get a near match with many fingerprints in the national crimes database. However what is not likely is that you'll also match the general description of the criminal for an outstanding unsolved crime ... also I imagine the police will need more than just a near-match of an index print to haul you in. You might get a Mondeo or Ford Transit parked outside your house for a day or two though!
>>> The default assumption is they're right, and you're not.
... You're right of course. But if I have dated documentary evidence of a pre-existing disclosure before the priority date then in a patent litigation procedure I can question the validity of the patent. I could also apply to the Comptroller (sic) in the UK for a revocation. I gather in the US you can ask for re-examination if you present evidence of invalidity.
I think I must of been responding to a detected undercurrent
>>> anyone who would later be inconvenienced by the patent is supposed to magically know about this
Publication is such that all patent docs are available via eg Espacenet. Companies can subscribe to a DB with all patent applications published in them. You can also get all abstracts in a particular field sent to you by the UK Patent Office as they are published. Granted for private individuals this is no use, but larger companies can keep track quite easily.
>>> whatcha gonna do?
Check if their patent priority date is before I was doing my-thang. If not, I'm OK and I'll represent myself in court and win costs and invalidate their patent. If they do have priority, I'll check the docs and if it looks like I'm infringing then I guess I forestall the proceedings by cease-and-desisting when asked (they could still sue but a sane court will not award damages unless the appellants prove I knew about the patent) or I go for a license.
>>> The only reason they don't do this is because it would come to attention of politics much quicker
And I warrant because they'd start invalidating a lot of their patents and so weaken their position.
I agree completely the big boys just use money to bully the little guys but I don't think this depends much on the validity, or otherwise, of granted patents.
>>> "Patents are considered valid until proven - at great expense - otherwise."
... but I can't see how else you could do it? You'd have to prove things like there not being a disclosure written on a microdot behind my ear ... absurd things.
That's actually not true. Patents are a contract between the state and a legal person granting a monopoly in exchange for a disclosure of a novel or non-obvious technical advance.
The technical nature of a patent is examined before the patent is granted. The validity is put into question in terms of the novelty and fullness of the disclosure. Documents are often cited against an application - the applicant must then demonstrate and advance beyond the disclosure of the documents in order to gain a granted patent.
I guess you're right in that if no citations (documentary, pictorial or otherwise) can be found then it is assumed that no citations exist
It's like Popper-ian scientific method. Proving validity is hard. Proving invalidity is easy - if you have a good citation.
I'm writing from a UK stand point - but last I looked into it this type of process was carried out in UK, EPO and US. It's easy, however, to be confused by the publication of "A-documents" which give an early disclosure of the subject matter of the application (usually) several years before it is granted or refused.
>>> When did stupidity stop being a valid reason?
I've always been told that "ignorance is no excuse under the law"; so, the answer is "a long time ago"!