Cingular has not received any patent such as the article describes. The number that appears in the article, US2006015812, is actually a publication number for a U.S. patent application. The application itself can be found on the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office's web site.
Not only is this only an application for a patent, and not only has this application not yet been granted, but the PTO hasn't even examined it yet. (You can look up the status of the application yourself using PAIR.)
Cingular is not going to wind up with a patent that will stop you from using smileys in you text messages. In fact, on a quick read, the claims and specification appear to discuss ways to make it easier to insert emoticons in your text, not the mere use of emoticons. And the patent examiners, despite what you may have heard, are pretty tough about claims like this, too.
In short, it looks like the writer of the article dropped the ball here, not the U.S. Patent Office.
Every article that bemoans the lack of women in computer science classes seems to quote at least one person who says that the problem is that the classes overemphasize math and technology. The implication, of course, is that women don't like math and technology, or possibly that they aren't good at it. Or maybe both.
I don't know why women tend to avoid computer science classes--or, for that matter, classes in math and many sciences. It seems likely that the reasons include a cultural subtext that says that math is just for boys and the large numbers of male nerds who lack interpersonal skills. Innate differences between boys and girls may also be a factor, or they may not be; I don't feel qualified to have an opinion.
The inconsistency bothers me, though. It seems that if you complain about the hostility of computer science classes to girls, you are free to imply that girls and math don't mix. But if you explicitly say the same thing, even as one possibility that ought to be examined, you will be tarred and feathered, as Larry Summers will be the first to tell you.
They almost certainly did *not* list him as a spammer. They said that a particular netblock had been used by spammers, possibly among others. The OP, presumably, was one of the others.
What they said is neither defamatory towards the OP nor false, and is therefore not actionable.
In the United States, actually, it's not necessarily illegal to publish it. Now, it's certainly illegal to disclose it to the press. And a journalist may, depending on state or federal law, be required to cooperate in an investigation of who improperly disclosed the information. But that journalist probably committed no crime by publishing.
Well, yes, that sounds awfully neat . . . Except that many people in a bar may want the TV on, especially if they're watchin the game. And that may be why the owner turned the thing on in the first place.
Can you imagine the reaction if someone used one of these things in the ninth inning of game seven in the Yankees-Red Sox series? Is this likely to appeal to the same kind of loser who runs DoS attacks for kicks?
If there's something annoying on and no one else seems interested in it, why not just ask the bartender or manager to turn off the set or change the channel? I know from personal experience that that's often a viable strategy.
You don't have to like sports or, for that matter, Oprah or infomercials. But does that really entitle you to piss in someone else's sandbox?
Look, the Patent Office is simply overwhelmed. I hear that the practice is supposed to end soon, but patent fees have been diverted to other government agencies, depriving the PTO of resources.
In the meantime, merely getting a patent can take 18 months. Again, I am told that a patent examiner can spend roughly twenty hours total on each application. That doesn't leave a lot of time for luxuries like common sense.
With constraints like that, is it any wonder that junk patents get through?
Uh, no. Freshly brewed coffee will indeed melt the skin off your flesh. At some point after brewing, it becomes cool enough to contact your flesh without injuring you. There is exactly one person on Earth who is responsible for keeping your coffee away from your body until that happens. And his name isn't Ronald McDonald. Or even Ray Kroc.
I know that she was burned to the bone. I do in fact consider that to be a very serious injury. My point is that (in this context) I don't care. And I am morally outraged that you care or that anyone else does.
Coffee is a scalding hot liquid. It is a scalding hot liquid at 170 degrees, and it is a scalding hot liquid at 200 degrees. If you put a paper or foam cup holding a scalding hot liquid between your legs, you, and you alone, are responsible for any adverse consequences that you suffer.
The severity of those consequences has no possible bearing on that fact.
Water evaporates at 212 degrees fahrenheit. We will assume that coffee essentially cannot exist at above this temperature. As far as I am concerned, it is therefore a physical impossibility for liquid coffee to be so hot that one may be liable for serving it at that temperature.
I therefore don't care how serious her injuries were or how much medical treatment she required. This lawsuit was baseless.
Maybe I'm just bitter because I had to pass the 20 WPM code test to get my Extra license, but it makes me a little sad to think that the FCC may ditch Morse. It's always struck me as something that distinguished hams from everyone else (although maybe it shouldn't have). And 5 WPM isn't that difficult: it's one character every two seconds, roughly, and anyone should be able to pick it up in a weekend or two. Maybe I'm just a romantic.
Still, it's probably an impediment to some, and it seems wise to try to keep the number of hams up. If Morse is an obstacle that can be removed without destroying the character of the service, I guess I support it.
Then again, I live in Manhattan and haven't been on the air in years.
I was once a Speakeasy customer, and I think highly of them. But the greatest ISP is my current one, New York's bway.net. They explicitly let you share your Wi-Fi connection, although they don't seem to let you charge for it.
Here's the relevant section of their TOS:
Acceptable Use Policy for WiFi (802.11b) Sharing
(Bway.net standard ToS applies to this service.)
