Notice that, if this account was posting on a Canadian website post-C-30, the RCMP or CSIS would be able to compel the site to reveal the poster's private IP/email address, and the ISP then compelled to provide an address and name.
There's a reason why this bill should not pass. A chilling effect on dissenting speech is not a good thing.
(Yes, the Twitter account attacking Toews and his divorced wife is tacky, but Toews himself has been extremely tacky and hypocritical in general, and is outright threatening Canadian's privacy and freedom right now. Plus, all of this stuff is in the public record, so I fail to see any legal issues here.
As it is right now, all we know is that a newspaper says they've tracked it to the House of Commons, and they did that on their own using the ol' "send them a link to your server, then watch the logs for an access" trick. If it is a criminal problem, a judge can issue a subpoena, as far as I can tell.)
How does nonsense like this get modded up? I'm bored, I'll have a go:
> all including the cult of "science". To discriminate would not be "scientific"
You're forgetting this is/. -- they aren't simply not interested in accepting that Science has Faith and will cry out heresy the instant you show them they worship Pseudo-Skeptics.
Of course it doesn't. Science requires belief that Scientific inquiry actually results in an explanation of reality. However, this isn't faith. We have actual evidence that Science works (that is, the body of Scientific Knowledge), and no one seems to be able to bring criticism to its basic philosophical underpinnings. Certain sciences are rightly criticized, but the idea as a whole stands strong.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can not be created nor destroyed, only change its form. <-- This right here is the "God" of Science. (Religion states "God (always) was, is, and will be. He/she can not be created nor destroyed. God simply exists, or "is".) By this Law the [physical] universe must have _always_ existed in some form or another.
That's actually a problem that Science is trying to solve. The Zero-energy hypothesis states that the Universe actually has net zero energy; it all cancels out in the large scale.
The universe is digital. This is currently a problem because scientists have no way to measure anything smaller then the Planck Scale nor measure anything that travels faster then the Speed of Light.
Current models don't allow for either thing, and we've never been able to make any observations to the contrary. If we found a way to measure them, we'd know they were allowed (or if we knew they ought to be allowed, we'd look for a way of measuring them). Again, Science in action; this is just how reality looks, we haven't made anything up.
Since humans have only inspected < %0.00000001 of the universe they are forced to take these things on faith.
> The problem with "science" and it's religious followers (see: Nearly all/.ers) is that it only accounts for what is provable now with no consideration that other factors
There aren't proofs in science. Proofs are for math and logic. Yes, Science is limited to what we can make direct or indirect observations of. Talking about other things is also known as "talking out of your ass".
Science is a subtractive model. You can never "create" truth -- you can never "prove truth" -- you can only subtract falsehood. i.e. You keep removing _errors_, and what is (hopefully) left is truth. Why? Because of the paradox of truth! one Truth does not negate another Truth, but Truth will remove Falsehood.
Again, proofs aren't part of Science. We can't create a Truth. This isn't a problem. This merely acknowledges that we are not perfect, nor are our theories.
This doesn't mean that Science is purely subtractive. Part of the Scientific Method is Hypothesis. A hypothesis creates a conjecture that we can test. Eventually, some conjectures are tested, refined, tested again, and become generally accepted as Theories. A new theory is a new thing. It didn't exist in our body of knowledge before. That is more certainly additive.
What makes Science a Cult is that espouses "There is only ONE way to know the Truth" and refuses to to acknowledge other ways.
Science espouses that the best way to learn about reality is to learn about it from reality, rather than making things up. And it's born out pretty well. Please do explain your "superior" alternatives.
Ironically since Time is meta-physical
Time is physical. It's part of the physical world, modified
Despite these differences, both protocols induced similar increases (P < 0.05) in mitochondrial markers for skeletal muscle CHO (pyruvate dehydrogenase E1alpha protein content) and lipid oxidation (3-hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase maximal activity) and protein content of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma coactivator-1alpha. Glycogen and phosphocreatine utilization during exercise were reduced after training, and calculated rates of whole-body CHO and lipid oxidation were decreased and increased, respectively, with no differences between groups (all main effects, P < 0.05).
BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US.
And that's why US children no longer get a smallpox or polio vaccine. When the disease has been eradicated, we don't vaccinate against it anymore. However, the stuff we're still vaccinating for is still kicking, and that's why we still vaccinate for it!
Polio is still alive. There are still outbreaks elsewhere, and it could make a resurgence in the West if we stop vaccinating for it. Unfortunately, there's been recent resistance to the vaccine that's granted the disease a bit of a comeback in Africa; in Nigeria there are local Muslim clerics who accuse it of being a Western plot to sterilise their women.
Maybe it's the difference between the US and Europe, but here in Europe, not all doctors recommend all available vaccines. I wouldn't trust my doctor if he would recommend that I (or my children) get a vaccine against flue for example.
If your doctor recommended a flu shot, he/she thinks you're in an at-risk group. Influenza is not a harmless infection, it kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in a typical (non-pandemic) year.
Now, I've lived in the US for some time and I've been shocked by the amount of drugs people take everytime they feel somewhat bad. I think there is a middleground between the "listen to your body, it will cure cancer by itself" bullshit and the "omg, I have a headache, let's eat these 3 pills". Same for vaccine.
A flu vaccine isn't like antibiotics or painkillers or anti-depressants or other drugs that may be harmful is needlessly prescribed. A vaccine introduces your immune system to a foreign element, which it then remembers so, if introduced to it again (in a live virus), it will be able to attack it more immediately. Getting a flu vaccine needlessly isn't going to weaken you or cause you to be more likely to be sick.
Water management comes down to, if you want more water available to use you need to have swamps, the natural way for the land to store (and clean) water without evaporative loses or unfairly keeping water from your neighbors. Ironically they are the very thing farmers have been doing their best to get rid of.
The loss of swamps, sloughs, and wetlands in Manitoba (and upstream), and the installation of drainage ditches everywhere was largely responsible for our flooding this last year; that flooding is no doubt occur again and again unless we find a way to fix our mess. It's all totally trashed Lake Winnipeg too.
People are calling this warrantless wiretapping are simply wrong. If you read the actual bill - not what some talking heads are saying - any production of data requires judicial oversight
Except for personally identifying subscriber information including name, phone number, address, email address, and IP address. Which is what many of the bigger critics, including Open Media, seem to be railing against.
if people insist on campaigning against it with outright falsehoods, you're going to look very silly - and undermine your own cause in the long run
Very true. I get annoyed when people just blindly repeat what they hear about a bills like this. The content is openly available on the parliament's website. Our laws also tend to be surprisingly easy to read.
And I should have worded the opening here not as "not only that", since that's not... accurate (did I actually read your post?). The bill requires that all TSPs have the ability to record everything (and allows for inspectors to enter any TSP to perform an inspection, with few restrictions on what they can do, which is a bit concerning). It doesn't actually require recording everything, and doesn't allow it without a warrant...
"Persons designated under subsection (3)" are any police officers (municipal, provincial, or RCMP), CSIS, or the Commissioner of Competition.
I saw something quoted from the bill earlier about what sort of police counts that included "or provincial or foreign jurdisdiction". Could persons designated under subsection (3) include the FBI? the CIA? The guys in charge of oppression in China?
Not exactly. The designated persons are:
The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.
However, the request can be made by those designated persons...
only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function
(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;
(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or
(c) of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.
So the FBI can request that the RCMP do this; if the RCMP agrees, then the ISP must comply. Even if it's a foreign-originated request for a foreign crime, no warrant is required.
The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...
Not only that. One of the most important parts of the bill that's being opposed is in section 16 of the proposed act:
16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.
Anonymity can now be killed without a warrant. "Persons designated under subsection (3)" are any police officers (municipal, provincial, or RCMP), CSIS, or the Commissioner of Competition.
Actually, wouldn't it be possible to delete the app if you just have root? I'll admit to not having tried it;)
Or you could rename it, then hide it behind a password in your custom launcher (unless the settings button doesn't target a specific app, but an action that happens to be registered to Settings)
So randomly varied gameplay counts as plot? That's probably a different definition than everyone else is using, and it's interesting.
I play 4X strategy games. I don't play online. They don't wear thin, because things are different every time. They also don't strictly have a "plot" as it's normally understood. I can make one up as I go, but it's not in writing.
That's because your physical switch is a physical switch. On a computer with a flat screenm you need to use an image if you want to graphically represent something, including a switch.
Yes, which is why the patent isn't anticipated by a physical lock switch.
But is why it ought to be, and why many of us are opposed to this type of nonsense. Attaching "on an internet device" or "on a mobile phone" or "on a touch screen" to an old idea shouldn't be enough to get a patent.
And, as I said, that is not a patent on "a sliding lock switch". You may describe it that way generally, but it's a patent on a very specific implementation of a method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device. The sliding lock switch on a bathroom stall, for example, does not infringe that claim. Therefore, the claim is not on "a sliding lock switch".
I already went over the claims. I didn't say it's a patent on *all* switches; it's a patent on an analogue for a specific type of physical switch. But that specific type of switch has been used on electronics for years.
I said "Apple didn't get a patent on 'a sliding lock switch'" and you immediately retorted that "yes, they had". Now, you admit that it's not a patent that covers all sliding lock switches. Okay, then I think we're finally in agreement and are done here.
I was obviously talking about the sliding lock switches on many pieces of electronics, which are exactly of this form. I wasn't talking about bathroom stalls. I wasn't talking about sliders.
So you agree that they got a patent on an obvious analogue for a type of physical switch that has existed for years. Great. Like I said, this is a straight, unimaginative computer representation of that type of switch. There are no specific limitations of the claims in the patent that would not have to be met by any touch screen analogue of that type of switch.
Not necessarily. For example, here's a different analog of a physical sliding switch.
That's an analogue of a different type of sliding switch. And one which would be just as ridiculous to hold a patent for.
Secondly, take a look at the claim:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Well, that's just a straight-up definition of what a lock switch would look like on a touch screen. It's a sliding switch that slides if you slide it. Whoopdeefuckingdo.
Last time I looked a physical sliding lock switch, it didn't have an image on it that moved when I touch it. Same thing with my portable radio, or even the sliding lock switch on an iPod. Plus, they tend to lock or unlock when a switch makes a contact, not when an image moves from one predefined location to another one.
That's because your physical switch is a physical switch. On a computer with a flat screenm you need to use an image if you want to graphically represent something, including a switch.
And, as I said, that is not a patent on "a sliding lock switch". You may describe it that way generally, but it's a patent on a very specific implementation of a method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device. The sliding lock switch on a bathroom stall, for example, does not infringe that claim. Therefore, the claim is not on "a sliding lock switch".
I already went over the claims. I didn't say it's a patent on *all* switches; it's a patent on an analogue for a specific type of physical switch. But that specific type of switch has been used on electronics for years.
No, it does help... in that Apple couldn't get a patent on "a sliding lock switch." The claims at issue have several specific limitations, however, which aren't met by a physical sliding lock switch - images sliding between two locations, etc. You could potentially combine the physical sliding lock switch with other art to show obviousness, but the sliding lock switch alone doesn't show everything in the claims.
No, that's exactly what they got a patent on. They got a patent on an obvious touchscreen analogue to the physical sliding lock switch that already existed on several electronics previous to this. My portable radio has one. My old MP3 player has one. Apple's claims are exactly what you'd need to do to implement an analogue for that type of switch. There's nothing original or non-obvious in them at all.
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Well, that's just a straight-up definition of what a lock switch would look like on a touch screen. It's a sliding switch that slides if you slide it. Whoopdeefuckingdo.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along any desired path.
Left-to-right?
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along a predefined channel from the first predefined location to the predefined unlock region.
Again, this is what a physical slider switch does. It moves from a locked position, along a channel to an unlocked one.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.