Bway.net clients are allowed to share their broadband Internet access connection with the general public, by participating in NYCWireless or other communities using WLANs via the 802.11b protocol, if they comply with the following additional conditions:
Clients must notify Bway.net of their participation, in order to insure proper settings and security procedures. Please send email to dsl@bway.net to notify us of your participation.
Client is ultimately responsible for any ToS or AUP violations by public users on client's connection (i.e. spamming, hacking, etc.). Bway.net reserves the right to suspend or discontinue service if violation persists.
Client is also responsible for security of his/her own network and computers.
Hm . . . The machine will probably come with Windows installed by the manufacturer, and that version of Windows will look for the copy protection and respect it. Does that mean that deleting Windows and installing Linux (with media-playing software) would constitute illegal circumvention under the DMCA (in the U.S., of course)?
Well, the MTA's site refers to daily paid ridership, so let's assume the number excludes free riders. That takes care of people with passes.
Seniors and the disabled pay half fare. If fully half of all riders pay half fare, then fares still pay 45% of operating expenses, which is three times Cringely's top figure. Again, I suspect the true percentage is much, much higher.
I don't know how it is in other cities, but here in Sodom-on-Hudson, fares pay a lot more than 15% of the operating cost of the subways.
Going to the MTA's web site, you can see budget figures for 1998. The New York City transit division's (that is, NYC subways, buses, paratransit, and the Staten Island railway) operating cost was $3.8 billion. There were just over 5 million paid rides on each weekday, and a subway fare is $1.50.
So let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Assume that on weekends, ridership is 30% of what it is on weekdays. (I admit I have no basis for this assumption, but it seems reasonably conservative.) This works out to fare revenues of $2.2 billion for that year, or almost 60% of the operating cost.
The actual percentage for the subways is probably higher. That 60% includes the subsidized paratransit division, and the Staten Island railway. I have heard (but I don't recall where) that fares actually cover about 85% of the cost of running the subway.
. . . but they could also be used to deploy
chemical and biological weapons. I mean, imagine that each one
carries a little bit of something nasty, they
distribute themselves widely in your enemy's position, then release their nastiness on command.
For that matter, why not have self-assembling land mines?
All this assumes, as others have pointed out, that these botlets ever become useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Cingular has not received any patent such as the article describes. The number that appears in the article, US2006015812, is actually a publication number for a U.S. patent application. The application itself can be found on the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office's web site.
Not only is this only an application for a patent, and not only has this application not yet been granted, but the PTO hasn't even examined it yet. (You can look up the status of the application yourself using PAIR.)
Cingular is not going to wind up with a patent that will stop you from using smileys in you text messages. In fact, on a quick read, the claims and specification appear to discuss ways to make it easier to insert emoticons in your text, not the mere use of emoticons. And the patent examiners, despite what you may have heard, are pretty tough about claims like this, too.
In short, it looks like the writer of the article dropped the ball here, not the U.S. Patent Office.
Every article that bemoans the lack of women in computer science classes seems to quote at least one person who says that the problem is that the classes overemphasize math and technology. The implication, of course, is that women don't like math and technology, or possibly that they aren't good at it. Or maybe both.
I don't know why women tend to avoid computer science classes--or, for that matter, classes in math and many sciences. It seems likely that the reasons include a cultural subtext that says that math is just for boys and the large numbers of male nerds who lack interpersonal skills. Innate differences between boys and girls may also be a factor, or they may not be; I don't feel qualified to have an opinion.
The inconsistency bothers me, though. It seems that if you complain about the hostility of computer science classes to girls, you are free to imply that girls and math don't mix. But if you explicitly say the same thing, even as one possibility that ought to be examined, you will be tarred and feathered, as Larry Summers will be the first to tell you.
So first we find out that masturbation lowers the risk of prostate cancer, and now we learn that caffeine prevents liver disease.
Dude, I'm going to live forever!
"So then I said, 'Hey, maybe it's the needle!'"
Blocking the single IP gives the ISP an incentive only to move the spammer to a different IP. That doesn't deal with the recipient's problem.
They almost certainly did *not* list him as a spammer. They said that a particular netblock had been used by spammers, possibly among others. The OP, presumably, was one of the others.
What they said is neither defamatory towards the OP nor false, and is therefore not actionable.
Anyway, they shouldn't be blocking entire blocks of IPs. That doesn't even make sense.
Can you suggest another effective way for an outsider to apply pressure to an ISP that hosts a spammer?
I don't get your point.
In the United States, actually, it's not necessarily illegal to publish it. Now, it's certainly illegal to disclose it to the press. And a journalist may, depending on state or federal law, be required to cooperate in an investigation of who improperly disclosed the information. But that journalist probably committed no crime by publishing.
But Google has a secret plan:
1. Create new OS.
2. ???
3. PROFIT!
Actually, I think Chewbacca used VHS.
Well, yes, that sounds awfully neat . . . Except that many people in a bar may want the TV on, especially if they're watchin the game. And that may be why the owner turned the thing on in the first place.