A slider switch that looks like a slider switch will violate this. So imaginative.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the visual cues comprise text.
I guess the physical ones don't usually have this (though they may in the instruction manual), but I wouldn't on-screen instructions imaginative or in any way non-obvious.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein said visual cues comprise an arrow indicating a general direction of movement.
Bloody hell
7. A portable electronic device, comprising:
a touch-sensitive display; memory; one or more processors; and one or more modules stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more modules including instructions: to detect a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; to move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact while continuous contact with the touch-sensitive display is maintained; and to unlock the hand-held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display. 8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions to display visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.
9. The device of claim 8, wherein the visual cues comprise text.
Prove it. Show us prior art that existed at the time Apple filed the patent application that does each and every element in the claims. That it's publicly known now is irrelevant.
I know it won't count, but we did have physical sliding lock switches before this patent application was filed. Apple's sliding image is pretty much a straight, unimaginative computer representation of that.
Now talk to them about matters which intersect with their religion in any way whatsoever. Suddenly Science no longer applies, and we're back to irrationality.
Now do the same with an imam. It won't take long for a screaming match or open threats to surface.
There's plenty of imams who won't start screaming at you if you discuss science with them. On the other hand, you can find plenty of Christian pastors who will.
Nothing to do with Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. I don't know if there is a god or not- strongly suspect there isn't one. However if there is one- I'm almost certain he isn't the one from Western religion. If there is a god- I don't expect him to be the one from the bible.
I am still agnostic - I do not know whether there is a god as much as I suspect there isn't. To me, elemental logic dictates the western god as written in the bible makes no sense- I can't say there isn't one of any flavour though.
I think I'm undoing a moderation or two here, but eh:
The original definition for agnosticism, and still the only one that's the most useful, is "I have no knowledge of the existence God". The definition of atheism is "I don't believe in God". If you don't believe in God, but aren't certain as to whether or not it exists, you're the very definition of an agnostic atheist.
The other definitions of agnostic are: - "I don't believe it's possible to know about the existence of God" (a subset of the original definition; also known as "strong agnosticism") - "I don't know if I believe" (also known as a "doubting theist") - "I don't know if I don't believe" (also known as a "doubting atheist") - "I don't want to say if I believe" (most likely a closet atheist)
But he didn't say that, did he? He was blathering on about people using "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". About how the "anti-religious elites" are transforming America into Not-America. How America is all about the Christ, but UnAmerica hates him. Lots of Us vs. Them rhetoric, painting non-Christians as elitists trying to take over America and such. Then he comes around to criticising the "federal government’s hostility to religion". Not "the federal government's overstepping the constitution and enforcing the first amendment against state governments".
And yet he thinks that his personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives.
Nonsense. Did you read the gigantic quote on that page? Tell me how I'm taking the following out-of-context:
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. -- Ron Paul
Sure reads like he's criticising how the courts have been preventing local and state governments from pushing religion, which is contrary to your "should have no impact on anyone else's lives". There is most certainly an impact if the government is proselytizing.
The other part, the "cultural indoctrination" is voluntary. The rest of his rant is largely about how businesses and people are avoiding "Merry Christmas" for something more secular. Of course, that's a voluntary decision made to be more inclusive, but comes across as a cranky old religious guy who's upset that everyone doesn't believe what he does.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. -- Ron Paul
Again, backs up what we've been saying. If the church and state aren't separate, how exactly is this supposed to "have no impact on anyone else's lives" ?
This a thousand times. Even if violence isn't involved (but come on, it often is in these places), there are other means of keeping the act from being a voluntary one. If you're ostracized for not acting a certain way, or if you've been consistently indoctrinated into a certain belief system by the society around you and never exposed to other means of thinking, where do you draw the line between voluntary and involuntary?
Slashdot Mirror
Notice that, if this account was posting on a Canadian website post-C-30, the RCMP or CSIS would be able to compel the site to reveal the poster's private IP/email address, and the ISP then compelled to provide an address and name.
There's a reason why this bill should not pass. A chilling effect on dissenting speech is not a good thing.
(Yes, the Twitter account attacking Toews and his divorced wife is tacky, but Toews himself has been extremely tacky and hypocritical in general, and is outright threatening Canadian's privacy and freedom right now. Plus, all of this stuff is in the public record, so I fail to see any legal issues here.
As it is right now, all we know is that a newspaper says they've tracked it to the House of Commons, and they did that on their own using the ol' "send them a link to your server, then watch the logs for an access" trick. If it is a criminal problem, a judge can issue a subpoena, as far as I can tell.)
How does nonsense like this get modded up? I'm bored, I'll have a go:
> all including the cult of "science". To discriminate would not be "scientific"
You're forgetting this is /. -- they aren't simply not interested in accepting that Science has Faith and will cry out heresy the instant you show them they worship Pseudo-Skeptics.
Of course it doesn't. Science requires belief that Scientific inquiry actually results in an explanation of reality. However, this isn't faith. We have actual evidence that Science works (that is, the body of Scientific Knowledge), and no one seems to be able to bring criticism to its basic philosophical underpinnings. Certain sciences are rightly criticized, but the idea as a whole stands strong.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can not be created nor destroyed, only change its form. <-- This right here is the "God" of Science. (Religion states "God (always) was, is, and will be. He/she can not be created nor destroyed. God simply exists, or "is".) By this Law the [physical] universe must have _always_ existed in some form or another.
That's actually a problem that Science is trying to solve. The Zero-energy hypothesis states that the Universe actually has net zero energy; it all cancels out in the large scale.
The universe is digital. This is currently a problem because scientists have no way to measure anything smaller then the Planck Scale nor measure anything that travels faster then the Speed of Light.
Current models don't allow for either thing, and we've never been able to make any observations to the contrary. If we found a way to measure them, we'd know they were allowed (or if we knew they ought to be allowed, we'd look for a way of measuring them). Again, Science in action; this is just how reality looks, we haven't made anything up.
Since humans have only inspected < %0.00000001 of the universe they are forced to take these things on faith.
> The problem with "science" and it's religious followers (see: Nearly all /.ers) is that it only accounts for what is provable now with no consideration that other factors
There aren't proofs in science. Proofs are for math and logic. Yes, Science is limited to what we can make direct or indirect observations of. Talking about other things is also known as "talking out of your ass".
Science is a subtractive model. You can never "create" truth -- you can never "prove truth" -- you can only subtract falsehood. i.e. You keep removing _errors_, and what is (hopefully) left is truth. Why? Because of the paradox of truth! one Truth does not negate another Truth, but Truth will remove Falsehood.
Again, proofs aren't part of Science. We can't create a Truth. This isn't a problem. This merely acknowledges that we are not perfect, nor are our theories.
This doesn't mean that Science is purely subtractive. Part of the Scientific Method is Hypothesis. A hypothesis creates a conjecture that we can test. Eventually, some conjectures are tested, refined, tested again, and become generally accepted as Theories. A new theory is a new thing. It didn't exist in our body of knowledge before. That is more certainly additive.
What makes Science a Cult is that espouses "There is only ONE way to know the Truth" and refuses to to acknowledge other ways.
Science espouses that the best way to learn about reality is to learn about it from reality, rather than making things up. And it's born out pretty well. Please do explain your "superior" alternatives.
Ironically since Time is meta-physical
Time is physical. It's part of the physical world, modified
Define Fitness
Defined:
Despite these differences, both protocols induced similar increases (P < 0.05) in mitochondrial markers for skeletal muscle CHO (pyruvate dehydrogenase E1alpha protein content) and lipid oxidation (3-hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase maximal activity) and protein content of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma coactivator-1alpha. Glycogen and phosphocreatine utilization during exercise were reduced after training, and calculated rates of whole-body CHO and lipid oxidation were decreased and increased, respectively, with no differences between groups (all main effects, P < 0.05).
BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US.