Can you imagine the reaction if someone used one of these things in the ninth inning of game seven in the Yankees-Red Sox series? Is this likely to appeal to the same kind of loser who runs DoS attacks for kicks?
If there's something annoying on and no one else seems interested in it, why not just ask the bartender or manager to turn off the set or change the channel? I know from personal experience that that's often a viable strategy.
You don't have to like sports or, for that matter, Oprah or infomercials. But does that really entitle you to piss in someone else's sandbox?
There no right to subsidized telecom, and there is no right to cheap food or fuel. There is only the right to be left alone.
Your choices of where and how to live do not enable you to pick my pocket. Pay your own way, and I'll pay mine.
Please explain to me why a fully scripted, three-day-long, political pep rally is newsworthy.
At least at the Olympics, we don't know in advance every detail of what's going to happen.
Look, the Patent Office is simply overwhelmed. I hear that the practice is supposed to end soon, but patent fees have been diverted to other government agencies, depriving the PTO of resources.
In the meantime, merely getting a patent can take 18 months. Again, I am told that a patent examiner can spend roughly twenty hours total on each application. That doesn't leave a lot of time for luxuries like common sense.
With constraints like that, is it any wonder that junk patents get through?
Uh, no. Freshly brewed coffee will indeed melt the skin off your flesh. At some point after brewing, it becomes cool enough to contact your flesh without injuring you. There is exactly one person on Earth who is responsible for keeping your coffee away from your body until that happens. And his name isn't Ronald McDonald. Or even Ray Kroc.
I know that she was burned to the bone. I do in fact consider that to be a very serious injury. My point is that (in this context) I don't care. And I am morally outraged that you care or that anyone else does.
Coffee is a scalding hot liquid. It is a scalding hot liquid at 170 degrees, and it is a scalding hot liquid at 200 degrees. If you put a paper or foam cup holding a scalding hot liquid between your legs, you, and you alone, are responsible for any adverse consequences that you suffer.
The severity of those consequences has no possible bearing on that fact.
Water evaporates at 212 degrees fahrenheit. We will assume that coffee essentially cannot exist at above this temperature. As far as I am concerned, it is therefore a physical impossibility for liquid coffee to be so hot that one may be liable for serving it at that temperature.
I therefore don't care how serious her injuries were or how much medical treatment she required. This lawsuit was baseless.
Maybe I'm just bitter because I had to pass the 20 WPM code test to get my Extra license, but it makes me a little sad to think that the FCC may ditch Morse. It's always struck me as something that distinguished hams from everyone else (although maybe it shouldn't have). And 5 WPM isn't that difficult: it's one character every two seconds, roughly, and anyone should be able to pick it up in a weekend or two. Maybe I'm just a romantic.
Still, it's probably an impediment to some, and it seems wise to try to keep the number of hams up. If Morse is an obstacle that can be removed without destroying the character of the service, I guess I support it.
Then again, I live in Manhattan and haven't been on the air in years.
I was once a Speakeasy customer, and I think highly of them. But the greatest ISP is my current one, New York's bway.net. They explicitly let you share your Wi-Fi connection, although they don't seem to let you charge for it.
Here's the relevant section of their TOS:
Hm . . . The machine will probably come with Windows installed by the manufacturer, and that version of Windows will look for the copy protection and respect it. Does that mean that deleting Windows and installing Linux (with media-playing software) would constitute illegal circumvention under the DMCA (in the U.S., of course)?
Some of us think that SPEWS is **wonderful** for exactly those reasons, and this this is the **right** way to filter spam.
Well, the MTA's site refers to daily paid ridership, so let's assume the number excludes free riders. That takes care of people with passes.
Seniors and the disabled pay half fare. If fully half of all riders pay half fare, then fares still pay 45% of operating expenses, which is three times Cringely's top figure. Again, I suspect the true percentage is much, much higher.
I don't know how it is in other cities, but here in Sodom-on-Hudson, fares pay a lot more than 15% of the operating cost of the subways.
Going to the MTA's web site, you can see budget figures for 1998. The New York City transit division's (that is, NYC subways, buses, paratransit, and the Staten Island railway) operating cost was $3.8 billion. There were just over 5 million paid rides on each weekday, and a subway fare is $1.50.
So let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Assume that on weekends, ridership is 30% of what it is on weekdays. (I admit I have no basis for this assumption, but it seems reasonably conservative.) This works out to fare revenues of $2.2 billion for that year, or almost 60% of the operating cost.
The actual percentage for the subways is probably higher. That 60% includes the subsidized paratransit division, and the Staten Island railway. I have heard (but I don't recall where) that fares actually cover about 85% of the cost of running the subway.
Which is why they charge for it.
. . . but they could also be used to deploy chemical and biological weapons. I mean, imagine that each one carries a little bit of something nasty, they distribute themselves widely in your enemy's position, then release their nastiness on command.
For that matter, why not have self-assembling land mines?
All this assumes, as others have pointed out, that these botlets ever become useful.