And that's why US children no longer get a smallpox or polio vaccine. When the disease has been eradicated, we don't vaccinate against it anymore. However, the stuff we're still vaccinating for is still kicking, and that's why we still vaccinate for it!
Polio is still alive. There are still outbreaks elsewhere, and it could make a resurgence in the West if we stop vaccinating for it. Unfortunately, there's been recent resistance to the vaccine that's granted the disease a bit of a comeback in Africa; in Nigeria there are local Muslim clerics who accuse it of being a Western plot to sterilise their women.
Maybe it's the difference between the US and Europe, but here in Europe, not all doctors recommend all available vaccines. I wouldn't trust my doctor if he would recommend that I (or my children) get a vaccine against flue for example.
If your doctor recommended a flu shot, he/she thinks you're in an at-risk group. Influenza is not a harmless infection, it kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in a typical (non-pandemic) year.
Now, I've lived in the US for some time and I've been shocked by the amount of drugs people take everytime they feel somewhat bad. I think there is a middleground between the "listen to your body, it will cure cancer by itself" bullshit and the "omg, I have a headache, let's eat these 3 pills". Same for vaccine.
A flu vaccine isn't like antibiotics or painkillers or anti-depressants or other drugs that may be harmful is needlessly prescribed. A vaccine introduces your immune system to a foreign element, which it then remembers so, if introduced to it again (in a live virus), it will be able to attack it more immediately. Getting a flu vaccine needlessly isn't going to weaken you or cause you to be more likely to be sick.
Water management comes down to, if you want more water available to use you need to have swamps, the natural way for the land to store (and clean) water without evaporative loses or unfairly keeping water from your neighbors. Ironically they are the very thing farmers have been doing their best to get rid of.
The loss of swamps, sloughs, and wetlands in Manitoba (and upstream), and the installation of drainage ditches everywhere was largely responsible for our flooding this last year; that flooding is no doubt occur again and again unless we find a way to fix our mess. It's all totally trashed Lake Winnipeg too.
Not if you're not in the launcher, no?
People are calling this warrantless wiretapping are simply wrong. If you read the actual bill - not what some talking heads are saying - any production of data requires judicial oversight
Except for personally identifying subscriber information including name, phone number, address, email address, and IP address. Which is what many of the bigger critics, including Open Media, seem to be railing against.
Very true. I get annoyed when people just blindly repeat what they hear about a bills like this. The content is openly available on the parliament's website. Our laws also tend to be surprisingly easy to read.
And I should have worded the opening here not as "not only that", since that's not... accurate (did I actually read your post?). The bill requires that all TSPs have the ability to record everything (and allows for inspectors to enter any TSP to perform an inspection, with few restrictions on what they can do, which is a bit concerning). It doesn't actually require recording everything, and doesn't allow it without a warrant...
"Persons designated under subsection (3)" are any police officers (municipal, provincial, or RCMP), CSIS, or the Commissioner of Competition.
I saw something quoted from the bill earlier about what sort of police counts that included "or provincial or foreign jurdisdiction". Could persons designated under subsection (3) include the FBI? the CIA? The guys in charge of oppression in China?
Not exactly. The designated persons are:
However, the request can be made by those designated persons...
So the FBI can request that the RCMP do this; if the RCMP agrees, then the ISP must comply. Even if it's a foreign-originated request for a foreign crime, no warrant is required.
The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...
Not only that. One of the most important parts of the bill that's being opposed is in section 16 of the proposed act:
16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.
Anonymity can now be killed without a warrant. "Persons designated under subsection (3)" are any police officers (municipal, provincial, or RCMP), CSIS, or the Commissioner of Competition.
Actually, wouldn't it be possible to delete the app if you just have root? I'll admit to not having tried it ;)
Or you could rename it, then hide it behind a password in your custom launcher (unless the settings button doesn't target a specific app, but an action that happens to be registered to Settings)
I guess that would probably only work on something less than 3.0, though, since they've added a shortcut on the status bar to launch the Settings app.
But then, why would you need something on a new version of the OS? Cheap Chinese tablets running 2.2 or 2.3 can be had for = $100.
If using Android: create a replacement launcher app, set your new app as the default launcher, and... profit?
So randomly varied gameplay counts as plot? That's probably a different definition than everyone else is using, and it's interesting.
I play 4X strategy games. I don't play online. They don't wear thin, because things are different every time. They also don't strictly have a "plot" as it's normally understood. I can make one up as I go, but it's not in writing.
That's because your physical switch is a physical switch. On a computer with a flat screenm you need to use an image if you want to graphically represent something, including a switch.
Yes, which is why the patent isn't anticipated by a physical lock switch.
But is why it ought to be, and why many of us are opposed to this type of nonsense. Attaching "on an internet device" or "on a mobile phone" or "on a touch screen" to an old idea shouldn't be enough to get a patent.
And, as I said, that is not a patent on "a sliding lock switch". You may describe it that way generally, but it's a patent on a very specific implementation of a method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device. The sliding lock switch on a bathroom stall, for example, does not infringe that claim. Therefore, the claim is not on "a sliding lock switch".
I already went over the claims. I didn't say it's a patent on *all* switches; it's a patent on an analogue for a specific type of physical switch. But that specific type of switch has been used on electronics for years.
I said "Apple didn't get a patent on 'a sliding lock switch'" and you immediately retorted that "yes, they had". Now, you admit that it's not a patent that covers all sliding lock switches. Okay, then I think we're finally in agreement and are done here.
I was obviously talking about the sliding lock switches on many pieces of electronics, which are exactly of this form. I wasn't talking about bathroom stalls. I wasn't talking about sliders.
So you agree that they got a patent on an obvious analogue for a type of physical switch that has existed for years. Great. Like I said, this is a straight, unimaginative computer representation of that type of switch. There are no specific limitations of the claims in the patent that would not have to be met by any touch screen analogue of that type of switch.
Not necessarily. For example, here's a different analog of a physical sliding switch.
That's an analogue of a different type of sliding switch. And one which would be just as ridiculous to hold a patent for.
Secondly, take a look at the claim:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Well, that's just a straight-up definition of what a lock switch would look like on a touch screen. It's a sliding switch that slides if you slide it. Whoopdeefuckingdo.
Last time I looked a physical sliding lock switch, it didn't have an image on it that moved when I touch it. Same thing with my portable radio, or even the sliding lock switch on an iPod. Plus, they tend to lock or unlock when a switch makes a contact, not when an image moves from one predefined location to another one.
That's because your physical switch is a physical switch. On a computer with a flat screenm you need to use an image if you want to graphically represent something, including a switch.
And, as I said, that is not a patent on "a sliding lock switch". You may describe it that way generally, but it's a patent on a very specific implementation of a method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device. The sliding lock switch on a bathroom stall, for example, does not infringe that claim. Therefore, the claim is not on "a sliding lock switch".
I already went over the claims. I didn't say it's a patent on *all* switches; it's a patent on an analogue for a specific type of physical switch. But that specific type of switch has been used on electronics for years.
No, it does help... in that Apple couldn't get a patent on "a sliding lock switch." The claims at issue have several specific limitations, however, which aren't met by a physical sliding lock switch - images sliding between two locations, etc. You could potentially combine the physical sliding lock switch with other art to show obviousness, but the sliding lock switch alone doesn't show everything in the claims.
No, that's exactly what they got a patent on. They got a patent on an obvious touchscreen analogue to the physical sliding lock switch that already existed on several electronics previous to this. My portable radio has one. My old MP3 player has one. Apple's claims are exactly what you'd need to do to implement an analogue for that type of switch. There's nothing original or non-obvious in them at all.
Patent US20090241072. Claims:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Well, that's just a straight-up definition of what a lock switch would look like on a touch screen. It's a sliding switch that slides if you slide it. Whoopdeefuckingdo.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along any desired path.
Left-to-right?
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along a predefined channel from the first predefined location to the predefined unlock region.
Again, this is what a physical slider switch does. It moves from a locked position, along a channel to an unlocked one.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.
A slider switch that looks like a slider switch will violate this. So imaginative.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the visual cues comprise text.
I guess the physical ones don't usually have this (though they may in the instruction manual), but I wouldn't on-screen instructions imaginative or in any way non-obvious.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein said visual cues comprise an arrow indicating a general direction of movement.
Bloody hell
7. A portable electronic device, comprising:
a touch-sensitive display;
memory;
one or more processors; and
one or more modules stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more modules including instructions:
to detect a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
to move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact while continuous contact with the touch-sensitive display is maintained; and
to unlock the hand-held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions to display visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.
9. The device of claim 8, wherein the visual cues comprise text.
10. The
Prove it. Show us prior art that existed at the time Apple filed the patent application that does each and every element in the claims. That it's publicly known now is irrelevant.
I know it won't count, but we did have physical sliding lock switches before this patent application was filed. Apple's sliding image is pretty much a straight, unimaginative computer representation of that.
Now talk to them about matters which intersect with their religion in any way whatsoever. Suddenly Science no longer applies, and we're back to irrationality.
Now do the same with an imam. It won't take long for a screaming match or open threats to surface.
There's plenty of imams who won't start screaming at you if you discuss science with them. On the other hand, you can find plenty of Christian pastors who will.
I'm agnostic because I don't believe there is a god- of any flavour- but can't say with full certainty.
so I don't repeat myself, my other comment. What you said right there is the very definition of an agnostic atheist viewpoint.
I consider myself agnostic.
Nothing to do with Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. I don't know if there is a god or not- strongly suspect there isn't one. However if there is one- I'm almost certain he isn't the one from Western religion. If there is a god- I don't expect him to be the one from the bible.
I am still agnostic - I do not know whether there is a god as much as I suspect there isn't. To me, elemental logic dictates the western god as written in the bible makes no sense- I can't say there isn't one of any flavour though.
I think I'm undoing a moderation or two here, but eh:
The original definition for agnosticism, and still the only one that's the most useful, is "I have no knowledge of the existence God". The definition of atheism is "I don't believe in God". If you don't believe in God, but aren't certain as to whether or not it exists, you're the very definition of an agnostic atheist.
The other definitions of agnostic are:
- "I don't believe it's possible to know about the existence of God" (a subset of the original definition; also known as "strong agnosticism")
- "I don't know if I believe" (also known as a "doubting theist")
- "I don't know if I don't believe" (also known as a "doubting atheist")
- "I don't want to say if I believe" (most likely a closet atheist)
But he didn't say that, did he? He was blathering on about people using "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". About how the "anti-religious elites" are transforming America into Not-America. How America is all about the Christ, but UnAmerica hates him. Lots of Us vs. Them rhetoric, painting non-Christians as elitists trying to take over America and such. Then he comes around to criticising the "federal government’s hostility to religion". Not "the federal government's overstepping the constitution and enforcing the first amendment against state governments".
And yet he thinks that his personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives.
Nonsense. Did you read the gigantic quote on that page? Tell me how I'm taking the following out-of-context:
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. -- Ron Paul
Sure reads like he's criticising how the courts have been preventing local and state governments from pushing religion, which is contrary to your "should have no impact on anyone else's lives". There is most certainly an impact if the government is proselytizing.
The other part, the "cultural indoctrination" is voluntary. The rest of his rant is largely about how businesses and people are avoiding "Merry Christmas" for something more secular. Of course, that's a voluntary decision made to be more inclusive, but comes across as a cranky old religious guy who's upset that everyone doesn't believe what he does.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. -- Ron Paul
Again, backs up what we've been saying. If the church and state aren't separate, how exactly is this supposed to "have no impact on anyone else's lives" ?
This a thousand times. Even if violence isn't involved (but come on, it often is in these places), there are other means of keeping the act from being a voluntary one. If you're ostracized for not acting a certain way, or if you've been consistently indoctrinated into a certain belief system by the society around you and never exposed to other means of thinking, where do you draw the line between voluntary and involuntary?